Evidence of meeting #19 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 list.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
May 27th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for coming to the committee.
There have been a lot of myths regarding the initial interview, so why are the timelines for the first interview at the IRB so tight, and what is the intention of this interview?
I have three questions. Maybe I can ask them all first and then you can go over them.
Second, why are the details around the interviews and timelines not in the legislation? Why would they be in the IRB rules?
For question number three, can the information-gathering interview or the first-level hearing be adjourned? If so, under what circumstances?
Those are my three questions. I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding and there are a lot of stories going out on what's happening, so we need clarification from you, please.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Asylum Policy Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The first and second questions are related. Why is the time processing standard not in the legislation? Why is it in the rules?
Because this deals with an IRB process, it is more appropriate that the time processing standards for IRB processes be reflected in IRB rules.
With respect to the third question about whether the information gathering interview can be adjourned, yes, there is provision that the information gathering interview could be adjourned at the discretion of the IRB officer; for example, should they deem that they are dealing with a vulnerable claimant who requires special consideration, including the need for counsel in specific circumstances, there is a provision for dealing with vulnerable claimants in particular.
I should also emphasize that the information gathering interview is not meant to be the definitive moment for gathering all information related to the claim. In addition, even after adjournment, the claimant will have an opportunity to amend that record or to add to it right up to the end of the disclosure period before the first-level hearing.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
Yes. So for the first interview at the IRB, the intention is to gather the basic information only. Am I right to say that? And then, for whatever needs to be used to determine their eligibility, it would be the second one, which is within 60 days. Am I right to say that?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Asylum Policy Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Eligibility decisions are made in the first three days following the initial filing of the claim. The information gathering interview is essentially intended just to gather information about the claim itself.
Under the current system, some information is gathered about the claim at the port of entry or at the inland office at the point of the claim being filed, and also through a personal information form at the 28-day mark. Under the reform package, we would essentially consolidate those two steps into one at the information gathering interview that we would suggest take place at the eight-day mark.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
There has also been some concern expressed that these people might need legal counsel during the interviews. There are two levels right now. The first interview is for basic data entry and data gathering, and the second is the hearing. Can you tell us the difference between the two and clarify some of the concerns we have heard from previous witnesses, please?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Asylum Policy Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
No decision will come from the information gathering interview. It is meant to gather information about the claim and to prepare the claim for the first-level hearing. Some recommendations can be made from that information gathering interview, such as how the claim will be scheduled and streamed, but there are no decisions that require counsel to be present.
But the asylum claimant does have the right to have counsel present. They may have counsel present. The counsel would not have a participatory role. But the interview would not be adjourned in order to have counsel represented there, because no decision will emanate from that interview.
So that's distinct from the first-level hearing, where an actual first level decision is made on the claim itself. That is really the determinative hearing. The hearing will take a look at the information gathered from the interview, as well as any subsequent information that has been gathered since by the claimant, in cooperation with counsel, should he wish. That will constitute the first level decision on the merits of the claim put forward by the claimant.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
It is also my understanding that each applicant will be given a tape recording of exactly what they tell the interviewer. Am I right?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Asylum Policy Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That's correct. The claimant will receive two products as a result of the interview. One will be a USB clip with the actual recording of the interview. The second will be the report that comes out of that interview, which will be made available either at the interview itself or soon thereafter. But I should emphasize that these are board procedures and it will be the board itself that decides on the detail, but this is our understanding of how the board would process the information coming out of that interview.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
There are also concerns that the interviewers may not have the expertise to do a good job. I remember what the IRB said when they were here.They said that when they recruit interviewers who are going to do the first level, these people will be given the proper training so that they are sensitive to the cultural issues as well as the background of these people. Am I right to say that?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Asylum Policy Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes. This would be a question you could also pose again to the chairperson when he returns on Monday, but he has made public statements to that effect: that the information gathering officers would have high-level training and would be fully trained officers of the board.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Before we get to Mr. Karygiannis, I have a brief question on this eight-minute business. We've had witnesses come here who have said--
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
That's how much time you get now--
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We've have had some comments with respect to the eight days in this policy. For example, we've had lawyers and others who have said, well, people could come and they could be nervous, and people could come and be terrified because of here they have come from. Also, people have said that there might be a language problem.
Therefore, the question remains: that this information that is given during those eight days is wrong, for whatever reason; they didn't understand or they didn't have proper advice as to what to say. Therefore, that testimony or that information--whether you call it testimony or information--could be used against them later, even though it's inadvertently incorrect.
I suppose, finally, that one could compare this to a...I suppose I'm out of line in comparing it to this, but it could be, for example, like a police examination, where someone has been charged with something and the police are examining a witness, possibly even before they're charged. Those people are entitled to counsel. Counsel may be there and may say that they don't have to answer that or whatever.
So I'd like you to elaborate on this eight-day business. I'm sure you have seen all of the testimony that has been given on this. Could you respond to some of those comments about the right to counsel during the first eight days?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Asylum Policy Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'll deal with some of the concerns that you have flagged distinctly.
First of all, with respect to language, there will be interpretation facilities available.
Secondly, in terms of trauma, if there is a claimant who exhibits trauma or vulnerability, or who has special considerations, such as a child, a trafficked person, or someone who has been subject to domestic violence or some other form of vulnerability, then there is a discretion to adjourn that interview.
With respect to the right to counsel, again, the claimant has the right to have counsel present; it's just that it wouldn't be regarded as essential for the interview. The interview would not be adjourned in order to make counsel available, because it's not meant to be an adversarial setting. It's not meant to be an examination. It's meant to be a process by which an IRB official facilitates the claimant in describing their claim story.
And it's not even meant to be definitive in that regard. The IRB officer is intended to make every effort to make sure it's as complete as possible to prepare for the hearing. The official will also define the expectations for the claimant for the next steps, including the right for counsel and how the hearing will actually operate, but in between that point, that interview, and the hearing itself, the claimant has the right to amend that record. They will have the right to add to that record with the assistance of counsel right up to the end of the disclosure period in advance of the hearing.
Again, it's certainly not meant to be adversarial. It's not meant to be an examination. It's really meant to be an information gathering stage to substitute what's happening now between the port of entry inland officers at the point a claim is made and the very elaborate and convoluted personal information form that is filed at the 28-day mark. The--
