Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 1st, 2010

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

So even if the board discovered six months after granting refugee status to person A that this person lied, the board could not rescind that decision. This would actually give the board that power to do so, right?

[John Butt]

No, I think you're mixing up two parts of the legislation. Today, if the minister were to identify that the person who had been granted refugee protection by the refugee protection division of the board had lied or misrepresented his case, the minister would have to apply to the board for a vacation of that determination.

In the future, with these changes, if the board granted protection to a person under this new process--the process that is being transferred to them--and misrepresentation was identified, then the process would be for the minister to go to the board and ask for the board to reconsider the case and vacate the original decision.

So it's making a parallel move. It doesn't change anything with respect to the current jurisdiction of the board with respect to refugee claims. These are only with respect to--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

The people who lied.

[John Butt]

--applications for protection.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Finally understood.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Chow.

Now, I have Monsieur St-Cyr on the list, and I understood from the committee's instructions that after the first hour--after Monsieur St-Cyr speaks--we would then get into the transition from the old to the new.

Is that my understanding?

Monsieur St-Cyr, and then Ms. Chow.

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

I believe we are making progress.

I have a question about amendment G-6, at page 35, where paragraph 169(c) of the Act, relating to provisions applying to decisions, is being replaced. It states that “the decision may be rendered orally or in writing, except for a decision of the Refugee Protection Division... which must be rendered in writing”. According to the amendment, “the decision may be rendered orally or in writing, except for a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in respect of an application for protection under subsection 112(1), which must be rendered in writing”. This is the PRRA.

If I am not mistaken, this adds the obligation to render in writing the decisions relating to PRRA, but it removes the obligation to render in writing the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Division. Is that really the change? If so, why would you remove the obligation to render in writing the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Division?

[John Butt]

Paragraph 169(c) is amended in Bill C-11 to provide that decisions of the refugee appeal division may be issued either orally or in writing. At the end of a hearing, if a hearing is called for under the legislation, there could be an oral decision, or the member, if he needed time to formulate his thoughts, could adjourn the process and issue a decision in writing. The change with respect to the decisions of the refugee protection division on these applications for protection, these pre-removal risk assessment applications, is to retain the current practice of the minister and the department, which is to reduce all of these decisions to writing and have them delivered to the individual in person.

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

I understand that you want to do this for consistency with what is already in Bill C-11 and that there should be no link with the addition of the obligation to render in writing the decisions relating to PRRA.

However, I would like to know why, in Bill C-11, you remove the obligation to render in writing the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Division. Is it a matter of policy?

[John Butt]

You refer to “rare” circumstances. I'm not sure that I understand what “rare” means.

Maybe that's a translation issue.

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

PRRA, the pre-removal risk assessment.

[John Butt]

Okay. I understand.

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

You add the obligation to render in writing the decisions relating to the pre-removal risk assessment. However, you maintain the removal of the obligation to render in writing the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Division. I understand that this was already in Bill C-11, but how, in terms of policy, do you justify the removal of the obligation to render in writing the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Division?

[John Butt]

Pre-removal risk assessment applications are made in the context of a removal process that has already commenced. The Canada Border Services Agency has made certain arrangements for the potential removal of the person, subject to the outcome of the application. It is simply a matter of keeping the process as streamlined as possible. Instead of having oral hearings in these cases, which would be exceptional, I would think, and/or delivering decisions orally in some other way, the practice will be to continue that and have the decisions transmitted to the person at an interview with the Canada Border Services Agency, as is the practice today on decisions by delegates of a minister.

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

I said I understand that. I want to know why we do not require that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Division be rendered in writing. From your answer, I seem to understand that it is because the Refugee Appeals Division will now be able to hold hearings and that it will not anymore have to put its decisions in writing. Is that the reason?

[John Butt]

The original change proposed in Bill C-11 was to grant the refugee appeal division the option of issuing oral decisions at the end of the hearing. It added that; it does not take it away with this amendment. It continues to have that option. But for pre-removal risk assessment applications, the current practice of delivering written decisions through Canada Border Services Agency is intended to be retained.

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

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I see; so it's just adding that if they're doing a PRRA, it needs to be done in writing. It would be done through IRB, not CBSA, right?

[John Butt]

The decision will be made by a member of the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. It will be done in writing and it will be delivered through Canada Border Services Agency, as are decisions of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration today.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Right. I see.

It wouldn't be the same officer, I imagine, who'd made the decision to turn the person down.

[John Butt]

Are you asking if it is possible for a person to have made a claim before the refugee protection division and then subsequently make a pre-removal risk assessment and you want to be assured that it would not be the same member who makes the second decision?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

That's right.

[John Butt]

I think it would be highly unlikely that it would be a permissible process under basic procedural fairness. There will be many members of the refugee protection division, and assigning the pre-removal risk assessment to a new member should not pose any problem to the board in any location.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

So for pages 24, 25, 26, 28, and 29, all of that, really it's to move CIC to IRB, right? G-3 and G-4 both do that.

Am I correct? I just want to be 100% sure here.