No, I don't. I don't have the actual motion, but I would suggest that the committee could always talk about it, and then if the government side sees the merit they might want to consider looking at deleting clause 20.
The reason for this, Mr. Chair, is that the change from “reasonably practical” to “as soon as possible”—and that's really what's happening in clause 20 when it comes to Canada Border Services deporting someone—has a fairly significant impact. I suspect that maybe the government, through oversight—I'm not really sure—has put in this change.
When we say “reasonably practical”, there are many situations that might arise when someone who's facing a deportation—an emergency situation such as a medical condition, something on humanitarian or compassionate grounds that might allow for the person to stay for an extra day or two. What we're doing by making this change in clause 20 is we're taking away discretion from our Canada border security people, and they've used good discretion in the past.
We do believe it is quite problematic. I'm not too sure to what degree the government is aware of it. Maybe I would look to Mr. Dykstra to see if he might want to provide some comment, or possibly even to legal counsel. Why is it that when it comes to deportation we're taking the discretion away from our civil service that would enable them to recognize emergency situations, so that they could in fact allow an individual to stay an extra day or two if an emergency were to happen, as opposed to saying to a border officer in regard to deportation that it is “reasonably practical” for that person to be leaving tomorrow, or there's a good reason for the person to stay the extra day versus what we're saying, “as soon as possible”? I think changing the words will have a significant impact.
I don't know if Mr. Dykstra would like to provide comment on it. I raise it only because I think it would be a mistake for us to incorporate that specific change.