Hon. Peter Harder: Honourable senators, given the way in which this debate has gone forward, I just want to make a couple of comments. I do so having been the founding executive director of the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB, and the first Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

I say that not out of the pride I obviously have for those roles but because they are somewhat relevant to this debate, in the sense that I and many others have commented on the pride we take in the Immigration and Refugee Board’s reputation that has been developed over the number of years — I hate to say how long — since it was founded. It always took advantage of the changing nature of refugee protection in expanding and defining the issues over the years that change refugee law.

Canada has been viewed as a jurisdiction at the cutting edge of refugee protection. Indeed, before the Immigration and Refugee Board was created, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, gave Canada the Nansen Refugee Award, the only time a country received the award for its refugee protection.

So I come at this debate as somebody who is grounded, I believe, in the notion of the protection Canada can give. After all, it gave my parents protection as well.

As Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I went through a number of legislative processes — none of which were particularly pleasant — in various parliaments. The issues I see being addressed today gave me the shakes and the sense that I should rise and speak.

I think we’re getting into a series of amendments — Senator Woo, I have looked at all of yours — where we, as a legislative body, are not prepared to trust the officials whose organizations we now take pride in, like the IRB or Citizenship and Immigration, to interpret the law and the regulations that are yet to be forthcoming or in utilizing aspects of the tool kit that they have to deal with compelling cases of protection that might, on the face of the amendments to the bill before us, otherwise be precluded. I’m not prepared to accept that.

I think there is goodwill in the system at the officials level and, indeed, at the oversight or ministerial level.

What we’re risking doing in Parliament is what I call “whataboutism.” In other words, what about this case? What about that case? What about here? What about there?

We’re forgetting to look at the framework. It’s the framework that the government has proposed some amendments to, and they propose those amendments in the context of the last few years of experience.

Certainly, in the course of the last election, in a number of jurisdictions in Canada, this was a hot issue at the door. Remember, it is a minority Parliament, even though it’s getting close, in which to advance this legislation. The opposition locked arms with the government to give us the bill that is before us.

So I take some comfort in the fact that a minority Parliament is seeking to address the real concerns of Canadians by adjusting the framework of our law but not challenging its historic reputation.

The final point I would make is that, as Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I was always focused on how we can ensure that the system is effective. The system is effective if it has the number of features as follows: First, does it have broad public support? Second, is it resourced so that it can meet the publicly stated processing expectations of Canadians and applicants? Finally, third, is the reporting such that Canadians can make that judgment?

(1620)

This is why I welcome the amendment that was passed the other day that Senator Dean introduced — because it gives parliamentarians and the Canadian public, frankly, greater tools of monitoring the effectiveness of the system. I would trade that amendment for any of the other amendments that we have because, frankly, that’s the one that will ensure the system’s integrity over the long haul.

Therefore, colleagues, I would encourage you to resist the “whataboutism.”, focus on the structure of the bill and reflect on the reputation that Canada has enjoyed and the fragility of the institutions that we are seeking to protect.