Evidence of meeting #17 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 claimants.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Committee Coordinator to Aid Refugees, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
I'd like to say, even whether or not it's a point of order, that we do not know the purpose, so if that isn't it...
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I'd be happy to talk to you about it. I'd be happy to let you know.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, I think a question was put to the witnesses. They have a right to answer it. I don't think Mr. Dykstra should be jumping up and down and harassing them.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Karygiannis, I have spoken to Mr. Dykstra and we're moving on.
Mr. Goldman.
4:25 p.m.
Committee Coordinator to Aid Refugees, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
To answer your question as best I can about who would be penalized, in my opinion this would re-enter the port-of-entry note type of problem into the system. People who could be very vulnerable, unable to talk about their experiences, would then have some notes that followed them through the whole process, which could be held up to say, “Why didn't you say this?“ or “You said something a little differently. You're not credible. We don't believe you. You're not a refugee.”
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I will ask my questions all in a row, because I would like your opinion on a certain number of issues.
In the bill that is before us, there is a new subparagraph 25(1.3), according to which, during the consideration of an application for permanent residency on humanitarian grounds, the minister may not consider the “factors that are taken into account in determination of whether the person is a Convention refugee”.
Do you support removing this section from the act?
4:25 p.m.
Director, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
Yes, I believe Mr. Goldman mentioned that. He explained the reasons why it is not a good idea, in fact.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
You agree with him? Good.
The same section, in paragraph 25(1.2)(c), mentions the ban on a request on humanitarian grounds in the 12 months that follow, including cases where the claim was abandoned before the hearing was even held.
Do you not believe that we should, rather, allow people who abandon a claim before the hearing has been held to make a claim on humanitarian grounds, if only for reasons of efficiency? In that way, people who realize they have made a mistake would not be blocked in the refugee claim process, when they should have invoked humanitarian grounds.
4:25 p.m.
Committee Coordinator to Aid Refugees, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
In any case, as we have said, we see no justification in doing away with the possibility of making claims on humanitarian grounds. If it was really necessary, it would at least be better to open the door to those who have abandoned their refugee claims. In any case, we cannot see how the elimination of the humanitarian grounds claims can in any way be justified as far as efficiency and fairness are concerned.
4:25 p.m.
Director, Action Réfugiés Montréal
In addition to those reasons, we want to keep the door open to humanitarian claims because we have realized that, on occasion, one may read in IRB decisions that some people who have been rejected as refugees should be accepted on humanitarian grounds because they are in need of protection, but they do not correspond to the definition of a refugee.
It is very important that we maintain this recourse as an option.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
In fact, we discussed making the right decision at the outset. Some people who have testified before us suggested that the officials who would be considering the case at the first level, rather than being appointed under the rules of the public service, should be appointed by the chairman of the board—somewhat like the director general of elections appoints his returning officers. Therefore, we should allow the chairman of the board, of the commission, to go directly to the public to find people who are particularly competent on this issue.
Do you support this proposal?
4:25 p.m.
Committee Coordinator to Aid Refugees, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
Absolutely. We have nothing against public servants, but we believe that the pool of candidates should not be limited to them. Furthermore, it should be merit-based, whether we are talking about an official, a community worker, a lawyer or an academic. It should be completely based on merit and the people should be appointed by the commission itself.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
As it now stands, several provisions authorize the minister to regulate claimants' representatives and when a claimant can be represented during his application process.
However, there is nothing specific—in my view—which says that at any time in the process, a person can be represented by a lawyer, perhaps, at the very least accompanied and advised by a lawyer. I have not seen this in the act.
Do you share this concern? Do you think we should, to very clear, state in the act that, at any time, at any stage, a lawyer can accompany a claimant and provide advice?
4:25 p.m.
Program Coordinator, Action Réfugiés Montréal
It is clear that a lawyer should be present at every stage of the process. Currently, a lawyer is not always present at the airport interview, which takes place with an immigration official. It is clear that a lawyer should be present.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you.
That concludes our session with you. I'd like to thank you all for your contribution to the committee. Your remarks have been noted, and we thank you very much for coming. Thank you.
And thank you in Newfoundland.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative