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.
Liberal
Barrister and Solicitor, The Canadian Bar Association
I'd like to start off, if that's possible.
I think the concern with amendments or, at least, exceptions, is that there are going to be broad categories that are always going to fall outside of that. I referenced the minors—for example, that person who came to Canada as a child on vacation—because that one-year bar is tied to the initial entry. As an adult they're not going to be categorized as a minor if they're looking for an exception as an adult. The issue is that the entry is tied to the initial entry and not the most recent, so that, as a very broad amendment, would maybe address some of the concerns.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
You're suggesting having an amendment that says that the one-year time clock would start ticking as of the most recent entry.
Barrister and Solicitor, The Canadian Bar Association
If the one-year bar were to be retained, then I think that it would have to be, because otherwise it becomes even more arbitrary than it already appears to be at this time.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Certainly, and I appreciate, as I said, what you testified to in your opening remarks.
In terms of the change in country conditions, would you suggest that there would be amendments around the change in country conditions if it's fundamental to the claim? Maybe Mr. Wallace could answer.
Assistant Professor, Refugee Law Lab
I think that, of course, would be welcomed. One thing that is in my mind is that, once there are exceptions, they, in turn, become a site of potential litigation. There are, then, new risks that come with that approach, but I certainly think that a change in circumstances—
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I have a number of questions and I'm hoping to get through them in my three minutes.
In terms of moratoriums, we heard testimony that moratoriums pose a unique situation. My understanding is that, in the case of moratoriums, there's no PRRA, and, therefore, the whole PRRA safeguard is just not available. Would you recommend, when you're dealing with moratoriums on deportation, that they automatically go to the IRB in those instances?
Lawyer, Immigration, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
I would recommend that, yes.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Would you recommend, when it comes to the question of public interest and the opinion of the Governor in Council, that dossiers could be cast aside because of public interest concerns? We did hear from the minister; I'm sure that you looked at that testimony. The minister did say that, in very narrow circumstances, public interest would actually weigh in to enact that provision in the legislation. Would you say that there should be more precision on the notion of public interest? Is the notion of “public interest” defined in immigration law, as it relates to this legislation right now?
Barrister and Solicitor, The Canadian Bar Association
I don't believe that it is.
Moreover, I think that one of the examples of “in the public interest” was fraud. I wish that fraud could be that easily and categorically identified. Already we've seen from the CBC articles reporting how this might be used to deal with country-specific challenges.
For me, that immediately brings to mind whether or not we're going to have a section 15 issue with equality claims and profiling. Again, I worry about charter compliance.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
From what I'm gathering from your testimony, the public interest isn't defined in immigration law as it relates to this legislation, to your knowledge.
Would you suggest that it be defined in order to express the will of the minister, which is that it be in exceptional cases?
I'll leave that to you in the next 30 seconds.
Barrister and Solicitor, The Canadian Bar Association
In the situation of a pandemic, there can be a bright-line test, perhaps, and similarly in a declaration of war.
When it's not something that is a bright-line test, I agree with Dr. Wallace that this is the type of thing that will become subject to litigation.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I would invite you to submit any amendments on these subjects to us in writing.
Mr. Wallace, if you haven't yet submitted your work on the 40% of claims from the PRRA that go to judicial review, please do submit it to us.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Thank you so much.
Next we have Mr. Simard.
Mr. Simard, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Green, in your opening remarks, you said that Bill C‑12, in its current form, would severely limit the ability of two categories of asylum seekers to pursue a claim.
Can you elaborate on that so that we can better understand the limitations of the bill?
Lawyer, Immigration, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Do you want me to give you some examples?
Lawyer, Immigration, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Okay.
Say a woman from Haiti comes to Canada—her husband is in Canada and sponsors her—and is waiting for her permanent resident status.
IRCC's processing time for sponsorship applications is very long. Let's say this woman has been here for more than a year and is still waiting for an answer on her sponsorship application. Let's say she's been experiencing domestic violence since arriving in Canada and now wants to cancel her sponsorship application. She doesn't have the right to ask for Canada's protection, because she's from Haiti. She can't be sent back to her country, but the fact that she has a work permit in Canada is not enough. If her children are still in Haiti, she can't sponsor them.
In this example, the woman's personal circumstances have changed. She would not be entitled to Canada's protection.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Before Bill C‑12, she could have done this type of thing.
Is that correct?
Lawyer, Immigration, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Yes, that's correct.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
You gave us a scenario.
Do you know if IRCC conducted an impact assessment before the bill was tabled?
Lawyer, Immigration, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
Not to my knowledge.
Lawyer, Immigration, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
No, I haven't.