Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that constructive question from Mr. Bevilacqua.
I did indicate indeed at second reading my openness to an amendment that would incorporate some of these principles. I didn't hear anything to which I would object in the parameters that Mr. Bevilacqua has outlined for a possible amendment to the bill.
I do agree that there should be more detail in the bill than currently is the case with respect to both the criteria for designation of safe countries and clear transparency of the process, which we should also have. The answer is yes, I would be prepared to recommend government support for an amendment that includes those criteria that include reference to “safe” as a principle; to the numeric criteria, such as a country that is a large source of asylum claims, the vast majority of which are unfounded; and the qualitative criteria, including compliance with the various relevant international human rights instruments.
I would also be prepared to table, as I have indicated to a number of members of this committee, by way of a court letter, draft regulations on the process for designation. Now, I have to just put a caveat here. Obviously the cabinet process exists for pre-publication, for pre-gazetting, and public commentary prior to final implementation. I can't completely pre-determine the outcome of the public commentary, but we will endeavour, as a department, to share our draft suggested regulations for comments from this committee.
There is just one fly in the ointment, which is that the draft regulations would be based on the amendment that presumably will be adopted by the committee. I'd like to hear from the committee as to when would be the optimal time to present draft regulations that would define the process for designating safe countries.
But long story short, yes.