Evidence of meeting #158 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Is it going to be a hearing? Or is it an interview? There's a substantive difference between a hearing versus an interview. What you're talking about right now in that process is an interview with officials. Is that not correct?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bill Blair Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
We'll give you an absolutely clear answer.
Paul, could you clarify exactly how the PRRA will work?
May 7th, 2019 / 3:50 p.m.
Paul MacKinnon Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes. I think “hearing” is the correct term, Mr. Chair. I would also state that at the hearing—
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'm sorry. Who are the officials who will be conducting these hearings? Will it be IRCC officials?
3:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Officials of IRCC.
3:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Chair, these are individuals who are trained to make a determination about refugee status similar to the way the IRB members are trained. They are looking at the very same issues. They are looking at the refugee convention and at the convention against torture.
These are independent. They're not taking direction from any of us at the table. They are unfettered in their decision-making and have years of experience doing this work.
3:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
IRCC is funded to handle, what we assess will be, approximately—we'll check the figure exactly, Mr. Chair—about 3,500, which is what we expected, if this had applied, would have gone through this new system over the last couple of years.
We are funded for that in budget 2019.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
You are funded for 3,500. It is anticipated that there will be 50,000 applications that will come through.
The minister just said that everyone will have access to this hearing, so then you're short 15,000—
3:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's important to remember, Mr. Chair, that this is about individuals who have made a claim in another country such as the U.S.
It's not the complete cohort of 50,000. The vast majority of folks are going to the IRB.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bill Blair Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
To be clear, we're not changing the process of the PRRA for those who have had an asylum claim that was deemed to be ineligible. We're not changing it for those who have never made an asylum claim and are engaged in the removal process.
We are adding this for those individuals who have made a claim previously in a second country, a safe country, who would not therefore be eligible under these rules for referral to IRB. They will have the benefit of this enhanced PRRA.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
The government's own 2016 review states that “One of the key findings from the previous evaluation was that the program”—the program they refer to is the pre-removal risk assessment program—“had evolved from its original intent of providing a 'safety net' for migrants requiring removal, to providing failed asylum seekers one more step in the asylum system, evolving into a de facto appeal mechanism.”
Isn't that what you're doing with this process, turning the pre-removal risk assessment process into basically a de facto appeal process?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bill Blair Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
For those individuals who perhaps—and we can personalize it—have been in the United States and had previously made a claim in the United States, who then come to Canada and attempt to make a second claim, they will not be eligible for referral to IRB. However, they can't be returned to the United States. They would be returned to their source country.
Before that takes place, they will now have the benefit of a pre-removal risk assessment, which is in fact a hearing, in which they have legal counsel and which will be subject then to judicial review by a federal court. That is in order to ensure that those individuals have protection. We don't want to remove somebody to a dangerous and risky situation.
The pre-removal risk assessment for those individuals, because of the circumstances under which they are not eligible for the IRB, we think is an appropriate level of protection for them.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Okay, I won't debate the issue; I just want to get answers to some of these questions.
As the pre-removal risk assessment is only available if you're at risk of being removed, what happens to individuals who are from a country of origin that Canada has a temporary suspension removal or administrative deferral of removal with at this time? Those are the countries that are deemed to be too unsafe to deport anyone to.
What happens to them?
3:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Chair, they would remain in Canada, just as if they had gone to the IRB and that referral was in place.
We're not going to remove anybody to a country—
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Sorry, but they're not allowed to go to the IRB.
If they have crossed over irregularly from the U.S., let's say, and they've already made a claim in the U.S., they are prevented under this bill from making an asylum claim here in Canada.
3:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I was trying to say that it's a comparable process.
If they go through this new process and there is a removal order in place, after the hearing is heard, the government would not remove somebody to a country where there was a removal order in place.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Are you saying that those individuals will then be referred to this pre-removal risk assessment process, and then, if it's determined that the country is not safe—it is apparently on Canada's list of countries that are not safe...? Why are we referring them to a hearing when we already know that country is not safe? Isn't that a duplication of service?
Actually, just on that point, we have a report from the Auditor General telling us about the significant problem within the government on duplication. You could have someone asking for—
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Acting Chair Liberal Nick Whalen
You might get back to that in your final three minutes, Ms. Kwan.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Acting Chair Liberal Nick Whalen
We may get back to that in your final three minutes, but you're at seven minutes already.