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.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
An hon. member
So melodramatic
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Weston, the day I have melodrama, you will know it. You haven't seen melodrama until you've experienced it in my presence.
(On clause 28)
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-31 in clause 28 be amended by replacing line 8 on page 15 with the following:
who was 18 years of age and older on the day
(Amendment negatived)
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
New Democratic amendment 15.6 is a duplicate.
(Clauses 28 to 31 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 32)
Mr. Lamoureux.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, I'd like to quickly add some comments on clause 32. Why is this reporting mechanism that's being put in place forcing designated foreign nationals who receive refugee status to report to an officer, especially on conditions that are really not clear because they will only be known through regulations?
I wonder if the officials or the government representative will speak to what sorts of conditions are going to be imposed and the rationale behind making those refugee status reports. I'm a bit unclear on that point.
11:50 a.m.
Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The intent of the amendment is that for the five years between which one is a protected person until the time they can apply for permanent residency, there'll be a requirement that they periodically report to an officer. That period will be established in regulations as one year.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
What is expected of them to report? Is there any indication of that? What do you want to know?
11:50 a.m.
Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The intent of the report is mainly to determine that they are still at the address they filed when they received their protected person status. So it's in part just to keep track of their whereabouts in Canada, and that they have continued to reside at the address they have registered, to ensure accountability.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
So in essence we're going to say, “You're a refugee. You are allowed to leave the detention centre now, but we want to know where you are for the next year.” That is what we are looking at in terms of regulation, and they have to report where they are.
11:50 a.m.
Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The person is a protected person in Canada with status, and there will be a requirement that they report at the one-year interval.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Other refugees, normal refugees, wouldn't be required to report.
11:50 a.m.
Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Other protected persons would not be covered by the reporting requirement.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Okay.
It's one of the reasons we're not supporting it, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I guess it's too late to ask for a recorded vote. That's okay.
(Clause 32 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Clauses 33 to 35 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 36)
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Sims, on clause 36 you have amendment NDP-16.
You may address the committee.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
It's a fairly straightforward amendment and pretty much self-evident. Here, we are replacing line 9.
Just give me a moment to catch up with my paper. You're moving through this at a very good speed, Chair.
You see, if I praise the chair while I'm looking for my papers, he might even give me a minute to get there.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
This amendment actually expands the evidence that is admissible on appeal, from evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not have reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented at the time of rejection, to “additional evidence that was not before the decision-maker at the time” of the rejection of the claim. The latter is broader.
As I have people running around me, I'm wondering if I am on the right amendment. Is it 17? No? It's 16? I actually gave the wrong rationale. I do apologize.
Now, for the record, I have the right rationale. The amendment here reinserts access to RAD for all six decisions that are excluded, including RPD decisions, redesignated foreign national applications, a determination that a claim has been withdrawn or abandoned, and RPD decisions that the claim is rejected for being not credible or manifestly unfounded, on application by the minister, on the principle that an appeal is a necessary component of procedural justice.
In the years when I taught law classes—I'm not a lawyer—one of the things I used to say to students is that a critical part of our legal system is that it's not over until you've been through all the appeal processes. So the importance of appeal is really critical when you're looking at the rule of law and when you're looking at fair justice, because everybody should have the right to come and defend themselves and to present other information.
On Wednesday, May 2, at 3:46 p.m., Andrew Brouwer was actually very eloquent when he said:
A number of years ago some members of this committee may remember there was the case of Kevin Yourdkhani and his family.
I don't, by the way.
He said:
They were Iranians. They too had come from Iran to make a refugee claim. They failed, they were deported, and their documents were handed over, again, to the flight crew.
On arrival in Tehran, Iran, their documents were given to the authorities there. Both Majid and Mosomeh, husband and wife, were detained and tortured and abused for months—again, interrogated because they had made an asylum claim in Canada.
It really becomes critical that we give every opportunity for people to make their case in as fulsome a way as they can.
Thank you.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Is there further debate on amendment NDP-16?
Mr. Weston, and then Monsieur Giguère.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I just want to confirm that I recall that testimony very clearly. It's a haunting story.
It's indeed why we have to make sure that there are appeal procedures. This approach that is reflected in Bill C-31 does allow for internal review and at the same time accords the human rights that those who are legitimate applicants need, by speeding up the whole system. I acknowledge the concern raised by my colleague in that very haunting story and say that we have balanced those concerns against others in the bill.