Evidence of meeting #23 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I believe I've been misunderstood.
I'll speak slowly
There's a difference between a minister's power to make or reserve a decision. The act grants him a power. He can make decisions. He has an extraordinary power to take extraordinary measures in certain cases, but there is a framework. That's resolved.
I'm speaking as a legislator. A committee can decide whether a country is designated or not. The problem is that we're making quite a Draconian change to our way of viewing matters, even though there are appeals for everyone. From now on, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada has the authority to designate countries and to send a message about such and such country. We're politicizing the system. We're doing it with a capital P, not a small p. To ensure that doesn't become a small p, I wonder whether we, as parliamentarians, shouldn't have that ability, as Ms. Chow said earlier. It isn't because a country is designated that it will be designated all the time. On the other hand, we have to have the ability to say that we might have made a mistake and that, regardless of the government, we can always make changes to the act. Wouldn't it be better to have a bill containing a clause that allows a review?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Unless this is quick, we're going to have to suspend. The lights are....
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, Monsieur Coderre will have the floor when we return. The meeting is suspended.
7:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ladies and gentlemen, we're back on the air.
We're dealing with Bloc amendments 5.01 and 5.1.
Monsieur Coderre has the floor. But before he says anything, I will say that if BQ 5.1 carries then G-2 cannot be moved, because it amends the same line. If it's adopted, the vote will apply to G-2.1 and G-2.3, since they're interrelated.
Monsieur Coderre, you have the floor.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since there won't be a vote, I'll take one or two minutes to continue this discussion. I'd like to go back a little.
One thing troubles me a bit. We talked a lot about safe countries. I don't believe in that concept because, by definition, a safe country doesn't exist. We've accepted an amendment and, instead of talking about safe countries, we'll be talking about designated countries. I asked Mr. MacDougall whether the expressions "designated country" and "safe country" meant the same thing. He told me they do. That raises a problem in my mind. Of course, one thing is interested. Now, as a result of the amendment, everyone will have a right to appeal, with time restrictions depending whether it's a designated country or not. That's why, when we put an immigration or refugee protection system in place, we have to find a way to avoid being at the mercy of the minister, or at the mercy of the system. The beauty of an immigration system is this balance between the two. The primary aim of a bill of this kind is to ensure that every individual seeking refugee status in Canada has the opportunity not only to be heard fairly and equitably, but also, to the extent possible and if that person meets the criteria, to be protected.
In short, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to support a lot of things, but the designated country question poses a problem. That's why we talked about the way we can determine the period of time during which a country will be considered a designated country. I requested a brief debate on that. In my view, this is the only bone of contention in the entire file. I'm satisfied with the amendments, and I believe we'll be able to amend the bill by this evening. However, the change in values and approach troubles me. If we are somewhat at the mercy of this new concept, there's no guarantee that this won't be a designated country in five years, for all kinds of reasons.
We're saying that we'll be establishing a committee that will provide permanent monitoring. That's what I understand. That's good, with regard to the minister, but we are parliamentarians. This is a bill that is Parliament's responsibility. I've even done this a number of times. It is utterly normal and healthy, in the name of democracy, for a minister to have extraordinary powers in a situation and to be able to make decisions and live with that political responsibility. He is a representative of the people. It is entirely healthy and proper.
However, it isn't always the same minister. As the saying goes, the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. In five years, we may not interpret the act in the same way. Furthermore, there will probably be legal precedents. I don't know how that may turn out. There will probably be case law. We may wonder whether such and such definition is consist with the Charter. Does the designated country concept meet the constitutional test of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Even if a person has a right of appeal, will that person feel comfortable, will that person be treated justly and fairly? Those are questions that a number of people may subsequently have.
I'm interested in finding a way to protect the individual seeking refugee status. I've always said generous, but not naive. We need a balance between openness and vigilance; we have to be very vigilant. When you're talking to a refugee, have to consider that that person needs help. You mustn't think that he's a terrorist or a potential problem. It's the exception that confirms the rule.
My question is the following. It may be desirable for monitoring to be done by the minister or a committee to protect ourselves from the system or from the consequences of this new act.?? However, as parliamentarians, we at least need to have a debate or make a decision. Since this is a fundamental element, in our minds, and it will have an impact on the very future of the way in which we manage the immigration system, I believe we should very seriously reflect on the idea of parliamentarians being able to review clause 12 in five years. If we added that to the bill, we would be protected, because we don't know what the future holds for us.
In a way, this indicates that, regardless of who is minister, we have that possibility if we see, in five years, that things are not working. Perhaps
the monitoring committee thinks it's okay, but when we have a debate among ourselves as parliamentarians, maybe it's a valid point to say that every five years, specifically for that issue, we should have a sunset clause.
I'm not ready to move a motion yet, Mr. Chairman. I would like us to take two or three minutes to resolve this matter, even though each person spoke a little earlier. This will be my only question today, and it will concern clause 12.
I think this clause poses a problem because every individual has a right for his or her case to be considered unique. Creating the safe country category?? would alter the situation, based on my own experience. I'm in favour of us being able to establish a fair timeframe. I recognize that, in some cases, we may have to operate more quickly, but I want us to protect ourselves. Sometimes it's good to have a second opinion on the application of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to ask my colleagues from the other parties to give me their views. Don't be afraid, we won't be going to bed late; I don't intend to obstruct. We've worked so diligently. We've heard from witnesses; we've met with people. Some individuals told us they were concerned about the matter of designated countries or safe countries. Others told us they were ready to try it if there was the possibility of appeal. I think it would be healthy for us, as legislators, to have at least an answer to this question. If you think it would be appropriate to have
a sunset clause for a specific article in the bill, then I would feel much better. I would like to have unanimous support for clause 12. I need to be reassured on that issue, or to at least have your point of view on that.
I'm going to support the bill tonight, but I have some doubts regarding that issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I asked a question of you, and I didn't just ask it in innocence. I was asking whether you're going to propose an amendment. If you're not, we'll move on.
You have the floor if you have more questions to ask of the staff or you wish to say something else, but I'm not getting involved in this.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
No, I'm not asking you to.
We could wrangle over this, the two of us, but that's not what I'm asking of you. Perhaps you can help me. I'm asking you whether it's legally possible to have a review provision for a single clause. That's an honest question. I don't want to cause any problems, Mr. Chairman, but we have a clear debate. If the other colleagues have nothing to say, they have nothing to say.
Is it possible to have a review provision for the issue of designated countries? Can we have a review for this issue? You think, you said and I would like you to repeat that the monitoring is adequate. That reassures me, with regard to people who will be coming to our country—
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, if I have the floor and I'm saying something I have the right to finish what I have to say. Okay?
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you. I accept the fact that we have lawyers here and we can have some answers.
7:45 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Manager, Refugee Legal Team, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Chairman, I am a lawyer, but I'm out of my league on this one. I'm going to defer to the committee staff.
I don't want to deflect the question, in a sense, but more importantly I don't want to mislead the committee. It's not an area I've worked on. I think it's more of a parliamentary legislative kind of rule.
I apologize, but I don't know the answer, if the specific question is whether you can have a sunset clause on a specific article. I understand that to be the question.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Wait a minute here. He's not surrendering, but you can interject for a second.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
From what I understand, Mr. Coderre hasn't drafted a formal amendment and, before introducing one, he wants to know what the other members think. For my part, I think that what is on the table is reliable enough for us to be able to include it in the bill. Obviously, if there are future problems, Parliament can always make amendments to it. These are mechanisms that exist elsewhere in the world. What is more, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has said that this acceleration on the basis of the concept of designated countries was highly acceptable.
I would also like to emphasize that, even though, in principle, it is definitely possible to include a review provision for a single clause, it seems to me that, in the context of a reform in which we make a whole series of amendments in order to produce a coherent whole, we could find ourselves in a situation in which one element would be missing or a number of offsetting elements would disappear. In short, I'm reluctant to have a review provision that applies to this provision.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Chair, I think we're talking about two separate issues. Mr. Coderre is looking at the clause having a sunset provision. My earlier question to the department officials here was about how to de-designate certain countries whose conditions have changed. The response I got back was that they routinely, automatically, have a committee in place to regularly review these countries' situations.
I would prefer to see it in the regulations so that it's not just a practice. I hope it will take place. I received an answer that they may or may not do that, but it would be good if they actually put it in the regulations to say--I would assume--that a country will be reviewed and if it no longer needs to be designated will be pulled out.
My concern is really the country, not necessarily the clause itself. I've been assured that they were planning to do that anyway, and I take their word for it. Hopefully the minister will address it and put it in the regulations so that it's clear.
In terms of whether the clause or the entire bill needs to be reviewed, occasionally we say that after a few years' time there be an evaluation of the entire thing. Sometimes we've done that and sometimes we haven't. Is it just this clause that we need to review? I'm not sure. That's not necessarily a sunset situation; all good public administration will provide evaluation. When a program gets set up, whether it be temporary foreign workers, live-in caregivers, or refugee reform, all good public servants will evaluate a program every five or eight years to see whether the program is achieving the kinds of objectives we've set out to achieve.
I would imagine that the government does so on a regular basis. If it doesn't do that, then actually it's not a good practice. Whether it be five years or eight, I would hope that there would be automatic review, evaluation, to see whether a law is accomplishing what it was planned or supposed to accomplish.
Do we need to say that? I'm not sure. Perhaps the committee can say that we will come back in five or eight years--of course, who knows where we'll be--to evaluate the entire package to see whether this has been successful or not. We could certainly do that. But I'm not sure whether it should be put into legislation.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I have a small question to Rick as parliamentary secretary.
What does the minister have in mind to evaluate whether or not the bill, or the program, is a success?
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
The difficulty is two things. The first is that five years probably isn't enough in terms of being actually able to review, because by the time this is implemented, you want to make sure you actually have gone through this process a number of times to see how it has worked. From my perspective—and of course this may not be the minister in place at immigration in five, six, seven, or eight years—what he has wanted to do is to have at least the option for the minister responsible, regardless of who it is, to be able to de-list a country. When you are seeing a minister at this point wanting to make sure there is not the option to put a country on a list but only the option to take a country off a list, it is telling me very clearly that he is saying we are going to review and look at this issue on a regular basis. It will be in a lot more than just five years. I have a feeling that, each and every time the review committee meets—which is struck to advise the minister and provide him or her with the country that should be considered safe—that committee that serves as we do is going to see what the reasons were, what the rationale was.
In fact, the way this compromise is, we have actually put ourselves in a position of being able to have the committee at least know and be aware of the decisions that are made. Then, obviously, if they want to bring it back here to the committee to bring some of those folks in, to present us why they made the decisions they made, that option is always open to this committee. From my perspective, it is built in.
I will add one more thing. Let's not forget these are going to be public servants who sit in these positions. They, themselves, will be there based on their personal review; and the review they face as public servants is going to take place on a regular basis as well. We have within the framework of the legislation a review mechanism; a review process is in place that is somewhat at the minister's discretion but also at the committee's discretion. I also believe that, based on the setup of the committee, we have in place a structure upon which members will be reviewed on a regular basis as public servants.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal