Evidence of meeting #44 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 chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jennifer Irish  Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Matthew Oommen  Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Scott Nesbitt  Counsel, Canada Border Services Agency, Department of Justice
Nicole Lefebvre  Acting Director, Inland Enforcement, Programs Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
Allan Kagedan  Director, National Security Operations, Public Safety Canada

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

My colleague might think section 36 is balanced, but, based on procedural justice, it is actually not. We are talking about a right to appeal. The right makes it clear that it does not have to do with authorization or exclusive power, but that it is a right. With a procedural right, you cannot grant or deny a right willy-nilly.

On that note, as a member of the Barreau, let me remind you that all the stakeholders from the Canadian and Quebec bar associations have said and stressed that the right to appeal is fundamental. It is the audi alteram partem rule.

Furthermore, the Singh case points to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

And the right to appeal falls under fundamental justice.

Section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights says the following:

...no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to... deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;

Those texts did not fall out of the sky; they are Canada's legal reality. And I urge you to pass the amendment, which is consistent with those legal rules. The right to appeal is fundamental. It is an instrument that says that an individual has the right to a second chance if, during the first hearing, legal rules were violated, facts or evidence should not have been accepted, or new events have occurred and new evidence has come to light since the first hearing. That does not mean that a large trial would be held. It means that the individual has something to say that needs to be heard. Will that change the ruling? That will be up to the judge. But the person has that right. The whole Canadian law rests on audi alteram partem. We have the right to be heard.

I don't see why you are questioning something as fundamental as this principle. Our amendment is not going to revolutionize your bill or alter it significantly. It is simply going to take something out that should not be there in the first place. That is all.

Thank you.

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Madame Groguhé.

Noon

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Excuse me, Madame Groguhé.

Ms. James, on a point of order.

Noon

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

I'm just wondering if this clock is wrong or if my BlackBerry is wrong. I have another commitment right at 12 and this committee is supposed to end right at 12. So I just wanted clarification on that.

Thank you.

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

She won't be long.

Go ahead, Madame Groguhé.

Noon

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

We talked about fundamental rights and natural justice. The right to appeal falls under that. In fact, appeal is a right that allows judges to fix potential errors in decisions that affect the lives and rights of individuals. That is why it is important.

Refugee claimants in Canada appear before one single decision-maker, who has to determine whether they need Canada's protection or whether they are eligible for that protection. That decision rests with one single person, who decides the fate of an asylum seeker. Should an error occur at the eligibility stage, the asylum seeker will not be able to appeal on the merits of the decision.

But as we all know, it has been demonstrated that difficult decisions had to be made in immigration and that not all decision-makers make decisions in the same way. So some are in favour, some are not, and some can even be completely incompatible, because one or other decision-maker was subjective.

Actually, those rulings can sometimes be inconsistent. In addition, asylum seekers are often poorly represented and immigration decision-makers are not infallible.

The fact that there has been no appeal division until now is already a violation of the principle of the rule of law. Parliament passed a piece of legislation providing for an appeal division for asylum seekers on the merits of their case and it has not been implemented. That is also a violation of the rule of law to a certain extent. It is important that this amendment be passed.

Thank you.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

In answer to your question, Ms. James, it is 12:05 p.m. by the chairman's clock.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan wishes to speak, but we will come back. We still have to deal with NDP-16 and Ms. Sitsabaiesan will have the floor.

We will adjourn, and we will see you at 3:30 p.m.