Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 11th, 2010

[Salvatore Sorrento]

We'll do whatever we can to comply with the regulations. We'll do whatever we can to keep our funders happy.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I want to thank those who are here today via teleconference. I also thank the witnesses who have travelled here.

I heard Mr. Calandra speak in not very flattering terms of lawyers' role and work as consultants. I would like to have your opinion on the fact that the minister did not include regulations on immigration consultants.

According to one rule, a person who arrives in Canada will have eight days to tell his or her story and will not be entitled to appeal the decision. If that person happens upon a fly-by-night consultant or an individual who provides bad advice, that person won't be entitled to file an appeal. Eight days is not very much time when you have to find someone who is empowered to provide advice, who is accredited and who is not.

Don't you think the minister should have included guidelines on consultants, immigration consultants in the bill? We often hear about false claimants, that is to say claimants who file false claims, but people rarely talk about the fact that these people are sometimes poorly advised by consultants.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Who's going to answer that question?

[Andrew Brouwer]

Thank you.

That's a critical gap in this bill, or at least in the series of announcements that were made with this bill. There's a serious problem with the role of consultants right now, and I think it has been recognized by most parties. They're not adequately regulated.

You're absolutely right. With the eight-day interview, competent counsel, as I think Mr. Showler said, will not step up and be in a position to represent someone at that eight-day hearing. They will be left with whatever consultant is willing to do it for the money.

That said, I would make Mr. Calandra happy, I'm sure, if I said that lawyers are not all great either. There's a mix of lawyers, and I think there needs to be—

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I already know that.

[Andrew Brouwer]

—better regulation of counsel, consultants as well as barristers and solicitors, representing refugees in all aspects.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Thank you so much.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Can I ask one more question?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

I can give you a couple of minutes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I need just one minute, on the PRRA.

Right now only 2% or 3% get the last-minute risk assessment. Right now it says for one year you cannot get PRRA. What difference does it make to most of the applicants? You're entitled to PRRA right now with this new law, but since it takes so long to get there, you can still get deported.

[Andrew Brouwer]

Right.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

What is the downside of that?

[Andrew Brouwer]

Of the one-year PRRA restriction?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Yes, in this bill.

[Andrew Brouwer]

Right now, under both section 7 of the charter and under international law, particularly article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture, there is a bar on deporting someone to persecution or torture. The Supreme Court, in the case of Suresh, and many international tribunals and other Supreme Court cases, has repeatedly said that Canada cannot deport someone to a risk of torture.

The PRRA exists for that one last review, to make sure that Canada doesn't make a mistake and deport someone to persecution and torture. If we limit this access, Canada will be deporting people. Of course, it's a tiny number.

One of the proposals we have made is to dump the current PRRA process. As you say, it's a tiny percentage that are accepted. Switch it into.... If we're going to have an IRB and a RAD that are truly expert, independent decision-makers, give them full authority for making risk assessments and allow people to reopen their claim if they can establish that there's new evidence or a change in circumstances during that one year.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Perfect.

Just to summarize, you don't mind this part of the bill to get rid of the PRRA or the one-year bar, as long as the Refugee Appeal Division has the power, if that country all of a sudden breaks out in civil war or something like that, to enter that in as new evidence so that the person would not be deported.

[Andrew Brouwer]

Yes, as long as we're very careful about making sure that the RAD has all the jurisdiction it needs to reopen, including a specific change in personal circumstances.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Does it now under this bill?

[Andrew Brouwer]

No, absolutely not. This is not charter-compliant. We will be deporting people to torture.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Are there some recommendations you can give us so that we can improve it and give the appeal division that power, so that if that country all of a sudden breaks out in violence of some kind, there would be a last-minute—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Thank you so much, Ms. Chow.

Basically, if the proposal is changing conditions, they should be taken care of.

But I have to move along to Ms. Wong, who has two minutes.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

I just want to set the record straight. The IRB chair was here last week and he did mention that the minister did not have the authority to select the IRB division. It was the IRB chair himself, together with the civil service, who will select these people.

The IRB also has discretion to adjourn the interview if the claimant appears vulnerable or traumatized.

I want to address a question to Ms. Taylor.

Are you aware of the fact that in England they have a list of designated countries? However, women from Ghana are designated as a sub-population that can qualify as refugees, but men cannot. Do you think that provision would address your concern?

[Vanessa Taylor]

As I mentioned in my presentation at the beginning, in the interest of women who are seeking asylum, if the designated country of origin were to be implemented, we would require that special attention be given to countries that do have problems, especially with regard to discriminating on the basis of gender. This is solely in the interest of women. We would be completely in agreement with that.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Certainly we all want to make sure that women from all over the world will be protected against any violence or any mistreatment.

We've also been talking about time for women. Actually, they have to wait for 18 months to know whether they are even qualified to stay. That's what the system is right now. Do you think it's really a problem?

[Vanessa Taylor]

I do not think it's fair, but again I think we have to be careful that if we do accelerate the determination system, we do it in a fair manner.