Evidence of meeting #22 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 board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
All right.
This is in terms of the refugee appeal division and what gets to be considered. I'm looking at page 7, at clause 13.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Yes.
I'm looking at the top of page 7, at proposed subsection 110(4).
In these two categories, it says what information can be presented at the appeal division. Why can't we just have something really straightforward--i.e., on appeal, the person who is the subject of the appeal may present additional evidence? Why all that complication?
5:05 p.m.
Manager, Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The intent of these provisions is to encourage the refugee protection claimant to present all of their case, all of the evidence, with respect to their need for protection at the refugee protection division, not to hold anything back, so that--
5:05 p.m.
Manager, Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm told that sometimes they do. I don't know how often. I'm not the board, but I'm told that sometimes the information is incomplete. It's through the failure of the person...or the thought that the person may have that if you hold this piece of information back, maybe it leads to some questions about their exclusion. They say, “Well, I'd rather not put that in here now. I'll save that for later.” We're saying in that situation, you don't bring it up later; you don't have that opportunity to bring up facts that are questionable in terms of the impact they may have. They may increase the likelihood that you're at risk but create a possibility that you might be excluded. So you say, “Well, let's see what the RPD does with the rest of the information. I'll hold this back. If worst comes to worst, I can always bring it to the refugee appeal division.” We don't want that kind of thing happening.
You were talking about examples from Burma, where people were involved in activities that were of questionable intent and impact. The person might say, “Well, I'll just say that I'm a member of the Aung San Suu Kyi movement and I won't mention all of those other things, because they might not like to hear about that. I can always bring it to the RAD later.”
So the idea is to say, no, bring it all to the refugee protection division, and if you don't bring it to the refugee protection division in the first instance, you're not going to have an opportunity later to supplement your case with evidence that you could have presented.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
But that wouldn't be...I shouldn't use the word “fair” again. Sometimes they would have other evidence that would take extra effort to get, maybe because it costs lots of money to get it, it takes time to translate, it might put family members at risk, or they have to admit that they are involved in a same-sex relationship. There may be any number of reasons why they just don't have that information at the time of the hearing.
I'm sure they want to put everything at the hearing to get the best situation, to get a yes. Why would they hold anything back?
But let's assume that they get some additional information: if they can't present it, that wouldn't make sense. It says here they can only present evidence that's “reasonably available”, or “expected in the circumstances to have presented”, and so on. Isn't that a difficult...?
You're actually saying that even though they may get evidence later--for whatever reason--they can't present it? Why do that? What kind of evidence do you have that people hide their torture information so that they wouldn't present it at the first hearing?
5:05 p.m.
Manager, Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The provision in proposed subsection 110(4) provides for three different scenarios in which evidence can be presented to the refugee appeal division that was not presented to the refugee protection division.
The first, of course, is evidence that arose only after the rejection of their claim. So if a person becomes aware of events in their country only after the claim has been heard, no problem; they can present that evidence.
If it's evidence that was not reasonably available--if the person did not know about the event that happened in his country because he'd been out of the country for many years--then, again, there's the opportunity to bring that evidence forward.
And the third is the scenario that I think you've been alluding to, which is evidence that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented. That's a judgment call by the refugee appeal division. The person can make their case to the refugee appeal division member as to why it was not reasonable in the circumstances for them to have presented the particular evidence.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
What if they don't have the money, if they said, “I just don't have the money”? Or what if they said, “It would cause my family great hardship--they would be subject to a jail sentence--if I were to tell this”?
5:10 p.m.
Manager, Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Those are factors that the refugee appeal division member would have to take into account.
You and I may have differing views with respect to those two different scenarios. Cost may be less clear-cut than the latter; if the person can demonstrate the risk to their family had they moved too quickly with respect to that evidence, then the member has the authority to say, yes, I understand; that's reasonable under the circumstances; you can present that evidence.
If it's a case of not having the money, not having the money may be a question of “I didn't want to spend the money”. Those are issues that the refugee appeal division member would have to take into account and weigh and reach a decision.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Chow, the bells are going to ring in less than five minutes, so unless it's very quick--
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I hope you will, because I want to say something to the committee. But you go right ahead. If it's very quick, you go ahead.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Okay.
If they can't present the evidence even though the evidence is relevant to the case, and it's subjective whether they are able to present it, then wouldn't that discriminate against those who have serious problems--i.e., financial, or the family could be in trouble, or the partner in a same-sex relationship could get in trouble?
So why not consider that evidence? I don't quite understand that.
5:10 p.m.
Manager, Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I think what you're saying is that the refugee appeal division member will have the jurisdiction to assess those explanations and determine whether the evidence ought to be considered. If the refugee appeal division member errs in terms of making a reasonable decision on whether that evidence should have been heard, it's subject to judicial review in the Federal Court. So any errors of that sort can be corrected on judicial review.
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Manager, Refugee Legal Team, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'll just very quickly add that with regard to the notions of relevance and reasonableness, there is a subjective element to them. To say if it's relevant or reasonable--it's not that clean a line.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Ms. Chow.
Before I adjourn the proceedings, I'm going to ask if the three critics and the parliamentary secretary, and Mr. Ross, would come to the front of the room. I'd like to speak to them as soon as we're adjourned.
This meeting is adjourned until Thursday at 3:30 at the Queen Street committee room.