Evidence of meeting #44 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jennifer Irish  Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Matthew Oommen  Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Scott Nesbitt  Counsel, Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Justice
Nicole Lefebvre  Acting Director, Inland Enforcement, Programs Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
Allan Kagedan  Director, National Security Operations, Public Safety Canada

9:45 a.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

I'll ask you again: what are the legal arguments with respect to the Charkaoui decision?

Mr. Chair, it's a matter of information and not a debate. I'm asking him to give me this information. He can table a legal opinion.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

If he knows the answer, that's fine.

Go ahead, sir.

9:45 a.m.

Counsel, Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Justice

Scott Nesbitt

I'm afraid I really don't have anything more to add to the initial explanation I gave you that referred to the context in which the bill operates and the objectives it seeks to achieve.

The point about the Department of Justice Act is a procedural one that talks about the process that happens before the bill is introduced in the House. I hope that helps you understand how it is that the government came to its position.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

It appears to have come to an—

9:45 a.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

If I were to ask additional questions, it would be simply to get him to give a personal opinion on the department. I think we need to avoid this type of situation with public servants.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

We appear to have reached an impasse, Monsieur Giguère.

Have you concluded? You probably want to go on, but if you go on, I have a feeling we'll disagree.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

It would only be to force a public servant to disclose information against his employer. That's where we are. I asked for information, but he couldn't give it to me. However, if he has a legal opinion, I would like to hear it. That would clear up the problem.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

It appears he has given testimony now—or not given testimony...he has made a statement that he has told you all he can.

Mr. Nesbitt.

9:45 a.m.

Counsel, Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Justice

Scott Nesbitt

I would just confirm that the chair is right in assuming that I have explained all that I am able to explain.

Of course, both as a public servant and as a member of the bar, I am subject to certain obligations as a public servant to the government and as a lawyer to my client, which is the government, and not Parliament or this committee.

So the advice the department has provided is privileged. It's subject to solicitor-client privilege, and my professional obligations—like any member of the bar—preclude me from disclosing the content of it.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I always admire Monsieur Giguère's arguments, but I think we've come to an end.

Madame Groguhé.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am not a legal expert like my colleague Mr. Giguère, but I am going to use common sense by recalling that, from what I know about law, you are innocent until proven guilty. I think everyone agrees with me on that. Having said that, we are against mandatory detention and, obviously, against the detention of children. A number of witnesses have said that passing this bill will lead to many challenges in court, which will create additional costs. We have talked about saving money, but, in light of the future legal challenges, I am not sure how we will be able to save money.

At any rate, in terms of the timeframe for reviewing the detention of children, as indicated under the first item, the age of the child should be consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the detention of refugees should be an exceptional measure used as a last resort. Unfortunately, our amendment dealing with the age of the child was rejected. In addition, the detention should be applied in compliance with the conditions under the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. All those elements are already included in the act. Let me also remind you that all the experts have expressed their reservations about the detention of children.

We also have to try to mitigate the future damage caused by those detention measures on asylum seekers in general, and on children specifically. That is the reason behind our proposal to change the timeframe for detention reviews for designated foreign nationals.

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Ms. Sims.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

I know this has been going on for a while, Mr. Chair, but I think it points to the importance of this. Once again, I want to reiterate to my colleagues across the way that all we're trying to do in this is to make explicit in words—in black and white—what we have heard were the intentions of the minister when he put together this bill.

(Amendment negatived)

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Lamoureux, Liberal amendment 17.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would move that Bill C-31 in clause 24 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 13 the following:

(3) A designated foreign national whose detention ceases as a result of the circumstances described in paragraph (2)(a) must be immediately released.

Mr. Chairperson, in the form of an explanation followed by a question, put simply—

9:50 a.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Just a minute, please. I have a point of order.

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

A point of order, Monsieur Giguère.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

You have a problem of inscription. I voted in favour of the amendment. Is that understood?

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

It wasn't recorded, but you've now put it on the record, so that's fine.

Thank you. You can continue.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Having moved the amendment itself, I am suggesting, in brief, that it allows for the release of a person within the 12-month mandatory detention. As you can tell on the previous two amendments, the mandatory detention has been an issue that has been hotly discussed and debated inside the committee. The vast majority, possibly, of all the presentations that we heard expressed concerns regarding the mandatory detention.

We've made it very clear as a political entity that being the Liberal Party, we do not support mandatory detention. We do believe there will be a constitutional challenge, an ultimately successful constitutional challenge, in regard to the mandatory detention the government has put into place. It is very unique. It's very hurtful in terms of Canada's international image. It's very hurtful in terms of the individuals. And this is what we really need to take note of, the individuals who are being put into or placed into mandatory detention.

Therefore, I would suggest that members support this particular amendment. But prior to the vote, Mr. Chairperson, I would ask Mr. Dykstra if in fact the government is prepared to share any legal opinion with the committee membership that would suggest that it is in compliance, or any legal opinion they have in regard to the mandatory detention issue. Is he prepared to share any legal document on that?

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I think we heard from legal counsel this morning. It may not have been the answer the opposition would have liked to have heard, that in fact the legislation is charter compliant.

He also indicated very clearly that there is solicitor-client privilege involved here, and by turning those documents over to anyone would put him, as a legal representative, in a wrongful position. It is not our intent to do that.

Therefore, I would say the answer to the question is no, we aren't able to do that.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest to you as a client, and the government being the client, that they do have the ability, if they choose, to share a legal opinion.

Given the fact that we have had so many presentations, so many concerns in regard to the mandatory detention issue, again I would suggest, in the form of a possible question to the member—and it will be my last question on this particular clause, in relation to it—that whether it's in camera or in public, I think there would be great value to answering a lot of the concerns if in fact we would be able to see a legal document that the department has actually put together. As a client, the government does have the ability to share it with the committee, if they so choose, but it should be clear that it's the government that would be choosing not to share that document. There is no client-lawyer thing that would prevent them from doing that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

You've answered that.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

The only thing I would add is this. This is actually subject to what amendments are coming forward. It's difficult for me to respond directly—I guess I did respond directly. Sorry. I apologize. I responded directly to the question.

But having said that, as I have indicated to Ms. Sims, there are amendments from the government coming forward with respect to the detention issue. Perhaps that will clarify for Mr. Lamoureux the government's position once those have been passed.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Ms. Sims.