Evidence of meeting #35 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was detention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
A point of order, thank you, Mr. Karygiannis.
The line of questioning is really accusatory toward our guests, who are here by teleconference, asking them what their minister refers to different parts of.... I don't understand where that question is going.
Maybe you should have been tuning in, because you're not a regular member of this committee, so—
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
But I have to say “point of order” on this particular type of questioning. I don't think it's fair to the guests who are sitting here before us. We're asking about their immigration system and not specific terminology or words that someone may or may not have heard. I just don't understand where this line of questioning is going.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We'll wait and see. I think he's entitled to use those words.
Mr. Karygiannis, proceed.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Let me repeat that. Your minister hasn't used the words “smuggled migrants and bogus asylum claimants”?
Manager, Immigration Policy, Policy and Research Group, Department of Labour, New Zealand
I can't comment, sorry. I can't confirm or deny.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
But if a minister were to use those terms, you, as an individual, would be very upset, wouldn't you?
Manager, Immigration Policy, Policy and Research Group, Department of Labour, New Zealand
I don't think I can respond to this in this situation, I'm sorry.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
That's fine.
I want to thank you. You've been enlightening.
I've got to tell you that on our minister's website, the words “smuggled migrants and bogus asylum claimants” are used. It's a real shame.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure, again, where that line of questioning went, but I thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me an opportunity to finish my line of questions.
Previously, I'd spoken to you about your international obligations with regard to detention of up to six months. You were about to tell us whether you felt that met your international obligations. I know you say you are governed by the UN Convention and the Convention against Torture and so on.
Could you please comment on that, whether New Zealand is meeting its international obligations with this particular policy?
Thank you.
Manager, Immigration Policy, Policy and Research Group, Department of Labour, New Zealand
We are confident that we are. Fraser will speak to the compliance with our Bill of Rights Act.
Acting Director, Legal Business, Legal Group, Department of Labour, New Zealand
As the committee may or may not be aware, New Zealand has a Bill of Rights Act. It's not higher law, but all government bills are assessed against the Bill of Rights Act by another government department and by the crown law office.
One of the provisions of our Bill of Rights Act is that no one shall be subject to arbitrary detention. It has been found that our bill at this stage is compliant with our Bill of Rights Act in respect of arbitrary detention.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
I would like you to confirm that I heard you correctly. You mentioned that the point of detention is not to deter human smugglers but actually to give you the ability to find out who these people are.
Again, you've not had many instances of mass arrivals, but here in Canada, normally, the case is people arrive in large numbers and they don't have any documentation. Detention is necessary in order to find out who these people are. Is that the logic behind your reference to detention?
Manager, Immigration Policy, Policy and Research Group, Department of Labour, New Zealand
Yes.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
On just one more point, you mentioned that you give refugees a three-year work visa and then at that point they're reassessed. Is that a correct statement? Maybe I misheard you.
Manager, Immigration Policy, Policy and Research Group, Department of Labour, New Zealand
No, this is something that is proposed in this bill, only for people arriving by mass arrival by boat. What happens at present with people who claim and their identity cannot be established is that they are detained, generally in a low-security facility, which is a refugee specialist facility. At the point that their identity is ascertained, if they are deemed not to be a threat, then they will be granted a work visa and they can work or gain social security support.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
Did I hear you say that after three years they're reassessed? What does that mean?
Manager, Immigration Policy, Policy and Research Group, Department of Labour, New Zealand
No. That can happen before they are determined or after they are determined. At the point that they are determined, they can be granted permanent residence. They are permanent residents effectively immediately, or as soon as the paperwork is completed.
It's only for the mass arrivals. It's a power that's in reserve, which we hope we will never need to use. Those people would be temporary for three years and reassessed at that point.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Maybe I misheard you, but I heard something about if they're still found to be needing protection.... I'm not sure whether we're talking about mass arrivals or just refugees who come in through the normal process. Is it the normal process?
Manager, Immigration Policy, Policy and Research Group, Department of Labour, New Zealand
No. The normal process is that we assess their need for protection once and if they're found to need protection; then they move to permanent residence.
For these people under our mass arrival, we would assess them twice. If they were found to need protection at the first point....
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
What happens after three years if they're reassessed and they're found not to be needing protection anymore? I'm not sure if you answered that.
Manager, Immigration Policy, Policy and Research Group, Department of Labour, New Zealand
We would seek to return them to their country of origin in the same way as the person who is not found to need protection under our standard processes.