All right.
Evidence of meeting #20 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 appeal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #20 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 appeal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Thibault, what are your thoughts on humanitarian consideration? Is it necessary to ensure access to remedies?
7:35 p.m.
Coordinator, Projet Refuge Program, Montreal City Mission
We have seen people who were accepted based on humanitarian grounds. They are people who probably would have been accepted if there had been an appeal.
7:35 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Thibault, we discussed the initial time frame for the interview. We discussed the current 28-day period. Most of the groups and individuals who have appeared before us have said that keeping the 28 days would be more appropriate.
The maximum amount of time can be requested if necessary. We all understand that if people want to, they can speed up the process, all the better for them, but that time frame will be left for those who need it. A number of groups have recommended that we allow up to a maximum of 120 days for the first hearing.
Do you think that would be an adequate time frame for a hearing before the board? If not, what would you suggest?
7:35 p.m.
Coordinator, Projet Refuge Program, Montreal City Mission
Two months is too short. For some people, two months is not enough time to gather all the identification documents required for a board member to grant them protection.
I, too, have accompanied a lot of people to the Immigration and Refugee Board, and the matter of the person's identity is of the utmost importance to the member. If the member is not convinced that the person before them is indeed Joe Smith, even though he may believe the claimant's story, even if all those elements are in place to give the claimant protection, the member cannot grant the person refugee status and will deny the claim. For some people, two months is much too short. I would worry that some people's claims would be denied because of that.
Therefore, I think 120 days is much more reasonable, especially given the current time frame of 18 months, even longer in some cases. So I think 120 days is reasonable.
7:35 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I want to come back to the matter of the interview. The government has often presented this approach as more pleasant for the claimant because it involves human contact; the person tells their story and, as a result, does not have to fill out all kinds of forms. But other groups have told us that the interview is more intimidating than filling out the form with their counsellor.
Do you have a preference when it comes to how information is initially gathered?
7:40 p.m.
Coordinator, Projet Refuge Program, Montreal City Mission
My understanding is that the interview within eight days is done in a single step. The meeting happens Tuesday afternoon, and it ends there. It lasts an hour, an hour and a half or however long, but with the form, the deadline can be up to 28 days. I know certain lawyers who meet with the person two or three times, or even more. Certain pieces of information are missed at the first meeting. The person's story unfolds as they recover.
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
So you would prefer to keep the written format rather than opting for the interview.
7:40 p.m.
Member of the Ontario Sanctuary Coalition, Founder of the Romero House for Refugees, As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, may I—
7:40 p.m.
Coordinator, Projet Refuge Program, Montreal City Mission
Well, if an interview were used, I would want it to be recorded and a verbatim record to be given to all three parties: the interviewer would keep a copy for the government, the claimant would keep a copy for themselves and the decision-maker could also receive a copy.
After having accompanied claimants to the initial interview, known as the eligibility interview....
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
7:40 p.m.
Coordinator, Projet Refuge Program, Montreal City Mission
The eligibility interview should, in theory, take place in a neutral setting, but that is not what I have seen. I am concerned that the same thing would happen with the information-gathering interview. The official gathering the information can be subjective, can omit something or can cut the person off and not give them an opportunity to qualify their answers.
That interview is somewhat worrisome to me, because, as I said earlier, anything a claimant says to an immigration official can have an impact on the claimant's case at the next stage. So that is my fear.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
7:40 p.m.
Member of the Ontario Sanctuary Coalition, Founder of the Romero House for Refugees, As an Individual
I believe that this initial interview is very much like the port-of-entry interviews that I've been part of several times. There are very serious problems there, first with the competence of the officers. When we check the port-of-entry notes that the officers make from interviews, very often they have mixed up the acronyms of political parties, mixed up the background questions of a country. Given the present state of incompetence at the level of the civil service, to rely on their interview and their notes, which are often mis-translated, would be a very serious injustice, and it is of great concern to us. To have the claimant's story written down in their own words as a matter of record is a fundamental fairness.
7:40 p.m.
Manager, Family and Children Services, Special Projects, Calgary Catholic Immigration Society
I have a very short comment.
First of all, I've seen the eligibility interviews go on for 14 hours on occasion. If we're going to be talking about telling your story, expecting people who perhaps have been tortured, who perhaps have been sexually assaulted, who perhaps are being detained in a prison, to disclose sensitive information and traumatic information about themselves to an official of the Canadian government, I'm profoundly worried about the outcomes of those kinds of interviews.
The nice thing about the personal information form is that you can take your time to fill it out carefully, to think about things. It's neutral; you're not looking somebody in the eye when you're talking about having been raped. I'm worried about those interviews.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Bray, Ms. Chow is going to ask you some questions, but before she does, I want to know, is that a hockey sweater on the wall behind you?
7:40 p.m.
Manager, Family and Children Services, Special Projects, Calgary Catholic Immigration Society
It is, actually. It is a hockey sweater.
7:40 p.m.
Manager, Family and Children Services, Special Projects, Calgary Catholic Immigration Society
I don't know who it is.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I should raise a point of order, Mr. Chair, because that's annoying. I'm from Montreal. We're keeping Cammalleri.