Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 11th, 2010

[Richard Goldman]

Yes, at least in my opinion and in the opinion of many others. This is a part of the system that doesn't seem particularly problematic: 28 days is a reasonable time. You fill out a form. Some people do have trouble even with the 28 days, let alone the eight, but it seems to be working fairly well. It's hard to see how sitting down with somebody after just eight days, without a clear purpose, is going to speed up things. Basically it's just adding a procedure that doesn't exist already. It's adding a new procedure, whereas the government says the bill is to streamline procedures. We find that baffling.

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

Should people be able to use the facts and figures that they used on their application for refugee status for H and C when they apply later on or simultaneously? Should they be allowed to use things that they've said?

[Richard Goldman]

Yes.

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

Right now the proposal is that whatever you do with your refugee claim, you can't use the same statements and the same facts when you're applying for H and C.

[Richard Goldman]

We find that equally baffling. The idea that you could not include what we call section 96 or section 97 factors--in other words, the refugee definition, section 96 of the law, or cruel and unusual punishment or torture, section 97--that you could not invoke them on an H and C, we just cannot understand that at all.

As was pointed out in much greater length in the brief of the Canadian Council for Refugees, the dividing line between, say, discrimination, which is a hardship, and persecution is almost impossible to draw. We just cannot see how in practice you can have an H and C in which you can't talk about factors that could also be considered persecution or risk to life. We just don't understand what this bill is getting at with that.

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

Right now, before you're removed, you're able to get another kick at the can and do what's called a pre-removal risk assessment, PRRA. In your understanding, is Bill C-11 supposed to do away with the PRRA?

[Richard Goldman]

Bill C-11, as it's drafted, would do away with the PRRA for just about all refused claimants except those who were not removed within 12 months. But obviously the intention is to remove people within 12 months.

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

So somebody who comes over, claims refugee status, and things in their country of origin are even getting worse... Although the information we have, let's say, on January 1, 2010, by the time they're removed January 31, 2011, could have changed, we cannot take that into consideration. The changes where they're coming from...we will not be able to take those into consideration under the new proposal.

[Richard Goldman]

That's our understanding. There would be no mechanism for considering change of circumstances.

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

Does that worry you? Does that ring any alarm bells?

[Richard Goldman]

Absolutely. It's very frightening that there could be a major change in circumstances and no mechanism in place to take that into account.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Goldman.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you for being here today.

I would like to come back to the issue of the interview that you raised, Ms. Côté. I will admit that we have not discussed this much here at the committee. It is interesting. The government presented this as an advantage for the claimants, because filling out the forms is not always easy, people are not always comfortable with writing, etc. There was talk of having them sit through an interview with a specialist who could assist them and point them in the right direction.

Am I to understand that you do not necessarily support this point of view and that you would prefer to keep the current form, that is to say the written form?

[Maude Côté]

Precisely. You are talking about a specialist responsible for assisting claimants. In my opinion, this is the lawyer's role. He is the one who is a specialist in refugees' rights. There is a kind of void. We do not know in what context the interview will be held, and what questions it will include. It is as though you were going to fish information out of a box. One would have to know whether or not this information would be relevant. People are traumatized when they arrive, they are very fragile. They do not trust the authorities and they do not know how to answer the questions. It is important that they receive the services and the assistance to which they have the right in order to be able to answer important questions that will decide their fate.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

In short, you are suggesting that we withdraw the interview and that we keep the personal information form. As far as timeframes are concerned, there is currently nothing indicated in the act. It is in the regulations. They talk about one week.

Do you think that the legislation should include a minimum timeframe, so that people could have a certain number of days, at least if they request it? What should the timeframe be?

[Maude Côté]

Perhaps my colleague could answer.

[Richard Goldman]

A 28-day period seems reasonable to us, as I mentioned earlier. From my experience, it does not suit everyone but it is nevertheless reasonable. We cannot understand what was behind the idea of one week. As far as the hearing is concerned, I think that some people are ready within 60 days and have no problem moving forward.

However, others require medical or psychological expertise, documents coming from their own country, etc. If they are not ready within 60 days, why bother setting a hearing date in order to then ask for an adjournment? It is a waste of time. We should proceed when they are ready to do so.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

If we were to establish another timeframe, for example 120 days, as some other organizations who appeared before you suggested, do you feel that would be more reasonable?

[Richard Goldman]

As a starting point, by default, yes. I think that most claimants and rights advocate groups would be very satisfied with such a timeframe. We know some Haitians, for example, who wait two years before getting a hearing, whereas their family is in the street in Port-au-Prince. A four-month timeframe would be reasonable, but on condition that an extension could be requested if someone is awaiting expert advice, in particular.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

There is no timeframe within the legislation currently. That is entirely in the regulations. But if we don't include one, the current minister, or a future one could decide, through regulation, to set any timeframe. That is the case with the current 28-day timeframe. That is what concerns me.

Do you share this concern? Do you believe that the committee should put minimum timeframes into the legislation during which people could ask for recourse? If they want to move more quickly, of course, that is all very well.

[Richard Goldman]

It is not a bad idea, but at the end of the day, if the resources are not available, it will be a phantom timeframe.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

You spoke earlier about the multiplication of levels, as far as the interview is concerned. From your understanding of the bill as presented, is the interview in addition to the PIF, that is the individualized form, or does it replace it?

[Richard Goldman]

It is not clear to me. I don't know if that was clarified before the committee—

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I was counting on you to do so.