Citizenship and Immigration committee  Do you mean what will be proposed section 42?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  My apologies if I wasn't clear. I did recognize that part of the provision, except for a slight change of wording, is essentially unchanged from the current exemption under subsection 34(2). I acknowledge there still is the possibility for applying for relief, and I don't think I said that that is categorically barred.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'd be happy to do that, if it's agreeable to the chair.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  On the security issue, my response to that would be that we are ameliorating nothing except for the fact that we are eliminating the possibility of those who have been innocently found inadmissible under section 34 from having any avenue of recourse. On that note, the one thing the bill really could have done and which would have been appreciated I think by all parties involved would have been to do something about the frankly scandalous delays that are associated with making decisions on ministerial relief.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  This is why I wish he were appearing before you. He is probably the only one who can answer that question. My sense is that ministers of public safety don't like making decisions on questions of admissibility for those who are accused of security-related actions because they just don't like making these decisions.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Obviously, the Clinton Gayle case is an extreme example.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  And I'm answering the question. You would be right to respond to some other examples that have been brought up today as being examples of outliers in the other direction of extremely innocent appearing acts for which punishments of over six months can be provided. The problem in these matters is that context is everything.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's my answer to the question.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The answer is clearly no. The landscape would look incredibly different, if all of the factors you listed as being absent in the Canadian immigration regime were present. The pressures we see would not be present, and therefore, the clear answer to that is no.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  No.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm happy to elaborate on those in response to questions. I'm going through it quickly because I thought I had 10 minutes, and now I realize I have only five. But I'm happy to elaborate on the four reasons.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I have three minutes. Oh, I've had seven. So I'll wrap up—

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Okay, I'll stop right there. I'm happy to talk about the humanitarian waiver provision in the questions later.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you very much. Distinguished members of the committee, it's nice to be back here, and it's even nicer to be here in person. I testified last month via video and it's much nicer to be here in person. Mr. Waldman and I are both going to speak to Bill C-43. I will begin by expanding on the comments I made last time around, on security provisions, although this time with particular reference to Bill C-43.