Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 10th, 2012

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

You have made that ruling and I have heard you. I will not be challenging the chair at this time.

(Clause 58 agreed to on division)

(On clause 59)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're on to clause 59 and NDP amendment 21.

Ms. Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

This is a fairly straightforward amendment. Once again it puts minimum timelines into effect for the production or submission of documents. It introduces a 30-day minimum for the basis of claim documents and 45 days minimum for appeals to the Refugee Appeal Board. We have heard from a number of witnesses on this issue.

On Monday, April 30, we heard from one of the witnesses of my colleagues across the way:

The one exception I have to supporting the Minister is that he is expecting faster decisions to accelerate the overall processing times on refugee claims. However, he is cutting 1,500 CBSA positions. This is counterproductive to an accelerated refugee processing time, because they're the intelligence gatherers. They're on the front line and meet the people when they come in. So how does he expect to expedite and accelerate the process if on the one hand he takes away the very officers who are supposed to help with the processing?

Also, Richard Goldman said the following:

We agree that somebody should not have to wait two years for a decision on their refugee claim.

Chair, this is where I think we have a lot of unanimity, from both the presenters and the people around this table. None of us has an interest in trying to prolong things. We want to speed things up.

Mr. Goldman went on to say:

However, we don't think you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Thirty days is too short. No appeal makes it impossible to correct errors.

We need to pay attention.

Then Chantal Desloges:

However, this 15 days, 30 days, 60 days, etc., is just completely unworkable. I'm telling you as an expert who has worked a lot in this system that it is set up to fail. It is impossible to work with. It's not only a problem for the claimant, it's not only a problem for the lawyer, but I can't even imagine what kind of a nightmare this will be for the Immigration and Refugee Board to have to make decisions within that kind of a framework. I don't know who in the department thought it would work, but I can assure you it will not work. Shortened timelines definitely are a good idea, but this kind of a shortened, accelerated timeline is just too much. It cannot work.

As far as I know, there is no new money going to the board. They're already having a hard time making decisions within the timeframe they have.

Then she goes on to say:

I guarantee you this system, if implemented, will not be faster, and I'll tell you why. People are going to be forced to postpone and adjourn claims at an unprecedented rate. And if those requests to postpone those cases are not granted, it's going to end up in the Federal Court and people will win, because it's a denial of natural justice if a person does not have a reasonable opportunity for counsel.

That is said so well, in the words of our witnesses, that I am not going to add another word.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

And that's a promise.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

That's a promise on this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to reiterate the fact that numerous witnesses have come forward, many of whom were not witnesses I have even had the opportunity to chat with, and I think the consensus is that the timeframes the government has put in place are not appropriate. I think the NDP critic has put it quite well, in the sense that at the end of the day, I don't think government is going to achieve what it's hoping to achieve. We heard that from a number of witnesses, so I think the government should take note, whether it's this particular amendment or the one that's going to follow, Mr. Chair, both of which deal with trying to allow for more time. In our amendment we refer to 28 days as opposed to 30 days, which is being proposed by the New Democrats.

So there is a little difference in terms of amounts of time, but the essence is the same, and that is that we have to ensure that we allow for claimants to have a reasonable timeframe to be able to get their applications completed and submitted, and we have to make sure there's an acceptable amount of time for people to have their appeals heard in a proper fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

We're dealing with amendment NDP-21, which is a proposed amendment to clause 59.

(Amendment negatived)

Liberal amendment 27.5, Mr. Lamoureux—and you don't have to read it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Consider it moved as read, and it is in front of all committee members.

Again, I'll just refer to my last comments. The only thing I would add is that it also makes reference to other claims, that a hearing to determine the claim is not to take place until at least 150 days.

Unless there are any questions, I would suggest that we accept it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to vote on Liberal amendment 27.5.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 59 agreed to on division)

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Chair, may I ask for a short comfort break, please? I'm sure everybody must be feeling the need.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, we'll continue.

(On clause 60)

Mr. Lamoureux, would you like to speak to amendment LIB-28?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to move that Bill C-31 in clause 60 be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 29 with the following:

(b.1) subject to subsection (2.1), less than three days have passed since their claim for

To put it into context, Mr. Chair, it expedites timelines for claimants from DCOs and no access to the RAD for designated foreign nationals or claimants from DCOs. It is necessary to remove the 12-month bar—we've had some discussion already on that particular issue—for a rejected claimant to request pre-removal risk assessment.

I'm going to refer to comments by Sean Rehaag, a graduate from Osgoode Hall. He said the system is robust, as the criminal justice system is. It does have errors, and there are appeals or checks in place to help mitigate them. Clearly, then, in less than robust systems there will also be errors, so we do need to have adequate checks in place. This is something we thought might be adequate for us to look at, at least better than what was being proposed earlier. So compared to the alternative, I think this is something that could be supported.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

We are on amendment LIB-28.

(Amendment negatived)

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Chair, we supported that. Did you get our votes?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I didn't. We'll vote again.

Shall amendment LIB-28 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 60 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 61 to 67 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 68)

Mr. Dykstra, would you like to talk to amendment G-7?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Chair, again.

This is another technical amendment. The clause actually provides that pending applications for protection—I'm speaking now to the pre-removal risk assessment—they no longer have a right to the pre-removal risk assessment decision, once this clause comes into force, if the application was submitted 12 months or earlier from the time the claim was last rejected or determined to be withdrawn or abandoned.

For some clarity here, the provision actually confirms that the minister can refuse to consider a pre-removal risk assessment application that was made less than 12 months before this provision comes into force.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I was going to be asking Mr. Dykstra a question, and he answered my question before he heard it. It had to do with the retroactive aspect. It actually leads to retroactive application of the bill. We have a great deal of concern around that, and we do not support retroactive application of legislation.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Perhaps I could ask Ms. Irish to explain a little bit as to why the determination was needed to move in this direction as well.

[Jennifer Irish]

Thank you, Chairperson.

This particular provision does have retroactive application for the purposes of the 12-month bar on PRA. The policy intent of that is that if new applications coming into force are subject to the bar on the basis that one can reasonably expect that risk decision will remain valid for 12 months, then the same logic should apply to those whose applications are still pending, bearing in mind that the minister can invoke an exception to the bar on PRA in the event of changed country conditions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

This is one of those areas...the pre-removal risk assessment is a pretty critical component when you're looking at safety for people to come to our shores who are feeling vulnerable. To go retroactively is almost like saying that members of this group here, because they weren't born by a certain date, now have to have these changes, so we're going to go back and capture the others, because they were alive during that time, and we want to make sure everybody's on the same footing.

One of the ways everybody could be on the same footing is that we reinstate a pre-removal risk assessment for everyone. Putting everybody on that kind of equal footing, which you so eloquently explained to us, doesn't always mean we have to go to the lowest denominator.

Surely, when it comes to looking at protecting people's security and looking at the kinds of risks that many of these could possibly face, it would be better for us to err on the side of caution than to throw out the baby with the bathwater, which is what this does, and it actually makes it retroactive as well.

We are opposed, in case you didn't gather that.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I got that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I thought you might.