Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes. I think as the minister explained at the first meeting of the committee, the government's position is that the bill is defensible under the charter. In taking that position, it's important to keep in mind that charter analysis is contextual, and that if and when a court is a

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think I can add a couple of comments very briefly. First, the government's position is that the bill is defensible under the charter. It's not that the charter does not apply. Of course, the bill may be subject to a charter challenge; that's the way our legal system works. At

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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 proces

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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, w

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. The 48-hour, 7-day, 30-day timeline that I think the member is referring to has been in IRPA since IRPA was enacted in 2002. That's well before the Supreme Court of Canada decision. It's the timeline for detention reviews before the immigration division for

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'll make two points that I hope will help clarify the wording a little bit and why those particular words are used, Mr. Chair. The first is that the wording of the proposed amendment is, you'll notice, almost verbatim the same as the wording of the existing section 56 in IRPA.