Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Bill

Honourable senators, I’m very pleased to speak to this particular amendment, and I want to first congratulate Senator Mohamed for the hard work that she clearly puts into her work. Having known her for about 30 years now, I have a lot of respect for this senator, and I’m delighted to have also watched much of the work done at committee around this bill, in particular the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. It was my first attendance at that committee, and it was an eye-opener for me, and I was so pleased to see the hard work that was done by that committee.

Let me start by saying that the government would not support this amendment, but I want to tell you why, and I want to explain it from a perspective that, frankly, I’ve had to deal with in other roles.

I want to address the practical implications of this particular amendment, not how it relates to the balance of the bill — and I appreciate that all the examples that were given are on other parts of the text of the bill — but particularly on a sunset clause.

I submit that a sunset clause is appropriate for narrowly tailored measures. We’re looking at Bill C-15, for example, and you’ve got those timely clauses, like a Personal Support Workers Tax Credit, which has a sunset clause because over time, provinces are, of their own volition, moving the rates of pay for areas of work where that tax measure would no longer be necessary. However, it doesn’t involve massive structural change in the government in order to enact that; it’s basically an IT function that’s going to change that tax credit.

So, I would say it’s not appropriate for the measures here because the changes to the immigration system require the development and implementation of new procedures, training officers for months and IT changes — these are resource-intensive changes that are very difficult to undo.

Imagine if the fifth year after Royal Assent arrives, when this review is to happen, and it’s delayed for some reason — prorogation, being in the middle of an election — what would happen then? It would completely upend the work of immigration. What would happen to the very applications that we’re so concerned about? What would happen with those individuals?

That’s exactly why a sunset clause would kick in, and in that complex, system-wide overhaul, it would be required to undo all that had been implemented with this bill.

There are various provisions within the bill. In practice, when governments are functioning — imagine the intense discussions around the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA. The Canadian government begged not to have a sunset clause for a very good reason: We could not predict what the status would be in that moment when the sunset clause took effect. They managed to negotiate one that would take effect so far in the future — 16 years — that they thought we might be safe. Look at the position we’re in now: We’re now dealing with other levels of government because we know they’re trying to pull out of it entirely. We understand the structural impact when a whole government system is created around that very legislation.

The same is true here. I would ask of the senator who made those perfect examples, such as the Emergencies Act, which had a sunset clause — what we’re dealing with here in the immigration system is not a flip moment like it was, thankfully, when the Emergencies Act was used. We’re in an era of mass international migration when we need to get our system right.

These are changes that we know we’re going to need and must review, but these changes deal with humans. It’s going to be incumbent upon this chamber and that Parliament to perform that review, and it’s incumbent upon us to make sure they do it. However, I don’t believe that they need a sunset clause with the worry of what happens when that time arrives if they’re simply not doing it.

The various examples that were given on the number of sunset clause reviews that weren’t done — such as with the Statistics Act of Canada — when they didn’t do the review that was required, it really didn’t change lives. So, although we say that there are a number that weren’t done, there were a number that weren’t done that nobody was watching and no one was being immediately impacted by — and, eventually, that work would be done.

There are others, like the environmental act that was changed. It was absolutely done on time because it was incumbent upon those parliamentarians to do their job.

So, I just have to ask: What is our role? It is oversight and to see that they do that review. But is a sunset clause required? I would say no because the implementation of a sunset clause could actually upend the entire immigration system we’re trying to fix.

Because of these very real day-to-day implementation issues of sunset clauses, understand that when you implement this in government, it makes it virtually impossible to continue the steady flow of government services. Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you. I feel as though that was a question in the form of an answer, but I will try to answer, nonetheless.

I realize that a number of senators have stood and said that they’re not worried about this government. In particular, there were the comments made by Senator Al Zaibak, who said that this is an issue of trust — and it is.

Having been part of a government at one time, we undid the work of the previous government. That’s what we wanted to do and were elected to do. We can’t be fearful of future governments. That’s what they do.

I was at an event when former Prime Minister Harper was unveiling his portrait, and he said, “The government that followed us undid all of my 10 years.” I was cheering at that moment — though not for everything.

The point is that we elect Parliament to do their job. If we were going to worry that a future government would undo things, guess what our role would be? We would have to jump out of the Senate and do something about that.

You can’t be fearful of future governments. It was ever thus. That, as an argument, doesn’t work, because it may happen. They could eliminate the entire Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, never mind just a few clauses as we’re talking about today.

We have to work with what we have, and, in this instance, we’re talking about the sunset clause. The sunset clause is just extremely difficult in the functioning of government. It’s why the government chose not to do it and why they’ve embedded measures to have a review. I believe that, given the emotion and the intensity of this subject matter, and from what I saw at the Social Affairs Committee, there isn’t a chance that the government will not be doing a five-year review.

I’ll stop there. Thank you.

Will the senator take a question?

Yes.

Thank you very much for that.

It’s very compelling to hear you describe that. Having worked with the types of populations that we are, in part, supposed to be representing in this chamber, every piece of legislation that has had a review clause has not been reviewed on time, if ever. The issue that many of us are concerned about — and which you heard the law student who came here as a refugee and was watching the proceedings ask me about earlier — is this: What about when it’s not politically expedient or popular? What if it’s not a population that people are particularly concerned about? That, it seems to me, is part of the reason many of these groups got swept into a piece of legislation that was supposed to be about border security, fentanyl and organized crime.

As I read this bill, having represented an area that has probably the fourth-highest levels of migration in the country — in my hometown — I am looking forward to a system that properly puts people in the right lineup. What has happened in this system is they have got into the lineup for refugees when they shouldn’t have, and they have taken the spots in that queue of authentic refugees. It has been very difficult. They are doing everything they can to stay in the country, and I appreciate why. However, I know the changes they’re embedding here are meant to create additional opportunities to put people in the right lineup, which means, to me, that there will be a better focus on every one of those subgroups that we talked about at committee — 2SLGBTQIA+ folks and people coming from broken homes, violence and abuse. It actually allows those people to be in a lineup that’s not as long because we’re ferreting out the ones who shouldn’t be in that lineup.

When I looked at the legislation, it was not from the point of view that I heard; it was actually heartening to see that we will be able to spend the time that we must for the people who need to enter this country to get away from harms in the countries they’re coming from.

It is a matter of perspective and a matter of what I see on the streets in my hometown. I see these changes as beneficial. When we question the minister and her deputy to ask, “What are you going to do for those people at the PRRA, who now have to know their business?” because they didn’t need that level before. I now feel that they certainly know all of the training that’s required. There’s a module just on 2SLGBTQIA+ issues. They responded in kind afterward, in writing, much more fulsomely than they did, frankly, at committee, so I found comfort in them realizing how serious this is.

In answer to that question, I see, regarding this amendment, that it isn’t necessary and will really stymie government down the road. The pressure in any area like immigration, no matter the government, has been a number one issue. I don’t think we can take away from our own responsibility to ensure that that review is done.

Thank you.

There are many examples where that kind of “trust us” mentality has been put forward at the provincial as well as federal levels. With the sunset clause, one option is that if all the groups that came before the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee come three or four years from now and say, “Look, we were wrong; it’s working well,” then you could just repeat the legislation. You wouldn’t have to worry about the sunset clause. Why not proceed in that manner?

I will say that I checked that list from the library about all of the reviews that weren’t done. For example, for the Statistics Act, they didn’t do the review they were meant to. I don’t think anyone noticed that. But others that were really important were done, and others are still pending because their time frame isn’t up yet. I would just say that it is incumbent on us to make sure the review is done.

I believe that Senator Mohamed said very clearly that the data is required, and I think that’s what we should be insisting on. We need to know how much better this system is because the way it is now, you can’t possibly be happy with it. You cannot possibly be happy that they have been on this list for years, upending their lives until they can actually be settled. These are the meanings that we’re giving to the government to help that.

All that is to say that I do feel passionate about how we are meant to help people in this country, and this bill does that.

This amendment, from a governmental perspective, is really inadequate, and it could lead to something that is really difficult for the government to handle. I think that’s worse for the system and the people who are actually in the immigration system.

Would Senator Pupatello take a question?

Thank you. Yes.

Thank you. My question is in the context of Canada taking less than 2% of the world’s refugees and relates to your saying that Senator Mohamed’s amendment could “upend the entire system.” I completely do not understand that, and I would ask if you could give some specific examples of how Senator Mohamed’s amendment is going to upend the entire system.

Thank you. Well, think I mentioned that should we enact a sunset clause and that it be scheduled for 5 years from the date of Royal Assent, considering that in the last 20 years we’ve had minority governments and we never know when we’re having an election. We never know how long a session is or when parliament will be prorogued. We can’t say with certainty that we will be here in a year, for example, because we are in that uncertainty right now. Five years from now, when that review is to be tabled, what state will we be in? If you don’t do the review, do you completely wipe out that entire act? Actually, yes, you do, because it’s being sunsetted with this clause.

What I’m suggesting is that when you’re dealing with Parliament and it is uncertain, you have to give them the means to do their job, which is not to have a sunset clause.

Thank you.

I have a supplementary question.

I’m sorry, Senator McPhedran, but her time has expired.

Senator Pupatello, are you — no. Okay.

I am sorry to interrupt, Senator Housakos.

Honourable senators, it is now seven o’clock. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I hear a “no.”

Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is, therefore, suspended, and I will leave the chair until eight o’clock.

In amendment it was moved by Senator Mohamed:

That Bill C-12, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended on page 35 by adding the following after line 16:

“PART 8.1

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Sunset Provision and Review)

75.1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by replacing the Part 5 main heading with “Transitional Provisions, Consequential and Related Amendments, Coordinating Amendments, Repeals, Sunset Provisions and Coming into Force”.

75.2 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 274:

274.1 (1) The following provisions cease to have effect at the start of the sixth year after the day on which An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures receives royal assent unless, before the start of that year, the operation of those sections is extended by resolution — whose text is established under subsection (2) — passed by both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (3):

(a) section 11.3;

(b) paragraph 14(2)(b.1);

(c) section 20.01;

(d) paragraph 26(1)(b.01);

(e) sections 87.3001 to 87.305;

(f) paragraphs 101(1)(b.1) and (b.2);

(g) subsections 101(1.1) and (1.2); and

(h) paragraphs 111.1(1)(b.1) and (b.2).

(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, establish the text of a resolution providing for the extension of the operation of the provisions identified in subsection (1) and specifying the period of the extension, which may not exceed five years from the first day on which the resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

(3) A motion for the adoption of the resolution may be debated in both Houses of Parliament but may not be amended. At the conclusion of the debate, the Speaker of the House of Parliament shall immediately put every question necessary to determine whether or not the motion is concurred in.

(4) The operation of the provisions identified in subsection (1) may be further extended in accordance with this section, in which case the reference to “ at the start of the sixth year after the day on which the An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures receives royal assent unless, before the start of that year” in subsection (1) is to be read as a reference to “on the expiry of the most recent extension under this section unless, before that extension expires”.”.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on the length of the bell? Thirty minutes. Is leave granted?

Do we have an agreement on the bell? If we do not, it will be one hour.

Thirty minutes. Is leave granted?

Leave is granted. The vote will take place at 8:38 p.m. Call in the senators.