Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 1st, 2010

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

I don't quite understand what's the difference. So if the board can make the decision, if the board feels that in this case this person being deported—assuming he's not lying—obviously shouldn't be deported back to Burma... If the board can make the decision, even though perhaps this person is normally not admissible but cannot be deported, then this amendment will allow the board to make that decision rather than the minister to make that decision?

[John Butt]

No. The board's jurisdiction is limited to those cases that are not described in subsection 112(3) of the act.

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

I understand that.

[John Butt]

The example you're giving is one where the person is inadmissible on serious criminality, human rights violations, etc.—

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

An army general from India.

[John Butt]

—so the board, on a pre-removal risk assessment application, does not have jurisdiction. That jurisdiction remains with the minister. If the minister is misled by the person's information—fraud or misrepresentation—then the minister retains with respect to those cases the authority to vacate his or her decision.

For the other cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board, it is the board's jurisdiction to deal with the fraud or misrepresentation, and there are provisions in the act for vacating the granting of refugee protection to persons who misrepresent themselves before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

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

So this amendment gives the minister the power to do so.

[John Butt]

This amendment retains the same power for the minister, with respect to the minister's decisions, as the minister has now. What the overall changes to the legislation would do, in these motions, would be to take away from the minister the authority to make decisions on applications for protection for those persons who are not described in subsection 112(3).

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

You have three double negatives in there. I don't quite understand it.

Am I the only one missing it?

So this G-5: you're adding a new clause.

[John Butt]

No, we're not.

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

You're amending--

[John Butt]

We're modifying an existing clause to make it more restrictive with respect to the jurisdiction of the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The word “replaced” is there.

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

We're talking about amendment G-5, right?

[John Butt]

Yes.

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

It says that “Bill C-11 be amended by adding after line 35 on page 8 the following new clause”.

Oh, I see; subsection 114(3) is “replaced” by what follows.

[John Butt]

Yes.

Basically, the only words that change are, “In the case of an applicant described in subsection 112(3)”, which is added to subsection 114(3) so as to restrict in the future the minister's authority to vacate to those cases where the minister has authority to grant a stay of removal.

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

And the reason you want to do this is...?

[John Butt]

Basically it's to allow the board to deal with granting of protection in other cases and for the board to deal with vacation of the granting of refugee protection as appropriate. They would deal with all of those types of cases. The minister's jurisdiction is restricted to those cases under subsection 112(3).

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

Right now, the board doesn't have that power.

[John Butt]

That's right. Today the minister makes all of those decisions to grant protection, and therefore all of those decisions to vacate.

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

So really it is to transfer some of what the minister's doing now to the board so that the board can then seize it and not have the minister do that. You're giving it to the board. IRB will be able to be in charge of that and make these decisions instead of the minister having to do so.

[John Butt]

The board will make decisions on the vast majority of applications for protection, and the board will deal with vacation of any decisions they would make with respect to those applications.

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

And the board has no power to do so at this point.

[John Butt]

Today, no, the board doesn't have that particular power. It's a power that's retained by the minister for all of these applications.