Was it agreed...?
Evidence of meeting #15 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was claim.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #15 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was claim.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 p.m.
Staff Lawyer, Immigration and Refugee Group, Parkdale Community Legal Services
She was accepted on humanitarian grounds. She's now landed.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Greene, do you agree with what the Parkdale legal aid lawyer said?
9:05 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
My concern about a humanitarian claim is that you often look at the totality of the circumstances. You look at the risk of hardship, which has now come to be the accepted definition of what a humanitarian claim is all about. It's what officers are mandated to consider. It's undue, undeserved, or disproportionate hardship if they are returned to their country of origin.
The officers also look at how well settled you are here, how close your family ties are, how well established you are, and whether you're doing good for the community, creating jobs, and that kind of thing. It's the whole big package.
To tell officers that they can't consider the hardship portion or the risk portion of the case is to tie one hand behind their backs or put blinders on. I think it would make it an unrealistic and arbitrary decision. I don't think it's necessary.
I sympathize with what the minister is trying to do. It's to stop you from having multiple kicks at the same can. You can lose your risk-based claim and then make it again and again in three different places. A lot of the time, it's a multifaceted claim, and I don't think we should restrict those.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Greene, I want to thank you for your comments on the time. We've heard from a number of presenters that the times are not workable. We're starting to get a good picture of that.
I wanted to ask you this. Given the implementation of the new Refugee Appeal Division and continued access to the Federal Court, do you think it is reasonable to limit access to additional avenues of recourse to allow for a brief window in which to remove a failed claimant?
9:05 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
Well, as I said, I can see that if you have an effective second stage, the RAD, the Refugee Appeal Division, would address the concerns we have. It's why we have the PRRA in the first place. It's supposed to catch mistakes at the first level, and you have something to catch those.
I am opposed to taking away the humanitarian claim for the reasons that I think my friend has given. You have to remember the humanitarian claim does not delay removal. You can apply for a stay, but you're not necessarily going to get it, and the proportion of success is not actually that high.
I'm fine with restricting access to the PRRA, and I know a lot of my colleagues wouldn't be, but I think it's all right if you have the RAD. I would say you should leave the humanitarian claim alone. You should not restrict it.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you.
Could you please comment on how the proposed measures improve the current asylum system?
9:05 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
In the current system you have the one single determination. It's luck of the draw as to whether a board member is having a good day or a bad day. I wish they were all highly competent, but frankly, they're not.
After that, if you're unsuccessful, you can languish in the system for years before you finally get in. You know you're not going to be successful with most of those claims. A lot of these people know that, but they stretch it out. They can't visit their families. They're stuck in limbo. Sometimes it works out for them and sometimes it doesn't.
It's not a great system because it can act as a magnet for undeserving claims. There are problems with the way our system works right now.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you.
Can you amplify your answer for me? How will these reforms deter outright abuse?
9:05 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
Well, I want to go back to what I said earlier, because I don't want to put too much emphasis on it. The reforms will help if you have a properly resourced system to work with them, but it's the properly resourced system that has been the weakness of our process.
For good economic reasons, we've had cutbacks all around. The CBSA and CIC are forced to be spread too thin. I think if you have a commitment to keep the enforcement resources and the determination processes, it will work better.
As I said, I'm not opposed to mandated timeframes if they're reasonable. You don't have “reasonable” in the proposal. But if you could get that, it could then work more efficiently.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
What about the safe country of origin policy? Would that help to deter abuse?
9:05 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
In its present form, I can only say it's scary. I'm sorry.
We don't have any control over who gets listed and who doesn't, and we don't know if it's going to be a political process. It could be any government making these decisions. Who knows what we're going to have? I don't like that very much.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
9:10 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
My suggestion is if you're going to have a safe country list, rather than using it to take away appeal rights from everybody who's a member of that country, you could say we're going to prioritize those claims and hear them first because suspicions are attached. Not everybody's going to like this one, but I think that's one way you could improve the consequences of being a listed country. But the way it's proposed right now, without safeguards on how a country gets listed, it's very problematic. It's not a safe proposal.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
As I mentioned in the previous panel, I understand that for the safe country of origin, in England, certain sectors, certain populations, are listed as refugees, and they are legitimate. For example, in the case of Ghana, women can claim as refugees whereas men cannot.
Do you think that might be able to solve some of the challenges?
9:10 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
Clearly, something like that is contemplated by the way the regulations are worded. The problem that exists here, and Ms. Houle talked about it, is that you've got a provision that would take away rights that is not controlled by legislation, but it's a cabinet process. That's the weakness.
I think if there were safeguards, if you had the right kinds of restrictions on how a country was listed or how these determinations were made, yes, it could, because you could have homosexual populations at risk in a country that's otherwise safe--those kinds of things.
It's something that has to be very carefully thought out. I don't think it should be left to regulation, frankly. I think the kinds of restrictions should be something your committee should be looking at. If you're going to have a safe country list, what kinds of restrictions can we put so that no political or arbitrary decisions are made in the case?
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I have one question for the Parkdale group. We've spent a lot of time talking this evening about the safe country of origin issue. I didn't clearly understand whether or not you think that a claim from a potential refugee would automatically be rejected the first time around if they were from a safe country of origin.
May 11th, 2010 / 9:10 p.m.
Staff Lawyer, Immigration and Refugee Group, Parkdale Community Legal Services
A claim as a refugee or a claim on a humanitarian basis? On a humanitarian basis, supposedly there's not going to be a safe country that you can't make a humanitarian claim on. Humanitarian claims are based on all kinds of other issues that do not have anything to do with—
