Evidence of meeting #11 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was claim.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Assistant Professor, Refugee Law Lab
I expect that there will be constitutional challenges, that somewhere along the way a client will instruct their lawyer—
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
There are huge powers in here of mass cancellations and all kind of things. If it's not going to pass a court challenge, literally what the government is doing is leaving its policies to be made by the Supreme Court, potentially. We've seen that happen as recently as this week.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Absolutely.
Ms. Okun-Nachoff, I wanted to reiterate your testimony a little. Would you recommend amending the mass cancellation provisions in Bill C-12 to include parliamentary oversight requirements, for example, something like a requirement to post the intent to use the provisions with sufficient details and a requirement for committee study?
Barrister and Solicitor, The Canadian Bar Association
Yes, absolutely.
I also question why this would be something accomplished through order in council. I think the regular regulatory process, which at times even includes a regulatory impact analysis statement, does help inform committee study.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you. That's very informative, very helpful.
Dr. Wallace, do you believe that the IRB offers a more comprehensive and accurate review of claims than PRRAs?
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
What procedural safeguards do you see being stripped away that are available in the full IRB hearing compared to PRRAs?
Assistant Professor, Refugee Law Lab
A long list. The big one is the right to an oral hearing, which is something you presumptively get at the RPD. The IRB also has a robust infrastructure to support decision-making. You heard this morning about training. You heard about the research directorate, legal services and mentorship. The IRB's sole job is to make well-reasoned decisions. The IRCC has many jobs. My view is that if you give someone a specialized job function, they can specialize well in it.
Conservative
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
—do you agree that shifting the responsibility for complex decisions of the IRB to a system with obviously fewer procedural safeguards, as you have just agreed to, will inevitably result in an increase in applications for judicial review at the Federal Court?
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Potentially, we could be clogging up our courts. There are hundreds of thousands of these applications out there.
The legislation will inevitably lead to an increased burden on the Federal Court of Canada, of course, but have you estimated the increased costs associated with this in any way?
Assistant Professor, Refugee Law Lab
It's very difficult because there are so many variables I can't control for, and I didn't want to predict.
One thing that I will say is that I would expect that this will show up in legal aid budgets. If we're also seeing more judicial reviews, those are inevitably more expensive, and I would expect some materialization there.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Given the fact that the Federal Court system is already inundated, it can take months or even years. Does this not lead to a net increase in the total time an asylum claim can take?
Assistant Professor, Refugee Law Lab
It could, and I would say that, when you have a backlog at the Federal Court, it has downstream consequences throughout the entire judicial system, impacting other areas of law, not just immigration law, and—
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I'm sorry, but in the last 30 seconds, I have a question for all four of you. Do all four of you think that this can be challenged in court or will be?
Lawyer, Immigration, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Yes.
Conservative
Barrister and Solicitor, The Canadian Bar Association
There are numerous provisions. There's vague language. It's overbroad. There are constitutional concerns about section 15. There are a lot of reasons that it would be challenged.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Thank you.
Our next questioner will be Mr. Zuberi for six minutes.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thanks to the witnesses for being here. I have a number of questions, and what I'm looking for are some suggestions for potential amendments to this legislation. I do appreciate your testimony fully, but that's how I'll frame my questions.
You testified about some challenges in relation to the one-year...and two points came out. One is the change in country conditions, which would make a material difference in terms of the decision related to an applicant; and, two, you mentioned minors and vulnerable claimants, trauma, and why, sometimes and in some instances, the one year wouldn't be sufficient. Do you have any suggested amendments you can provide for this one-year provision, keeping in mind these two concerns you brought forth?