Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 11th, 2010

[Andrew Brouwer]

Again, I wouldn't say it's appropriate to put timelines on the act. They're not right now, so I imagine they still wouldn't be. I think having a target of four months, with the possibility of getting an adjournment if the claimant for good reason isn't ready, is probably workable, with adequate legal aid, obviously.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Ms. Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

In terms of a safe country of origin policy, what is being proposed is that claimants coming from designated countries have essentially the same access to what they have now--in other words, a full hearing before the refugee protection division and access to the Federal Court for judicial review. So why is this problematic or unfair? I just want to know.

[Andrew Brouwer]

There are a few things. The fact that we don't have a RAD now, eight years after it was passed, is a problem. It's been a problem for the last eight years, and it's been a problem before we even got the RAD.

Lack of an appeal continues to be an issue. The fact that this bill proposes to have it there for most is great, but the justification for denying access to a full appeal on the basis of a presumption of safety in a country, in our submission, is unfair. And it's unfair for a couple of reasons, of course. There is a combination of issues. There are multiple changes, and they all affect each other in this bill, particularly if we do have a situation where you've got an eight-day interview and a 60-day hearing.

Right now it's before a civil servant. We have no idea who that civil servant is going to be. Right now, the way the bill is drafted, as Mr. Showler and others have talked about, it could be a current PRRA officer, an enforcement officer, or anybody.

So if you're going to have civil servants who potentially work for the minister, or who actually do work for the minister, making that first decision, and they're making decisions about people their boss, the minister, has said are coming from countries that are safe, they are exactly the people who need an appeal to somebody who's impartial and protected from the minister, to a Governor in Council term-length appointee.

In my submission, it's backwards almost. That, again, is one of the problems we have with that proposal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

The safe country of origin proposal also includes a provision to exempt certain groups from a country that would otherwise be designated or considered safe. Do you believe this is a necessary additional provision?

[Andrew Brouwer]

We have a problem with this provision because we have no idea what it means. Right now there is a huge amount of power being given to the minister to designate parts of countries, classes of people, and particular countries, without our having any sense of what the criteria are. When the Refugee Lawyers' Association started doing some advocacy work on this bill, we asked that Parliament send it to committee before second reading so that there could be a really careful review of exactly what the minister is proposing here. We still don't know what the minister thinks he's going to use that provision for. What kinds or classes of nationals will be affected, and what are the criteria he is thinking of using in their regard? We have no idea, so it's very hard to engage in a debate. It's a vacuum right now.

As a lawyer, a vacuum in the law is a very serious problem, because it prevents the courts from reviewing it and it prevents parliamentarians from knowing exactly what they're passing into law. Then we end up with an act where a minister can do anything he wants. Again, that is a core problem for us.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I will give the rest of my time to Mr. Calandra.

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

How much time do I have?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

You have approximately....

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

Anyway, I'm going to share my time down the line.

I really do enjoy it when lawyers come to the committee, because they always seem to be so against anything that would limit their ability to bill—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

—and allow this to go on basically forever.

I fail to understand, as a layperson, how your meeting somebody within eight days and getting their story and understanding their initial response for why they came to Canada, and then getting a copy of that, as somebody who might be representing them, so you can actually go through it, wouldn't actually help you prepare for a hearing that is 60 days away. Not only does it help you to prepare, because you have initial information you can then go by and on which you can then ask them even more pertinent questions when you actually meet them, but it also strikes me that after those 60 days there will also be the opportunity for these people—who are very deserving—to actually go on with their lives, as opposed to being put through the mill by lawyers and government.

I wonder if lawyers would still feel the same way if we put something in there that said after 25 or 30 hours you can't bill any longer.

[Andrew Brouwer]

We get 16 hours.

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

I wonder if you'd still feel the process was too short.

[Andrew Brouwer]

If I may say, when we are funded by legal aid we get 16 hours.

[An hon. member]

That's it?

[Andrew Brouwer]

That's it—16 hours.

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

And when you're not funded by them?

[Andrew Brouwer]

It's a combination of pro bono and whatever people can pay in their monthly payments, frankly.

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

How does the eight-day collection of information not help you build a case for your client?

[Andrew Brouwer]

It would make it easier. If I didn't care about whether or not I'm going to get the claimant's actual story out, certainly, it would make my practice easier. I can take their story, I can just ask them a couple of questions, and then go for it.

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

So eight days do make a difference.

That's all I need. I just wanted to make sure that the eight days actually allow you to better prepare your clients.

I don't have a lot of time, so I'll pass it on to Mr. Dykstra.

[Neil Bouwer]

As you know, that is not what I said.

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

You did just say that.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I think we need to give the witness an opportunity to clarify his answer, what he really said.