Citizenship and Immigration committee  We certainly supported the investment in the IRB. I think that's what makes sense, but that's why this doesn't make sense. The IRB already has a system to do this fairly. Why create this parallel process? I want to clarify a point, because I think there's some confusion. To be c

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Canada can enter into any information sharing—

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I don't have any comments on that.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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 presen

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes, I agree with that. It doesn't make a lot of sense, especially now. The Auditor General has said that he thought the IRB was capable of hearing claims and just needed resources and efficiencies. The IRB'S RPD has actually exceeded its targets in the last year. There has been

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I can't speculate on that. I don't really have—

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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'r

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I would first say that, as you're aware, regulations are easily changed, so I have a problem if this is how we say that this process is going to be fair. These are key protections.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Well, I just don't understand. If this is a key protection, why wouldn't you put it in within the amendments in the budget? We haven't seen it. I have not seen any draft regulation. As well, it's very clear that regulations are more easily amended and taken away by subsequent g

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I know there is a witness tomorrow who will be speaking to you about the U.S. asylum system, and specifically gender claims, but it is very clear that the United States does not treat claims based on domestic violence the same as Canada does. There's a decision, the Matter of A-B

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I agree with the comments by Amnesty International. I would just add that I think it is problematic that we're talking at this stage about recommendations for protections. If these amendments do not provide for a fair process—and that's what's before you—then we shouldn't pass it

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm sorry to interrupt, but that's not true. I understand that there have been communications, and I've seen those communications from Minister Blair's office to MPs, telling them that everyone will have a robust hearing and an appeal, but I'm sorry, that is just not true. That

Citizenship and Immigration committee  No, they won't. They'll get a PRRA process. They will have access to a PRRA, and under IRPA, PRRA is generally a written process. IRPA is clear that officers do not have to hold, not a hearing, but do not even have to hold an interview. Therefore, everything you're hearing about