Evidence of meeting #23 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chairman, in the second package of amendments, there was amendment BQ-3. I would like to withdraw it and instead submit amendment BQ-3.1.
The idea in fact is to ensure that the minister's ability to make regulations, which provide for who may or may not represent applicants, extends to all divisions of the Board and that includes the initial interview.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Debate?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to)
(On clause 11)
We're now on clause 11.
Ms. Chow.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
There is a group of recommendations, starting with NDP-5, that deal with interviews. The existing law--before Bill C-11--provides for personal information and allows the claimant to describe their own story. They can write their own narrative. This will be replaced by an interviewing process in Bill C-11. I was concerned that the interviewing process would be too rushed and there wouldn't be enough time for legal representation.
However, there are other amendments coming up that increase the first part of the time that will allow claimants to have legal counsel. I'm withdrawing all of my amendments that deal with the interview. There are a few of them. I'll go through them as they come up, but the first is NDP-5.
I have been assured that the interview process will not be harsh, since it will be done by Immigration and Refugee Board officials and staff and not through CBSA. So it will not necessarily be confrontational, and the applicant will have the capacity to get a copy of the tape, etc. So I have been assured that the process will be okay.
Conservative
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'm going to withdraw amendment BQ-4, since the government is proposing to set a minimum time period of 15 days in the act. The purpose of my motion was to establish a period of 28 days, but I am giving in to the government's wish, which was also agreed upon with the Liberal Party critic. So I'm going to withdraw amendment BQ-4.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I'm also going to withdraw amendment BQ-5. At the outset, I wanted us to consider the question whether the time period for the first hearing should be fixed under the act, but after considering the matter, I don't believe it is absolutely necessary to include that in the act. We can leave the possibility of determining that by regulation.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, if they have it, maybe it's understood, and we don't have to. Just a second. Does everybody have it? It's amendment G-1.1.
Ms. Chow, do you have it?
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I'll just move the amendment:
The date fixed for the interview must not be earlier than 15 days after the day on which the claim is referred, unless the claimant consents to an earlier date.