Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2019

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Mr. Tilson, please.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Well, you're quite blunt. I think both of you are saying that this piece of legislation is beyond help, that there's no room for amendments. You don't have any suggestions for amendments and you're simply telling members of Parliament to vote against it.

Would that be fair? I hope I haven't misconstrued what you've said.

Certainly, Ms. Sadrehashemi, lawyer Lobat, that seems to be your position.

[Lobat Sadrehashemi]

Our position is that we urge you to reject it and, if not reject it, at the very least ask for it to be separated out of the budget bill and put in a standalone bill to be properly debated.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The government won't do that.

Sir.

[Justin Mohammed]

Yes, that's correct. We think that the protections...and I'd like to reiterate some of the positions. We looked at the budget bill. Again, clause 306, the provision that we're looking at, says nothing about enhanced protections. This is a problem because it is beyond repair in that sense. There's nothing that would give an equivalent protection to the protections that are currently existing in the Immigration and Refugee Board. Those obligations that are there under the Immigration and Refugee Board are there for a reason. They're there to protect the rights of refugees.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Are there any other reforms with respect to the asylum claim system that you would recommend? In other words, I'm getting back to the question as to whether there should be any amendments made. You may have some other ideas as to what amendments could be made to this. You've told us to vote against it. I understand that; you couldn't be clearer. Do you have any other suggestions for reforms to Canada's asylum claim system, either one of you?

[Lobat Sadrehashemi]

Generally, our position is that these kinds of major legislative reforms to the asylum system shouldn't be done in a budget bill.

I would say that if we're going to be talking about all these protections that people are going to be given, then one would expect that those should at least be included. If you're going to pass an amendment based on the assurances that people will not be removed while they're judicially reviewing their decision or that everyone will get an oral hearing, then at the very least you would expect to see those as part of it.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

What about Amnesty, Justin?

[Justin Mohammed]

I have nothing further to add.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I have no other questions, Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Ms. Sadrehashemi, you're very clear. Both your presentations are very clear in regard to what's not in the bill. If there is nothing in this, if it's put into this omnibus bill in the manner that it has been, why do you suppose this was even put in the BIA?

[Lobat Sadrehashemi]

I can't speculate on that. I don't really have—

[Justin Mohammed]

I also wouldn't offer any speculation on that.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

It's curious that the timing is such that we have a month left in our session here and there's an election this fall. I'm wondering if you have comments on that.

There are a number of things that—as my colleague has pointed out—get into omnibus bills that maybe shouldn't be in them. One recent one called “deferred prosecution agreements” comes to my mind as well. I think that's been thrashed to death by everyone in the whole country for the last four or five months.

You mentioned as well that there's nothing about enhanced protection in clause 306. Can you expand on that?

[Lobat Sadrehashemi]

Clause 306 only provides for the creation of this new class of ineligible claimants. It says that somebody who has made a claim in a county that Canada has an information-sharing agreement with will now be ineligible. IRPA is the reason they would get access to the PRRA if they're ineligible. There's nothing changing the normal PRRA process in the budget bill.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

So there are areas there where perhaps amendments could be acceptable. When you were asked before if there was an amendment to be made, that might be one of the areas you could do something with. I would totally agree, though, that it probably should have been put forward as a separate bill in that area.

One of the comments was that basically we've lost our sovereignty by going this route. Is there any comment on that?

[Justin Mohammed]

The only additional comment I would offer on that is that the notion of relying on protection regimes in other countries is limited in the bill at this point to what many people refer to casually as the Five Eyes countries. Those are the countries with which Canada has signed an information-sharing agreement.

The issue is that the bill says nothing about the Five Eyes. It says nothing about the countries that I and others have listed here. It talks about countries with which Canada has signed an information-sharing agreement. There's no limitation on which other countries might sign such an agreement in the future. So parsing out Canada's international legal obligations to other countries—think what you will of the the four that are included in the information-sharing agreements as they exist now—is where the issue is. There's no discussion about the potential addition of other countries.

Then, just to reiterate, there is the problem of claims that exist in other countries. I've given the United States as an example here. There have been recommendations and responses that suggest that the United States is a country of the rule of law, where there is still a Congress that operates functionally. I would suggest to the committee that while the Congress or the judiciary of the United States may trim the excesses of the Trump administration as they relate to refugees and refugee protection claimants, those changes take time to take place. In the meantime, there are people who are impacted by these decisions right now.

The decision—

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Thank you, Mr. Mohammed.

We'll move on now to the next seven-minute round of questions, with Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm going to let Mr. Mohammed finish his thought, and then I have some questions.

[Justin Mohammed]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

The finality of that point is just to say that there are people who are impacted by this decision right now. Former attorney general Jeff Sessions' decision on A-B- that my colleague referred to stands right now. It applies to people right now, and until those excesses can be trimmed by Congress or the judiciary—if they are trimmed, and to the extent that they are trimmed—there are people who will be affected by those changes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

First off, I'd like to say thank you to Mr. Mohammed and Ms. Rubayika for presenting Amnesty International's position. After listening to Minister Blair today, I came away thinking, “Gee, has Amnesty changed their mind? Are they now in support of this provision?” So I'm really glad to hear the clear presentation from you in terms of where Amnesty stands.

On the issue around refugees and asylum seekers being faced with differential treatment here in Canada under these provisions—because that is what is before us at the moment—earlier today, UNHCR's representative argued that because the pre-removal risk assessment process is in place, and a person who is rejected under that process will have access to the Federal Court as an appeal mechanism, everything is fine. They will have fairness afforded them.

I'd like to get your comments on that. I'll start with Ms. Sadrehashemi, and then we'll go to you, Mr. Mohammed.

[Lobat Sadrehashemi]

A judicial review at Federal Court is totally different from an appeal at the refugee appeal division. Judicial review at Federal Court first has a leave requirement. You have to ask permission of the court to even hear your case. Also, it isn't a full appeal, so you can't present new evidence. It's not a full appeal on the merits. Even if you win at the Federal Court, they can only send it back. They don't have the power to say that you are a refugee, as the refugee appeal division does. They also, most times, are reviewing on a reasonableness standard. They're looking at whether or not the decision was reasonable, not whether it was correct, because they don't have the power to say that you are a refugee; that's not within their authority. So they're fundamentally different.

On top of that, people who are rejected from the PRRA don't get an automatic stay of removal while they're filing leave and judicial review at Federal Court. You cannot be removed when you appeal to the refugee appeal division, nor can you be removed when you judicially review a negative decision of the refugee appeal division to Federal Court.

What will be granted to these claimants is totally different. It's what is lost to these claimants, really.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Mohammed, do you have anything else to add to that?

[Justin Mohammed]

I have nothing further to add.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to touch on this notion. Somehow, the government and the minister impressed the point on us that there will be this enhanced process for PRRA, yet we don't know who is going to be doing it. They're in the hiring process, and they don't know what sort of training would be required. We actually don't have very much information about that.

More to the point, or equally important, is this: If they're going to make people go through that new enhanced process versus that of the IRB—and the official suggested that they were the same, all things being equal—why establish a new process? Why not go through the IRB, as it is established? That is a well-founded and well-respected independent process.

I wonder if anybody would like to jump in and comment on that.