Evidence of meeting #21 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 process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
On the justice issue, as you know, we have a minority government, and if you look at the numbers--prior to Mr. St-Cyr leaving, but he'll be back--the Bloc, the New Democrats, and the Liberals have the majority on this committee. Judging from the questions you've heard, you can probably assume that the Bloc and the New Democrats will be willing to and will urge other MPs to delete the safe country designation, precisely because of the concerns of everyone.
The Canadian Council for Refugees and many other organizations have said that this is unfair, that it treats refugee claimants differently, especially women fearing domestic violence, and gays and lesbians who leave countries where being gay or lesbian is a crime sometimes punishable by death, that having this clause here is terrible.
Do you have a sense about whether the opposition parties have consensus that this section absolutely needs to be removed from Bill C-11?
6:45 p.m.
Centre justice et foi
Yes, as we have indicated in our brief, we think that part should be withdrawn. We do hope that committee members will follow that recommendation.
6:45 p.m.
Director, Centre justice et foi
We know that many people would not be living with us here, in Quebec or in the rest of Canada, if they had been subjected to that rule. In fact, a great number of people have been accepted despite the fact that they came from places that Canada could consider as designated countries, categories or even regions. For example, it could well be determined that some areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo are less at risk than the border regions, in particular, and therefore some of the most vulnerable people could be turned away.
We, along with many other groups, intend to ask members of all parties, especially those making up the majority, to withdraw that element from the bill at all costs.
6:45 p.m.
Director, Centre justice et foi
I hope it will be a unanimous choice, and that we will have convinced all members that the inclusion of that element in the bill is the worst of choices.
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Let me ask you about the PIF, the personal information form, and the procedure, which is the hearing. Right now there is an additional layer, which is the interview, and then there is the hearing. What if we removed the interview and asked the officers to explain the refugee law; explain that they need to go to people who are qualified as consultants and lawyers? They would give them basic information to prevent the claimants from believing the snake-oil salesmen out there so they would understand. Rather than doing an interview, just give them basic information upfront. That would skip four or five days. It wouldn't matter, because it's not an interview. Then we'd leave the PIF and the hearing for within 60 to 90 days.
Is that something you would be comfortable with? Do you think that would be easier, rather than having the interview--whether it's six, 12, 15, or 20 days--where people may not come to terms with their problems?
6:50 p.m.
Director, Centre justice et foi
I would simply invite you to consider the appendix to our brief, i.e., the last paragraph on page 13. One of the members of our committee used to be an IRB member. He points out the problem with the interview, as proposed in the bill. He says that it should be reduced to a minimum, and that the question should be as simple as possible so as not to impede the core of the processing procedure, which takes place at the hearing.
6:50 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
I'd like to make two points. First of all, there are many legal contracts in Canada, specifically employment contracts, where individuals must make a statement on the contract that they have had the opportunity to seek and obtain independent legal advice before they enter into the contract. We believe that for an individual who's making an application for refugee status, a similar statement should be built in. Whether that's explained to them after eight days or 30 days is irrelevant.
Secondly, we also believe that with the current system, when someone comes in and says they want to claim refugee status, they're locked into the system. Now all of a sudden the only choice is to withdraw the claim, in which case the person is removed. So it's like buying a lottery ticket. Even if the chance of winning is one in 38 million, like Lotto Max, they're going to stay with that chance until the draw is made.
What we think should happen is individuals who come and say they want to make a refugee claim should be given 30 days to consider whether they are really serious about it. If they say after 30 days that they have now sought and obtained professional advice on that issue, they should not be considered refugee claimants. They should actually be considered temporary residents. And if they remove or withdraw their claim, they're given possibly another 30 days to leave the country and they are not prohibited from returning. There's no black mark on their file. They might even find a job as a skilled worker when they're here, because they need one. They may even qualify for another immigration program.
We think we should put that time before the hearing to more efficient use, because that would eliminate a large number of claims that currently end up in the system because people have no other choice. I see this in my client base all the time. They ask, what chance do I have? If I tell them they have a 5% chance, they all believe that's better than nothing.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Chair, and I'd like to share my time with Mr. Calandra, if that's agreeable.
Mr. Mooney, thank you for being here today.
Ladies, thank you for being here today as well.
Under the proposed bill, Mr. Mooney, interviews for claimants who appear to be traumatized or vulnerable can be postponed. So if interviewing officers at the Immigration and Refugee Board have the flexibility to adjourn the interviews in that way, shouldn't a reformed system aim to have a decision on a claim as soon as possible in most cases where there's evidence of trauma or vulnerability?
6:50 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
I certainly agree with the idea of having a claim decided, or a hearing, within 60 days. And I think since that's the stake in the ground we've all set, we're talking now about nothing that delays the process, nothing that encourages people to stay here too long. We have that 60-day stake in the ground. Having a hearing after eight days.... I've heard from many of our clients and individuals that they can't find their way to the corner store in eight days.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
6:50 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
Even as an interview.... You're in front of a formal person. The last formal person they saw or the last person in authority may have been an individual who was persecuting them, and if these are CBSA officers, they're sitting in front of armed individuals. So I believe there's nothing to lose if we change the eight days to some time within the process and we redefine what that interview is about. I think the process doesn't suffer. The integrity doesn't suffer. Instead, we give them more information to make a better and more informed decision.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you.
We know that a lot of claimants suffer due to the uncertainty when decisions determining their status are delayed, sometimes for months. Aren't faster decisions generally better for claimants? Wouldn't this enable them to get on with their lives in more certainty?
6:50 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
I absolutely agree that a faster decision is of benefit to the claimant, because these are people's lives we're talking about. We work with these people every day. We see the stress they're going through while they're waiting for a decision. In the old days, sometimes not that long ago, some of these people were waiting three, four, or five years for decisions without a letter. The stress on their families.... Even though you say they're here, and aren't they lucky, they never know if the next day there will be a phone call saying they're going to have to leave.
I absolutely agree that faster decisions do two things. They certainly reduce stress on the applicants. They also send a huge signal back to countries where individuals are trying to take advantage of the system that it's not worth it, you can't get the money you paid to these vultures who are going to bring you here; you can't make that money back in this short period of time. And they'll move on to easier pickings.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you.
Should failed claimants be provided access to a multiple number of recourses that essentially serve to delay their removal and build their case to remain in Canada? Is that really fair?
6:55 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
I don't know about multiple courses.
6:55 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
We certainly have that now. Many individuals get on the legal treadmill with ever-increasing costs, so that after four or five years they've spent tens of thousands of dollars to try to stay in the country, when their claims were not good claims to begin with. I think if you do the first steps right you have all the time in the world for due process.
I believe due process means exactly that. We have to give them a fair enough chance to make sure their case is judged on its merits, given the fact of new evidence arising, and also to make sure they are not put in danger when they're sent back, if they have to be sent back.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
How many times does a case have to be judged on its merits? Right now it can go on for years and years, up to nine or ten years.
6:55 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
Yes, and often the reasons for those delays are not the individuals but the processes.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Sometimes the lawyers and the consultants cause the delays as well, right?
6:55 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
It depends on which part of the process. Judicial review is always done through lawyers. They're at the vulnerability of the court schedule. I believe we say in Canada that everyone has a right to judicial review, so they have it.
