Evidence of meeting #215 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
No, I would prefer for you to read it, Mr. Chair, seeing as the letter was sent to you for the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The clerk is getting the letter. While he's doing that...and I have it somewhere in this pile of paper.
We'll get it off the system there, if we could, David.
While we're waiting for that letter to come, is there any other discussion?
I'll read the letter now that it has arrived.
The letter is from the member for Vancouver East, which is stated there. It reads as follows:
Finance Committee Chair Easter,
I write to you today as the NDP Critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, in response to your invitation for the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) to study Part 4 Division 15 of Bill C-97, An Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget, and to provide recommendations through you the Finance Committee to consider during its clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.
Please accept this as the NDP submission to your request.
As I'm sure you're aware, Bill C-97 is a 392 page omnibus budget Bill. Contained in that Bill is Part 4 Division 15, which sets out the creation of a new professional college to govern the conduct of registered professional immigration consultants.
Given the nature of immigration consultancy, that is, that they are often working with vulnerable populations, in some cases with limited official languages skills, and often of limited financial means, we as elected officials have a duty to ensure that these professional is held to the highest standards of professional conduct.
During the spring sitting session of 2017, CIMM conducted an in-depth study on immigration consultants in Canada. While the study had originally set out to focus on unregistered consultants, often referred to as 'ghost consultants', it became immediately clear that registered consultants and their regulatory body needed to examined as well.
This would result in CIMM's only unanimously supported report of this Parliament. The title alone makes it very clear: “Starting Again: Improving Government Oversight of Immigration Consultants”.
I believe recommendation 1 is quite clear:
“That the Government of Canada create, by statue, an independent public-interest body empowered to regulate and govern the profession of immigration consultants; and that the mandate of the new regulatory body include: protection of the public by maintaining high ethical standards, so as to preserve the integrity of the system; and, protection of applicants from exploitation by maintaining high standards of competence and encouraging reasonable fees for services rendered. To avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest, this new body should be accountable to a Minister other than the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. This would be a government regulated body.”
When Minister Hussen responded to this report on 16 October 2017, he stated:
“That Government expects to be able to provide more information on the way forward next year.”
It appears that when the Minister failed to meet his own, self-imposed deadline, and the government is now jamming it into a 392 page omnibus budget bill.
While CIMM examined the provisions, it can hardly be considered a study. We had merely 2 meetings to hear from witnesses. The proposed legislation leaves huge blanks for how the College will be run, leaving the door open for the current regulatory body, the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) to merely transition into a new role. This is woefully inadequate. There are simply too many unanswered questions that remain with this legislation.
It needed to be tabled as a standalone piece of legislation so that it would be subject to proper democratic debate and thoughtful study. This has not happen within the time constraints and limited scrutiny available for provisions within this omnibus budget bill.
Therefore the New Democratic Party's recommendation to the Finance Committee is to have Part 4, Division 14 withdrawn from Bill C-97 and tabled as a standalone bill.
The New Democrats believe that we need a new oversight body for immigration consultants in Canada. However, given the important nature of this work, and the vulnerable population served, we need to make sure we get it right.
Sincerely,
Jenny Kwan, MP for Vancouver East
Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The letter that you have read out refers to the previous section on the consultant piece. There's a separate letter that was sent to you as well pertaining to the asylum seekers component.
Could you read that into the record?
Liberal
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Okay. I will pull up my letter. I didn't actually bring it with me—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We have it here, I'm sure, if you want it in bigger print than on your smart phone.
David, you could give that to Jenny.
Your voice will sound better than mine anyway.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is a letter dated May 17, 2019, addressed to you, Mr. Chair. It reads as follows:
Finance Committee Chair Easter,
I write to you today as the NDP Critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, in response to your invitation for the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) to study and make recommendations for Part 4 Division 15 of Bill C-97, An Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget, and to provide recommendations through you the Finance Committee to consider doing its clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.
Please accept this as the NDP submission to your request.
As I'm sure you're aware, Bill C-97 is 392 page omnibus budget Bill. Contained in that Bill is Part 4 Division 15, which sets out the creation....
Sorry, Mr. Chair; this is the same letter that was just read out. I will go to my own system and look for the right letter.
We now have the right letter, but it was good to have the same letter put on the record one-and-a-half times.
On division 16, this is a letter dated May 17, 2019. Again, the letter is addressed to you, Mr. Chair.
Finance Committee Chair Easter,
I write to you today as the NDP Critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, in response to your invitation for the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) to study and make recommendations for Part 4 Division 16 of Bill C-97, An Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget.
Please accept this as the NDP dissenting submission to your request.
Bill C-97 is a 392 page omnibus budget Bill. Contained in that Bill is Part 4 Division 16, which proposes significant changes to Canada's refugee determination system. It appears that these changes are meant to block and deter access to Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) from certain groups of asylum seekers.
The provisions contained within Division 16 appear to be nothing more than an attempt to look tough on borders after the government has failed to lead on the asylum seeker file since 2017. This failure created a vacuum that was filled by misinformation campaigns and the vilification of asylum seekers which has since been further pushed by the Conservative party.
As you are aware, Part 4 Division 16 was not even included in your original invitation to CIMM committee as a section of Bill C-97 to study. While I was successful in my fight to have these changes at least brought to CIMM, I am deeply disturbed by the unacceptably short time that we have had to study these provisions.
Despite this unacceptable approach to the legislation, we still heard loud and clear from the experts that appeared at CIMM, and it is my understanding that you have heard the same message at FINA. Groups such as Amnesty International, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL), and the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) spoke clearly that these changes cannot be supported and cannot be rammed through in Bill C-97.
These changes must be withdrawn from Bill C-97.
When Government members of CIMM asked experts appearing at our committee on how to make the proposed changes to the refugee determination process better or to fix the concerns they may have regarding the bill, they were told simply that there is no fix. They were clear to say that lives would be put at risk and that the suggestion of an “enhanced PRRA process” is not only an inefficient duplication of processes, they also noted that it is inferior to what already exists with the IRB. The experts were loud and clear that cannot be permitted as lives are at stake.
CIMM also received over 2,200 letters from individuals speaking out against these proposed changes, calling for them to be withdrawn. In addition, the Prime Minister has been sent an open letter from 46 women's organizations from across Canada denouncing these changes and their inclusion in Bill C-97. This is because of the disproportionate impact on women and girls. Witnesses appearing before CIMM echoed this concern and noted that the Government had clearly failed to do a gender-based analysis plus of these provisions.
It is with all this in mind that on behalf of the New Democratic Party my recommendation to the Finance Committee is to have Part 4 Division 16 withdrawn from Bill C-97 or have all these provisions struck from Bill C-97.
The refugee determination system should not be used for partisan political gains ahead of an election. There is no question that any changes need be, in the minimum, be thoroughly studied. Under the current conditions, that is simply not possible.
Sincerely,
It is signed by myself.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I have a question for the officials who are here in order to clarify the new process proposed by the amendment.
In what way do you think the process proposed by the amendment is different from the current process at the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB?
André Baril Senior Director, Refugee Affairs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The process followed at the IRB is similar to a court process. If the minister gets involved, the procedure becomes contradictory: the two parties must prove their case and the decision-maker makes a ruling.
In the context where Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, must decide after a pre-removal risk assessment, the process involves two opponents: the decision-maker, who is at the hearing, and the asylum seeker—and their lawyer if they are represented. The process is more administrative than that of a court.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
However, would you not say that a court's process is by its nature more fair and more respectful of asylum seekers' rights?
Senior Director, Refugee Affairs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
No. In fact, the decision-makers are all independent, be they at the court or at the IRCC. Their decisions cannot be influenced in any way.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
How can you say that IRCC officials or decision-makers are independent if they are an integral part of the government?
Senior Director, Refugee Affairs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Decision-making powers are delegated to the decision-maker, and it is up to them to assess whether the individual needs protection or not. To do so, the decision-maker looks at the facts and relies on the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
What system do you think is better? The IRB's system or the new process proposed in the amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Dusseault, I don't think that's a question these officials can answer. I don't think it's up to—
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I have another question, which is about the nature of those hearings.
The amendment only mentions hearings, without specifying whether they are oral or not. That is what my colleague, Ms. Kwan, was saying earlier. Another member of our committee talked about oral hearings. However, the amendment does not mention the word “oral”. Could you reassure us today and confirm that there will indeed be oral hearings and a fair process that is consistent with the principles of natural justice every applicant is entitled to?
Senior Director, Refugee Affairs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I don't have the regulations in front of me, but I think a hearing is an oral hearing. The hearing is the mechanism that allows the individual to present their case and to be heard by the decision-maker.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Experts have told us that there are very few cases, a tiny portion of pre-removal risk assessments, where an asylum seeker can present arguments orally to the decision-maker. They told us they have not seen that often in their career.
Why are you saying today that an oral hearing will automatically take place when, according to those experts, the arguments are most often presented in writing? When they present their arguments in writing, asylum seekers hope that the individual examining their asylum claim will give due consideration to all the elements, although they cannot put them forward orally.
Senior Director, Refugee Affairs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
According to the current process, the asylum seeker first submits their asylum claim in writing. Based on the relevant factors in the regulations, when the asylum seeker's credibility is critical in the decision-making, a hearing must be held. That is also what the Supreme Court ruled in Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration. According to my understanding of the amendment proposed, all the cases where the asylum claim is determined to be ineligible will require a hearing, whether or not credibility is critical to the decision-making process.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Would it be useful to specify that the hearing must be oral or does the word “hearing” in this case automatically imply that it is an oral hearing? What kind of assurance can you give the committee in that respect?
Senior Director, Refugee Affairs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
In my opinion, the meaning of the word “oral” is included in the meaning of the term “hearing”, but we would need to look into this more closely with our legal services.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the officials for being here.
Not only have we heard from our colleagues in the CIMM committee that they wish us to go ahead and make this change through the BIA, but the UNHCR, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has been on the record on it. Specifically, their representative in Canada has been quite clear on this point, saying that the proposed changes the government has put forward are entirely reasonable. Those aren't my words; those are, again, from the head of the UNHCR in Canada. The body tasked with ensuring the well-being of refugees around the world has no problem with what the government wants to do here.
I appreciate the fact that my colleagues opposite are concerned, but I don't think that their concern is substantiated. Again, not only did we hear from CIMM asking us to make this change and not only have we heard from the UNHCR, but you'll recall, Mr. Chair, that we had witnesses testify on this point.
I don't remember—I'll speak for myself here—any conclusive evidence that matches with what my colleagues opposite have put forward, in terms of a substantial risk existing. There was no evidence that exists that would indicate there is a risk in that way.