Citizenship and Immigration committee  Any representation that the member of Parliament wants to make will have to be made through the person or through the person's counsel. Today, I understand that members of Parliament will be in touch with the PRRA office, but they do not speak directly with the individual decision-makers on cases.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  There won't be anything specific in the legislation with respect to that, but certainly any information that's pertinent to the decision to be made can be put before the decision-maker. However, it has to be done in a way that does not unduly influence the quasi-judicial nature of the member's decision.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think for that level of detail you'd have to ask the Immigration and Refugee Board about how their procedures will work. There will be rules governing the applications for protection, the pre-removal risk assessment applications.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  There will be rules governing the procedures in more detail, and I'm sure you can raise questions with the board about how those issues can be resolved in the rules of the board.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That is a general provision.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes. This is part of the package of amendments that go to moving the pre-removal risk assessment process from the department to the board. It basically sets up a parallel set of procedural rules for the Refugee Protection Division with respect to applications for protection--i.e., PRRA.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think the biggest benefit is that the Immigration and Refugee Board has a comprehensive infrastructure for supporting the decision-making with respect to pre-removal risk assessments, if they do them. Today, a pre-removal risk assessment officer at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is responsible for doing their own research, their own file management, their own management of their schedule.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  No, I don't think it includes open bars. It's basically the general rule of procedure that's available to the division when it's dealing with pre-removal risk assessment. It's virtually the same wording that you will find in section 170, with respect to their proceedings when they're dealing with refugee protection claims.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Those are factors that the refugee appeal division member would have to take into account. You and I may have differing views with respect to those two different scenarios. Cost may be less clear-cut than the latter; if the person can demonstrate the risk to their family had they moved too quickly with respect to that evidence, then the member has the authority to say, yes, I understand; that's reasonable under the circumstances; you can present that evidence.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think what you're saying is that the refugee appeal division member will have the jurisdiction to assess those explanations and determine whether the evidence ought to be considered. If the refugee appeal division member errs in terms of making a reasonable decision on whether that evidence should have been heard, it's subject to judicial review in the Federal Court.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The intent of these provisions is to encourage the refugee protection claimant to present all of their case, all of the evidence, with respect to their need for protection at the refugee protection division, not to hold anything back, so that--

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm told that sometimes they do. I don't know how often. I'm not the board, but I'm told that sometimes the information is incomplete. It's through the failure of the person...or the thought that the person may have that if you hold this piece of information back, maybe it leads to some questions about their exclusion.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The provision in proposed subsection 110(4) provides for three different scenarios in which evidence can be presented to the refugee appeal division that was not presented to the refugee protection division. The first, of course, is evidence that arose only after the rejection of their claim.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The RAD provisions, or all of the provisions with respect to the asylum process, are spelled out in amendment G-12 in new proposed subsection 42(1). All provisions, except those that are specified there, will come into force not later than two years after the date on which the bill receives royal assent.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes, that is correct.