Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2012

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm sorry. I don't want to interrupt you, but if I may, the word “jail” does not appear in Bill C-31.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have 15 seconds, Mr. Menegakis.

[Mitchell Goldberg]

That is what will happen. People outside of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver will go to jails with convicted criminals. Even people in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, once the immigration detention centres fill up, will be in jails with convicted criminals. So I think “jail” is appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

[Mitchell Goldberg]

May I answer the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, it doesn't appear that we're going to let you do that, unless Monsieur Giguère lets you.

It's your five minutes, Monsieur Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

My questions deal with the predictability of the law.

This bill opens the door to enormous discretionary power resting in the hands of the minister. The minister can decide on his own what a safe country is, or even whether an arrival is irregular. For example, the minister could decide that a boat with 500 people on board is a regular arrival, but that another boat from another country could be considered an irregular arrival. The minister has the discretion to choose.

The same goes for permanent residence. Deciding that a country has gone from a dangerous one to a safe one would also become a discretionary choice.

The minister could also intervene at any stage to define whether it is possible to grant a right for humanitarian reasons.

Can you tell us what all these discretionary powers could mean for the predictability of the law?

[Mitchell Goldberg]

Thank you for that question.

The Quebec Bar is very concerned with these discretionary powers going into the hands of a single minister. We feel that it is unacceptable that a minister can declare an entire country to be safe. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. You cannot say, for example, that Mexico is a safe country because so many people are murdered there each year and women are beaten by their husbands. Maybe some people in Mexico are safe. But others are in danger of being killed or beaten. The situation for homosexuals is one of a number of examples.

The question also arises for designated foreign nationals. In a democracy where the rule of law prevails, it is very important to have automatic regulators, to have checks and balances, to have judiciary power in order to evaluate government decisions.

[Nicolas Plourde]

If I may, sir, I would like to finish my answer to your question.

The predictability of the law is a fundamental concept. We were talking earlier about the rule of law. For that to exist, predictability is essential in order to preserve the public's trust in the system. As soon as the public loses that trust, as soon as the predictability disappears, the entire system is threatened.

So, in that sense, you are right to say that predictability is essential.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much.

We mentioned comments—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think we're out of time. I'm sorry, Monsieur Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's going to take me a second to close here, so thank you.

I want to thank the president, Mr. Goldberg, and Ms. Chamass for coming. I've never heard so many points of order, so you obviously caused some interest, and we appreciate your expertise. Thank you very much for coming.

[Mitchell Goldberg]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I remind members to take all of their relevant papers with them this afternoon. I would leave nothing on your desks. I guess we had some problem yesterday, so please take everything with you.

We will reconvene here at 3:30 this afternoon.

This meeting is adjourned.