:
I'm going to call the meeting to order.
This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 23, Wednesday, June 9, 2010. The orders for the day are Bill , an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act.
We are here today for clause-by-clause consideration. We have with us a number of the staff, who I will not introduce; you've met them all. But if there are questions on different sections or amendments, they can be asked of those people.
Thank you for coming and giving up your time today.
Monsieur Coderre, you have a point of order?
The reason why it is really important that the humanitarian and compassionate grounds stay--the reason why I'm not moving my amendment--is because later on there is a Liberal amendment that deletes the one-year bar on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. There is a Bloc amendment further down that actually talks about hardship. I had trouble with proposed subsection 25(1.3), “whether a person is a Convention refugee under section 96”.
Because of the other amendments coming up, I am comfortable in not moving those three recommendations in front of you. I would have preferred to exempt the applicants from paying the $500, but I'm not sure I can find the support in this room to do so.
I certainly hope that members will support the Liberal amendment and the Bloc amendment. Then women leaving domestic violence, or gays and lesbians, who may not completely fit into the convention refugee determination process, would have a chance to then file on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Thank you for hearing me out.
The essence of BQ-5.1 is that it restores the right of appeal to someone from a safe country of origin. If this is adopted, that will be restored.
A manifestly unfounded claim, as Mr. St-Cyr mentioned, is an additional tool to a safe-country-of-origin concept. It's recognized by the UNHCR. It's used by several other countries, including Norway and Sweden, so it's well known. Essentially, it provides the opportunity for a consequence. With respect to the safe country of origin, if there's an appeal adopted, we would also look at providing some kind of consequence.
The original reason we did not have an appeal for safe-country-of-origin claimants has to do with the accelerated process, essentially a consequence of being from a presumptively safe country. If these are adopted, and you have a manifestly unfounded claim, and you've restored an appeal, then we would look at ways to priority-process people who have either been found to be manifestly unfounded at the Refugee Protection Division, or have been determined to be safe-country-of-origin nationals. Following the Refugee Protection Division decision, we would seek to accelerate the Refugee Appeal Division hearing for those two groups of people. Obviously, this would be set out in the regulations subject to Governor-in-Council approval and pre-publication.
:
For the regular non-safe-country-of-origin legitimate founded claim, you would have the 15-day information interview. You would have 90 days at the first level of the Refugee Protection Division. You would then have another 15 days to file a notice of appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division. Finally, you would have 120 days after that for your Refugee Appeal Division decision. That's for the regular stream.
For safe-country-of-origin claimants, the 15-day interview would be for everybody. However, for that group we would propose 60 days for the first level, the Refugee Protection Division hearing, rather than 90. Similarly, they would get 15 days to file an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division, but their hearing would be completed in 30 days, as opposed to 120.
With respect to manifestly unfounded claimants, this determination would not happen until the Refugee Protection Division hearing. So they would, like the regular claimant, have 15 days for the information interview and 90 days for the refugee protection hearing. If the claim is subsequently found to be manifestly unfounded, they would then move over to the fast track for the Refugee Appeal Division. So there would be 15 days to file notice of appeal and 30 days for a Refugee Appeal Division hearing.
:
I'm not moved by editorials. It doesn't bother me when an editorialist tries to define the national interest. As a legislator, I want to make sure that we'll ultimately have the best possible act and that it can protect every individual. This is a principle or a value: We have to protect every individual. That's fundamental.
People will have their press scrum afterwards. As a former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and as a Canadian and Quebecker, I want to make sure that we implement the principle that every individual is entitled to a chance and a hearing, and that it isn't because a person comes from a particular country that he or she will be "screwed"—pardon that expression; I don't know how it will be translated.
This is important for me; it's fundamental. Personally, I'm ready to give everything, and that's no problem for me. We can deal with the time and all that; the regulation can completely change. Ultimately, we have to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and sleep well at night. We all talked to the representatives of the Canadian Council for Refugees, and we all talked to everyone. I want to be sure that when Ms. X comes to Canada, she'll be treated fairly.
As of now, will we be completely changing the situation, intrinsically? As of now, every case will no longer be individual because we've said that certain individuals were coming from a country. I'm asking you to reassure me; that's all I'm asking.
If a woman who doesn't want to be sexually mutilated is from a country that is suppose to be safe, will she have as much of an opportunity as if she was from another country that does not appear on the list? What about a battered woman? What about a homosexual who wants to come to Canada because it's a tolerant country and a free country and whose only crime—because it's a crime in 72 countries—is to love someone of his own gender? Will that person get the same chance if we interpret the act?
:
Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Coderre has asked some very relevant questions, and this concerns my amendment, I feel the need to respond.
First of all, with regard to the designation of countries, I relied on the work that was done by the Liberal critic, Mr. Bevilacqua, to ensure that there were a number of signposts to prevent the government from putting too many countries on the list.
I also would have preferred the term "designated countries" over "safe countries" because it's a more neutral term, with fewer implications of a diplomatic or international political nature, since a country would probably want to have that recognition.
With regard to the acceleration mechanism, you know I have often put questions about this to various stakeholders. Most people agree that it would be highly acceptable to have acceleration mechanisms for dubious cases or for which we would like to have a quicker decision. That moreover is the formal position of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which says it is in favour of a list of designated countries if it's for procedural purposes, not to strip people of rights.
I believe that, taken together, these two amendments will help achieve all objectives, and I hope I have the committee's support.
:
Mr. Chair, as you know, the lack of an appeal is the area that caused me the most grief. For a long time the New Democrats thought that every applicant should have the right to appeal. I'm glad we see the Refugee Appeal Division will be created in this bill. Until this amendment, the last few words of the clause said they may not have the power to appeal.
The motion in front of us removes that, which means that every individual, no matter which country they are from, will have a full-fledged hearing, and they will not be treated differently from anybody else. They will also have a complete appeal to officers who are trained to hear their cases. That gives me comfort that these claimants, whether they are gay or lesbian in so-called safe countries or people leaving honour killings, etc., will have the full protection as a refugee claimant under the law. The only difference is they will have the Refugee Appeal Division hearing a bit faster than those who are not, and that doesn't trouble me that much. If they fail on these two grounds, I can't see any reason why they should have.... If they then apply to the Federal Court, I can't see why we should stop the deportation during the application. So I'm okay with that, because they have full hearings and full appeals.
There is a series of motions I might as well talk about that I had already introduced--
:
Mr. Chairman, I'm satisfied by the arguments. I'm also thinking out loud. Not all men are angels. We want a balanced act. In other words, just as the minister must not be at the mercy of a system, the system must not be at the mercy of a minister. I'm not asking you to make any comments; this is political.
There may be a necessity, since this is a first. You confirmed that this previously didn't exist and that we won't be talking about safe countries but rather designated countries. I want to make sure that things ultimately work properly. I don't know whether we should consider a clause that would require revision in five years. While a three-year period is a bit short, a five-year period affords the time to determine whether things have worked properly.
I don't like us introducing a concept that affects a system, a specific value. I'm willing to believe that, from now on, all cases will be individual and that, under the regulations, matters will go more quickly. That's fine. Mr. Chairman, I would like us to be able to discuss matters. I am prepared to give my support for this clause if we first consider the possibility of requesting a review of clause 12 in five years. That's called a review provision.
We could do it, unless provision is already made for it in the transitional measures of the act. I believe we would be improving this bill if we gave ourselves the opportunity to say that we agree with all that, but that we'll review everything in five years to see whether it really has worked properly. There is one fact: The planet is changing enormously. Cases may arise that we haven't considered. We have to give ourselves a way out. Perhaps we may even renew this provision. If we give ourselves a way out, if we decide that, in five years, we'll see that the designated country concept has worked well, I believe this would serve everyone.
:
Certainly. The intention is that for the group that works to inform the advisory panel, the resources have been set aside for a monitoring and analysis unit within CIC. Its job will be to be monitor country conditions around the world, including, and in particular, the conditions of countries that become designated countries of origin. So there will be an ongoing analysis and an opportunity to change designations.
I can't remember the date, but about ten days ago we tabled with the committee the draft safe-country-of-origin regulations, and—
An hon. member: Designated.
Mr. Peter MacDougall: Yes, designated countries of origin. I'll just read it to you:
The Minister may cancel a designation made under subsection 109.1(1) of the act without consulting the advisory panel of experts.
So the minister, in response to country conditions, can overnight de-designate a country from the designated country of origin list. So there is an ongoing review mechanism there. Fixing it to a certain period of time would probably actually limit the ability to be responsive to changing countries of origin.
:
I believe I've been misunderstood.
[English]
I'll speak slowly
[Translation]
There's a difference between a minister's power to make or reserve a decision. The act grants him a power. He can make decisions. He has an extraordinary power to take extraordinary measures in certain cases, but there is a framework. That's resolved.
I'm speaking as a legislator. A committee can decide whether a country is designated or not. The problem is that we're making quite a Draconian change to our way of viewing matters, even though there are appeals for everyone. From now on, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada has the authority to designate countries and to send a message about such and such country. We're politicizing the system. We're doing it with a capital P, not a small p. To ensure that doesn't become a small p, I wonder whether we, as parliamentarians, shouldn't have that ability, as Ms. Chow said earlier. It isn't because a country is designated that it will be designated all the time. On the other hand, we have to have the ability to say that we might have made a mistake and that, regardless of the government, we can always make changes to the act. Wouldn't it be better to have a bill containing a clause that allows a review?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since there won't be a vote, I'll take one or two minutes to continue this discussion. I'd like to go back a little.
One thing troubles me a bit. We talked a lot about safe countries. I don't believe in that concept because, by definition, a safe country doesn't exist. We've accepted an amendment and, instead of talking about safe countries, we'll be talking about designated countries. I asked Mr. MacDougall whether the expressions "designated country" and "safe country" meant the same thing. He told me they do. That raises a problem in my mind. Of course, one thing is interested. Now, as a result of the amendment, everyone will have a right to appeal, with time restrictions depending whether it's a designated country or not. That's why, when we put an immigration or refugee protection system in place, we have to find a way to avoid being at the mercy of the minister, or at the mercy of the system. The beauty of an immigration system is this balance between the two. The primary aim of a bill of this kind is to ensure that every individual seeking refugee status in Canada has the opportunity not only to be heard fairly and equitably, but also, to the extent possible and if that person meets the criteria, to be protected.
In short, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to support a lot of things, but the designated country question poses a problem. That's why we talked about the way we can determine the period of time during which a country will be considered a designated country. I requested a brief debate on that. In my view, this is the only bone of contention in the entire file. I'm satisfied with the amendments, and I believe we'll be able to amend the bill by this evening. However, the change in values and approach troubles me. If we are somewhat at the mercy of this new concept, there's no guarantee that this won't be a designated country in five years, for all kinds of reasons.
We're saying that we'll be establishing a committee that will provide permanent monitoring. That's what I understand. That's good, with regard to the minister, but we are parliamentarians. This is a bill that is Parliament's responsibility. I've even done this a number of times. It is utterly normal and healthy, in the name of democracy, for a minister to have extraordinary powers in a situation and to be able to make decisions and live with that political responsibility. He is a representative of the people. It is entirely healthy and proper.
However, it isn't always the same minister. As the saying goes, the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. In five years, we may not interpret the act in the same way. Furthermore, there will probably be legal precedents. I don't know how that may turn out. There will probably be case law. We may wonder whether such and such definition is consist with the Charter. Does the designated country concept meet the constitutional test of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Even if a person has a right of appeal, will that person feel comfortable, will that person be treated justly and fairly? Those are questions that a number of people may subsequently have.
I'm interested in finding a way to protect the individual seeking refugee status. I've always said generous, but not naive. We need a balance between openness and vigilance; we have to be very vigilant. When you're talking to a refugee, have to consider that that person needs help. You mustn't think that he's a terrorist or a potential problem. It's the exception that confirms the rule.
My question is the following. It may be desirable for monitoring to be done by the minister or a committee to protect ourselves from the system or from the consequences of this new act.?? However, as parliamentarians, we at least need to have a debate or make a decision. Since this is a fundamental element, in our minds, and it will have an impact on the very future of the way in which we manage the immigration system, I believe we should very seriously reflect on the idea of parliamentarians being able to review clause 12 in five years. If we added that to the bill, we would be protected, because we don't know what the future holds for us.
In a way, this indicates that, regardless of who is minister, we have that possibility if we see, in five years, that things are not working. Perhaps
[English]
the monitoring committee thinks it's okay, but when we have a debate among ourselves as parliamentarians, maybe it's a valid point to say that every five years, specifically for that issue, we should have a sunset clause.
[Translation]
I'm not ready to move a motion yet, Mr. Chairman. I would like us to take two or three minutes to resolve this matter, even though each person spoke a little earlier. This will be my only question today, and it will concern clause 12.
I think this clause poses a problem because every individual has a right for his or her case to be considered unique. Creating the safe country category?? would alter the situation, based on my own experience. I'm in favour of us being able to establish a fair timeframe. I recognize that, in some cases, we may have to operate more quickly, but I want us to protect ourselves. Sometimes it's good to have a second opinion on the application of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to ask my colleagues from the other parties to give me their views. Don't be afraid, we won't be going to bed late; I don't intend to obstruct. We've worked so diligently. We've heard from witnesses; we've met with people. Some individuals told us they were concerned about the matter of designated countries or safe countries. Others told us they were ready to try it if there was the possibility of appeal. I think it would be healthy for us, as legislators, to have at least an answer to this question. If you think it would be appropriate to have
[English]
a sunset clause for a specific article in the bill, then I would feel much better. I would like to have unanimous support for clause 12. I need to be reassured on that issue, or to at least have your point of view on that.
I'm going to support the bill tonight, but I have some doubts regarding that issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Mr. Chair, I think we're talking about two separate issues. Mr. Coderre is looking at the clause having a sunset provision. My earlier question to the department officials here was about how to de-designate certain countries whose conditions have changed. The response I got back was that they routinely, automatically, have a committee in place to regularly review these countries' situations.
I would prefer to see it in the regulations so that it's not just a practice. I hope it will take place. I received an answer that they may or may not do that, but it would be good if they actually put it in the regulations to say--I would assume--that a country will be reviewed and if it no longer needs to be designated will be pulled out.
My concern is really the country, not necessarily the clause itself. I've been assured that they were planning to do that anyway, and I take their word for it. Hopefully the minister will address it and put it in the regulations so that it's clear.
In terms of whether the clause or the entire bill needs to be reviewed, occasionally we say that after a few years' time there be an evaluation of the entire thing. Sometimes we've done that and sometimes we haven't. Is it just this clause that we need to review? I'm not sure. That's not necessarily a sunset situation; all good public administration will provide evaluation. When a program gets set up, whether it be temporary foreign workers, live-in caregivers, or refugee reform, all good public servants will evaluate a program every five or eight years to see whether the program is achieving the kinds of objectives we've set out to achieve.
I would imagine that the government does so on a regular basis. If it doesn't do that, then actually it's not a good practice. Whether it be five years or eight, I would hope that there would be automatic review, evaluation, to see whether a law is accomplishing what it was planned or supposed to accomplish.
Do we need to say that? I'm not sure. Perhaps the committee can say that we will come back in five or eight years--of course, who knows where we'll be--to evaluate the entire package to see whether this has been successful or not. We could certainly do that. But I'm not sure whether it should be put into legislation.
:
The difficulty is two things. The first is that five years probably isn't enough in terms of being actually able to review, because by the time this is implemented, you want to make sure you actually have gone through this process a number of times to see how it has worked. From my perspective—and of course this may not be the minister in place at immigration in five, six, seven, or eight years—what he has wanted to do is to have at least the option for the minister responsible, regardless of who it is, to be able to de-list a country. When you are seeing a minister at this point wanting to make sure there is not the option to put a country on a list but only the option to take a country off a list, it is telling me very clearly that he is saying we are going to review and look at this issue on a regular basis. It will be in a lot more than just five years. I have a feeling that, each and every time the review committee meets—which is struck to advise the minister and provide him or her with the country that should be considered safe—that committee that serves as we do is going to see what the reasons were, what the rationale was.
In fact, the way this compromise is, we have actually put ourselves in a position of being able to have the committee at least know and be aware of the decisions that are made. Then, obviously, if they want to bring it back here to the committee to bring some of those folks in, to present us why they made the decisions they made, that option is always open to this committee. From my perspective, it is built in.
I will add one more thing. Let's not forget these are going to be public servants who sit in these positions. They, themselves, will be there based on their personal review; and the review they face as public servants is going to take place on a regular basis as well. We have within the framework of the legislation a review mechanism; a review process is in place that is somewhat at the minister's discretion but also at the committee's discretion. I also believe that, based on the setup of the committee, we have in place a structure upon which members will be reviewed on a regular basis as public servants.
I'm going to deal with NDP-6.1, NDP-6.2, and NDP-6.3 together.
On what I was originally pushing for--and that includes NDP-7--when there is an appeal situation in front of the Refugee Appeal Division, there really shouldn't be any limit to what can be submitted as information. However, if that were the case there would be rehashing of all the previous arguments, which is not necessary, and then, what about new information?
The existing bill says that “...the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available”. I was concerned as to what “reasonably available” means. Sometimes it means that person would not have the financial means to obtain it, or perhaps they're worried that if they get the information, their family back home would be put in jail because they were testifying against their own government.
I've been persuaded that what is reasonable will protect those situations, and therefore we do not need to eliminate the words “that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection”.
I am not moving these amendments, because it seems to me there are enough safeguards to protect the applicants, so they are able to present information without a lot of barriers.
:
In any case, we've done an excellent job. Some things have been changed, particularly as a result of all the criticisms, including those of my Liberal Party colleague, who diligently worked with the government.
We're saying this is a fair?? bill. The question isn't whether it's fair or not; it will be up to people to judge. It isn't up to a legislator to characterize a bill.
So I think that everyone has done an extraordinary job; everyone has worked very well. Everyone will be able to be proud and make his little speech to the media, saying that we all worked well and that we all deserve a piece of the pie.
We won't conduct a major debate on this, but, out of principle, we shouldn't characterize an act, whatever it may be.
People will say what they want about this. The minister will introduce it, and we'll introduce it by saying that it's more balanced, because, without opposition pressure, we would have had a bad bill.
I can say that too. Since we can't amend the title, we must simply delete it. However, I won't conduct a two-hour debate on that, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
I'm on the record.
:
Shall I report the bill to the House as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I hear no nays, so that's that.
It appears we've finished. Mr. Dykstra has asked to speak, and before he does that I want to congratulate the parties. A lot of work has been done behind the scenes on this. It's been quite amazing that we've done this in the few hours we've been here. But I know that hours and hours have been spent, particularly by the critics and the parliamentary secretary. I know I've had very little to do with that.
On behalf of the rest of the committee, I congratulate the critics and you, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, for the hard work you've done. I expect there's been give and take on all sides, and you've done well. So congratulations.
Before Mr. Dykstra speaks, we still have another week left. I'm assuming we will not sit tomorrow, and I'm going to suggest a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday at 3:30. Unless someone has strong objections, the committee would not meet on Tuesday; we would have a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday at 3:30.
Ms. Chow.
I'm not going to be long. I know we've all been at this for a while, but I think it's important to note the work that has gone on here.
To you, Mr. Chair, for your ability to keep us moving forward, thank you very much. Aside from the budget bill, this is maybe one of the bigger bills that actually carries through the House of Commons. It's significant change, as you mentioned.
Mr. Bevilacqua said to me a couple of times that when it comes to refugee reform legislation, we get one chance at it every generation. This was our chance to do it, albeit it looked as if it were going in the wrong direction a couple of times—and one time in particular. We've been able to pull this thing back. We actually have something on the table. To all three of my critics, in working through this, certainly Maurizio originally was trying to move this forward, and over the last while both Mr. St-Cyr and Ms. Chow have come to the table on this and made sure that we moved the bill forward.
There's a lot of talk. There's a song by U2, which starts out by saying there's been a lot of talk about this song, and maybe too much talk. Quite frankly, I think there's been a lot of talk and probably too much talk about the fact that we can't work together.
From my perspective, and certainly from the government's perspective, this is an opportunity for all of us from a party perspective to have input into a significant piece of legislation, which in some respects we can all take credit for. So I say to the opposition, I think we did some great work here. We did some good work. We did things that are right for the country and certainly right in terms of moving forward on this legislation.
I want to credit the staff from the ministry as well. I know we're not supposed to name names and that you people are supposed to be oblivious to the whole process, but quite frankly, you did a hell of a lot of work, sometimes in a very short period of time. Mr. MacDougall, in particular, I have to cite you specifically for all of the efforts you put into this. Certainly from all of our perspectives and the government's perspective, it's because of your work and that of your team that we now have what we have. It was because of your efforts. Quite frankly, to each and every one of you, thank you for the work you do and for assisting all of us here who have had an impact on this process as parties—not just the government.
Last but not least, I would note that the folks who sit on this side of the House have had to endure a little bit of change and effort, and sometimes not always the kind of media you expect. We come here as individuals and we each work for the parties we represent, but I happen to think that today you can mark down in your books that in this 40th Parliament, we did something. We did something that means a lot to this country, and it's something that we all did, quite frankly, by participating and working together. So thank you to each and every one of you. I appreciate it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!