Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship

[dpenabill]

Now after federal court of appeal said no to cbsa/cic officer discretions for h&c considerations.. i have a question here does RPD has discretion to consider h&c or no?.. Can RPD also consider other factors like degree of establishment in Canada..etc..?.

Based on the article you cited and linked, it does appear that the Federal Court of Appeal has said no to H&C considerations. But again I have as yet to see the actual decision. So I do not know what it said. Media accounts of judicial decisions are notoriously unreliable, not that they are untrue but the context and impact are often not accounted for, and the latter can make a huge difference in what the decision actually means.

Federal Court justices have already ruled that H&C considerations are not relevant in making a cessation determination. The Bermudez case certified a question about H&C considerations in just the decision to make an application commencing cessation proceedings. There is another case which certified this question more specifically to the RPD's determination.

As the law is written, best guess interpretation is that H&C considerations are not relevant. But, the law is never a stand-alone authority but must be read and interpreted in context with the whole of the law and in consideration of the Charter of Rights. Thus, notwithstanding the absence of any inclusion of H&C consideration, it is at least arguable that H&C considerations must be, not just should be, part of the process. The courts appear inclined to say no to this argument. But without seeing an actual decision by the Federal Court of Appeal, it is difficult to know how this argument is addressed and what impact it has, or does not have.

My apprehension is that the law allows for virtually unfettered, largely not review-able discretion, allowing bureaucrats to enforce a strict application of the re-availment presumption against some and not others. Hopefully the government will recognize the inherent risk of profound injustice in this and revise the law to be more fair.

In the meantime, what I outlined above as what we do not know is, to my view, what PR-refugees should recognize and adjust their actions accordingly.

 

[sopranotb]

Based on the article you cited and linked, it does appear that the Federal Court of Appeal has said no to H&C considerations. But again I have as yet to see the actual decision. So I do not know what it said. Media accounts of judicial decisions are notoriously unreliable, not that they are untrue but the context and impact are often not accounted for, and the latter can make a huge difference in what the decision actually means.

Federal Court justices have already ruled that H&C considerations are not relevant in making a cessation determination. The Bermudez case certified a question about H&C considerations in just the decision to make an application commencing cessation proceedings. There is another case which certified this question more specifically to the RPD's determination.

As the law is written, best guess interpretation is that H&C considerations are not relevant. But, the law is never a stand-alone authority but must be read and interpreted in context with the whole of the law and in consideration of the Charter of Rights. Thus, notwithstanding the absence of any inclusion of H&C consideration, it is at least arguable that H&C considerations must be, not just should be, part of the process. The courts appear inclined to say no to this argument. But without seeing an actual decision by the Federal Court of Appeal, it is difficult to know how this argument is addressed and what impact it has, or does not have.

My apprehension is that the law allows for virtually unfettered, largely not review-able discretion, allowing bureaucrats to enforce a strict application of the re-availment presumption against some and not others. Hopefully the government will recognize the inherent risk of profound injustice in this and revise the law to be more fair.

In the meantime, what I outlined above as what we do not know is, to my view, what PR-refugees should recognize and adjust their actions accordingly.

Link for Bermudez decision by federal court of appeal:
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/143934/index.do

 

[dpenabill]

Thank you for the link, and the decision is also now appearing in the database I typically access for Federal Court of Appeal decisions.

The decision is not much of a surprise. Its approach to what discretion there is, either that of the officer making the decision to make an application for cessation, or that of the RPD (not directly at issue but alluded to in some depth), however, is disconcerting and at a glance seems unpredictably plastic but not open to H&C considerations.

While I need to spend more time (which I do not have at the moment) going over the decision, it strikes me that the court at least somewhat conflates whether considerations other than travel history should be considered with whether or not specific H&C factors must be considered. The "no" answer to the latter, to my view, does not necessarily dictate what is considered beyond travel history or how it factors into the decision.

I would note, however, that this decision does tend to indicate there is no H&C consideration at the RPD level either. Not good news for anyone who has a cessation proceeding brought against him or her.

I will attempt to take a closer look at the case later.

 

[screech339]

Thank you for the link, and the decision is also now appearing in the database I typically access for Federal Court of Appeal decisions.

The decision is not much of a surprise. Its approach to what discretion there is, either that of the officer making the decision to make an application for cessation, or that of the RPD (not directly at issue but alluded to in some depth), however, is disconcerting and at a glance seems unpredictably plastic but not open to H&C considerations.

While I need to spend more time (which I do not have at the moment) going over the decision, it strikes me that the court at least somewhat conflates whether considerations other than travel history should be considered with whether or not specific H&C factors must be considered. The "no" answer to the latter, to my view, does not necessarily dictate what is considered beyond travel history or how it factors into the decision.

I would note, however, that this decision does tend to indicate there is no H&C consideration at the RPD level either. Not good news for anyone who has a cessation proceeding brought against him or her.

I will attempt to take a closer look at the case later.

It just goes to show that you should never take advantage of obtaining refugee PR status by traveling back to your country of origin or renew passport. You have to accept the consequences of becoming a refugee. You shouldn't take this route if you are unable to abandon your country until citizenship. By applying for refugee status, you fully acknowledge that you cannot go back, including seeing your own family until canadian citizenship is acquired. It is no difference from you signing up for army. You can't back out if you don't like being sent overseas for war. Did you join the army for free university education, accommodations so you can decide when you are ready for deployment.

 

[dpenabill]

It just goes to show that you should never take advantage of obtaining refugee PR status by traveling back to your country of origin or renew passport. You have to accept the consequences of becoming a refugee. You shouldn't take this route if you are unable to abandon your country until citizenship. By applying for refugee status, you fully acknowledge that you cannot go back, including seeing your own family until canadian citizenship is acquired. It is no difference from you signing up for army. You can't back out if you don't like being sent overseas for war. Did you join the army for free university education, accommodations so you can decide when you are ready for deployment.

The issue is far more complicated than that.

And it is not about what led PR-refugees to come to Canada in the first place, or about why they qualified for refugee protection in the first place.

Moreover, part of this has to do with the fact that changes made in December 2012 allow the government to take cessation action against PRs for travel before 2012, for travel when there was no consequence for such travel.

Finally, this discussion has generally stayed focused on real substantive and procedural issues, focused on actual information for PR-refugees applying for citizenship, or considering applying for citizenship.

So far this has not been one of those policy opinion debates, and it would be appreciated if we could keep the discussion focused on the what is and what impact it has on those actually affected. Please.

 

[screech339]

It shouldn't matter when the law came into effect. You are a refugee for life until you get citizenship. Violate the rules of refugee status during refugee status, you pay the price.

Its called being accountable to your life changing decisions.

 

[Francodel]

It shouldn't matter when the law came into effect. You are a refugee for life until you get citizenship. Violate the rules of refugee status during refugee status, you pay the price.

Its called being accountable to your life changing decisions.

If I may ask you..."what are rules of refugee status". In a much as it is a known fact that all refugee are not to travel to their home country there are also situations whereby the UN permits it.

The conversatives have applied this guildeline from the UN in an inhuman way coming after PR holders.

FYI - Refugees are told by CIC they can't not go back home but NEVER told they can't apply for passport. I find it funny because passport or no passport a refugee remains a national of his/her country of birth...

You make it seem like obtaining refugee status is easy; it is very difficult compared to other means of settling in Canada.

Before you judge others..make sure to get a sense of the situation before you start typing

 

[frankwhyte22]

It shouldn't matter when the law came into effect. You are a refugee for life until you get citizenship. Violate the rules of refugee status during refugee status, you pay the price.

Its called being accountable to your life changing decisions.

Actually you are wrong @ "You are a refugee for life until you get citizenship". The UN guideline was referencing refugees (temporary status) , technically there shouldn't be two classes of PR ,just like the liberals are fighting to remove the two classes of citizenship.

The former minister actually deceived the house by indicating the change in the law was to go after those who defraud the system by returning to their home country shortly after they gained refugee status. He didn't make it know that PR holders would be affected.

Wouldn't it be funny if the government start striping PRs from spouses because they were sponsored and they cheated on their partners after they landed?

You read the UN guidelines as it is not as straight forward as you think; it is more complicated than "You are a refugee for life until you get citizenship"

 

[dpenabill]

It shouldn't matter when the law came into effect. You are a refugee for life until you get citizenship. Violate the rules of refugee status during refugee status, you pay the price.

Its called being accountable to your life changing decisions.

Are you talking about a particular case, a particular situation? Your general description has no relevance to the discussion here.

As I said, the actual, real issues involved are more complicated than your posts so much as allude let alone acknowledge. They involve real people with real life situations which vary considerably. And there are multiple cases pending in which various questions have been certified for further review by the Federal Court of Appeal, precisely because this is a very complex subject. These are real cases. They are being decided based on the actual applicable law. And the outcome of these cases will have real life consequences for actual people, many of whom have been PRs in Canada for many years, some more than a decade, some as long as two decades.

And there is much about the what, how, who, and when which remains uncertain, to be decided by the courts and, perhaps, by the current government. Just trying to figure out who is at risk for cessation proceedings is a complicated matter, let alone what the risks are, what the criteria are for judging these cases, among other outstanding substantive and procedural issues.

Please take the rhetorical soapbox discussion elsewhere. Start a new topic perhaps. Albeit that probably would be more appropriate in the forum specifically for refugees.

By the way, there is no rule prohibiting refugees from traveling abroad. There is no rule which prohibits refugees from traveling to their home country. There is no rule prohibiting refugees from obtaining a passport from their home country. None of these is so much as mentioned in Section 108 in IRPA (which specifies the grounds for cessation of protected status). The fact that a PR-refugee has done any of these does not break any rules. The issues here are about how, to whom, and when Canada applies the United Nations guidelines for determining protected person status, and the impact changes in the law have had and will have on PR-refugees applying for citizenship.

Again, this discussion has generally stayed focused on real substantive and procedural issues, focused on actual information for PR-refugees applying for citizenship, or considering applying for citizenship. It would be helpful to keep it that way. There are scores of other topics for discussing policy opinions. Or start another.

 

[dpenabill]

While the Bermudez case (should link) warrants some attention and discussion, my overall sense is that the practical venue of import regarding cessation is in how the IRCC, under Liberal and Minister McCallum leadership, is approaching these cases, and in particular to what extent:
-- IRCC or the Public Safety Minister is actively pursuing those cessation proceedings commenced when the Conservatives formed the government
-- IRCC or the Public Safety Minister is actively investigating and pursuing cessation proceedings on its own initiative
-- what criteria is being employed in making decisions to pursue cessation or continue pursuing existing cessation cases


Again, the following is promising:

Today was my Oath ceremony and it was really great day for me.

Given:

I also had refugee status and I applied for Citizenship.
. . . I appeared for interview [and interviewer referred to] being refugee [who] went back to [home] country.

. . . .

I arrived Canada in Oct 2010 and since then visited twice. I got PR status in Sept 2012. Visited in 2013 and 2014.

But this does not illuminate much about what criteria is being applied in deciding whether or not cessation is pursued. At the least, however, it indicates that the current government is not pursuing cessation merely because a PR has obtained a home country passport and used it to travel to his or her home country on some occasion.



In any event, Bermudez:

More regarding Bermudez and the consideration (or, more to the point, the absence of considering) H&C factors in cessation proceedings
For the decision, see http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/143934/index.do

The decision itself reflects the complexity of issues involved.

The definitive significance of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in the Bermudez case (should link) is that it affirmatively holds that a hearing officer does NOT have the discretion to consider H&C factors and the best interests of a child, when deciding whether to make a cessation application pursuant to subsection 108(2) in respect of a permanent resident.

Unlike Federal Court decisions, which are not binding on other courts, this decision constitutes binding precedent and thus constitutes a final and definitive interpretation of the law and its application, in respect to the discretion of a Minister's delegate to make an application for cessation.

My impression is that the impact of this probably exceeds the precise scope of the holding itself. The decision alludes to the exclusion of H&C considerations in the RPD's determination as well. And of course this is the bigger issue: what factors can the RPD consider in determining a cessation application? This decision suggests, but does not itself directly hold, that NO, no consideration of H&C factors is to be part of the RPD determination.

How much weight does this have? Does this affirmatively mean that indeed, the RPD is not to take into account any H&C factors when deciding an application for cessation? My impression is that this case will be taken to be an affirmation that H&C factors are not to be considered in the RPD's decision, even though that issue was not formally before the court and not a holding. It is what some refer to as dicta. This is an area in which I am at a disadvantage in analyzing these cases, since I am not a Canadian lawyer. For example, in contrast to the jurisdictions for which I do this sort of analysis in my day job, in which the distinction between a holding and dicta tends to be relatively strict and followed, it is my impression this is considerably less so in Canada.

Thus, my sense is that this case signals a consensus, and probably the general practice, leaning toward NO consideration of H&C factors in the RPD decision.



Challenging a decision to make an application before a decision on the application is made:

To my view, this challenge was a stretch and it is somewhat remarkable that Justice Mosley allowed review in the first place (for the Federal Court decision by Justice Mosley, see http://canlii.ca/t/gj6wb ). It really was in the vein of claiming a right to a "pre-hearing hearing," as Justice Boivin describes the challenge. The government's argument that the challenge brought by Bermudez was premature, because it was brought before the RPD had heard and decided the matter, appears to have been the government's primary argument; at the least, the government "placed considerable emphasis on the prematurity argument." (para 27) And, again, frankly, to my view that is a strong argument.

Both Justice Mosley and the FCoA, however, declined to consider the challenge premature.

From my perspective, this challenge was akin to appealing the decision of a prosecutor to bring a criminal case before the case has actually been heard, or akin to appealing the decision of a citizenship officer to refer a citizenship case to a Citizenship Judge to decide, before the application was even in the hands of a CJ.

Or, an appeal, as Justice Boivin described it, of a "pre-hearing hearing," as if there was a pre-hearing hearing.

In another part of the decision, Justice Boivin rules that Hearing Officers do have a duty of fairness in making the decision to make a cessation application, but that the "scope of this duty, however, is minimal." That, it seems to me, is sufficient to reach a conclusion the challenge was pre-mature.

I suppose that both Justice Mosley and the FCoA declined to foreclose the review on this ground because there is so much uncertainty and complexity underlying the how, why, who, and when cessation should be pursued, they saw a need to answer questions like whether H&C factors should be a part of the decision-making process.



What does this decision really mean for PR-refugees who potentially face cessation proceedings?

There are other aspects of this decision which, to my view, loom larger than the exclusion of H&C considerations at the preliminary stage of deciding whether to pursue cessation. This is not to say that the exclusion of H&C considerations is not of great importance. It is. And it seems profoundly unCanadian to take action against Canadians (PRs, regardless of what class of immigrant they were in becoming a PR, are Canadians), to pursue their exile without considering Humane and Compassionate factors. Justice Boivin says this was a decision to be made by Parliament and Parliament elected to not include H&C factors. Indeed, it was, it was Harper's Parliament, so no surprise no weight was given to Humane and Compassionate considerations.

But there are other aspects of the decision which lean toward a rather harsh approach to applying the cessation provisions in section 108 IRPA. In particular, Justice Boivin states that the use of the term "shall" in Section 108(1) does not leave "any possibility of residual discretion" (see para 44) in the decision to commence cessation proceedings.

I am no one to criticize a justice of Canada's Federal Court of Appeal, but my reading of the procedure is that the cessation application is commenced pursuant to subsection 108(2), not 108(1), and 108(2) uses the term "may" not "shall," and thus suggests that even if one of the reasons for cessation exists, the RPD still has some degree of discretion to decide whether or not to determine that refugee protection has ceased. Justice Boivin's decision appears to indicate the contrary.

Justice Boivin also declined to distinguish cessation proceedings against those with PR status versus against those who are just claiming refugee status, or those otherwise in Canada as protected persons without PR status. Here too the reasoning was rooted in the authority of Parliament to make any such distinction, and that it did not. My take on this aspect is that counsel for Burmudez may have failed to state a Charter claim. Indeed, my take is that there is a strong argument that once a PR, termination of PR status automatically based on cessation of protected person status violates the PR's Charter Rights, that is, that Parliament (Harper's Parliament) exceeded its constitutional authority when it enacted section 46(1)(c.1).

Which leads back to H&C factors: even when a PR commits the most horrendous criminal acts imaginable, before such a PR can be deported, H&C factors must be considered. Even when a PR has breached the basic PR Residency Obligation, H&C factors must be considered before his or her PR status can be stripped away. And again before physically deporting the individual even if the individual is adjudicated to have lost PR status, H&C factors must be considered.


My sense is that this decision may help trigger positive action by the government to address and possibly amend or even repeal the provision for stripping PRs of their PR status. It is clear that many in the judiciary are concerned about what amounts to inordinately harsh consequences, typically with little or no notice to PR-refugees that they could be risking these consequences, for what is largely innocent and normal behavior -- who does not make a trip home to be by their mother's side when she is dying if it is possible to make the trip?

The outstanding questions I previously posed continue to be, to my view, what PR-refugees should be aware of and pay attention to. Again, for those who have not applied for citizenship but are considering applying, if you have obtained a home country passport and traveled on it, especially traveled to the home country, best to consult with a lawyer before applying for citizenship, or otherwise wait to see how things go under Liberal leadership.

 

[sopranotb]

I like this analysis especially the part about conservatives changed PR constitiutional charter of rights..

I have a comment on the H&C factors, my understanding is that to have a proof the re-availement 3 factors must be met voluntariness, intention and actual reavailement..

I see H&C factors like establishments in Canada, having kids etc... ARE THEMSELVES argue against one of those 3 factors whic is INTENTION.. How I intendly visit my homecountry while I have establishments in Canada.. My visit in this case in un-intended because of visiting a sick relative for example..

 

[frankwhyte22]

I like this analysis especially the part about conservatives changed PR constitiutional charter of rights..

I have a comment on the H&C factors, my understanding is that to have a proof the re-availement 3 factors must be met voluntariness, intention and actual reavailement..

I see H&C factors like establishments in Canada, having kids etc... ARE THEMSELVES argue against one of those 3 factors whic is INTENTION.. How I intendly visit my homecountry while I have establishments in Canada.. My visit in this case in un-intended because of visiting a sick relative for example..

You raised a good point. But the way these cases are twisted sometimes is worrisome. Even those that didnt travel back to their home country (actual re-availement) are sort after for using country's passport.

Must all 3 factors be met or just one of the 3 is enough to initiate cessation?

 

[sopranotb]

Must meet the 3 criteria for successful cessation application.

 

[frankwhyte22]

Must meet the 3 criteria for successful cessation application.

Thanks.

This is actually hard to prove hence why the Immigration is always trying to translate one action to mean you have violated the 3 criteria.

 

[sopranotb]

This discussion in the House yesterday is very very encouraging:



Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Expand]
Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am calling on the Liberal government t repeal the cessation provisions of Bill C-31, Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act.
Bill C-31 came into force on December 15, 2012, and it is retroactive. Cessation applications are being brought against permanent residents because it is alleged that refugees have re-availed themselves of protection by temporarily travelling back to their country of origin. No matter that the conditions of the country of origin have changed, no matter that they are going back to see a dying relative for one last time, no matter that the law did not exist at the time of travel, people are at risk of losing their permanent resident status.
This law effectively created a two-tier system for permanent residents: those who could travel back to their countries of origin without repercussions and those who could not. This is to say that refugees who gained their permanent resident status legitimately could lose their PR status for returning to their country of origin for a visit. No other permanent residents face this risk. These permanent residents are fully integrated and settled into Canadian society, gainfully employed, have Canadian-born children, and are contributing to Canada. To be clear, cessation cases do not involve fraud or misrepresentation.
Let me share with members the story of the Esfand family. Mrs. Bahareh Esfand and her first daughter were classified as refugees under the principle of family unity. They originally came to Canada under the government's sponsor refugee resettlement program because her husband was found to be at risk in Iran. Since their arrival in Canada, Mrs. Esfand gave birth to her second daughter in Canada. The Esfand family is now a well-established, self-supporting family of four, who have called Canada home for the last 10 years.
When Mrs. Esfand applied for her citizenship, it triggered the cessation process, and the government is trying to revoke her status here. It is alleged that because she returned to Iran to see her family, she should cease to be a refugee, lose her permanent resident status, and be ineligible for citizenship.
Even though Mrs. Esfand's husband and her two children are Canadian citizens, CIC has frozen her 2011 citizenship application and is trying to revoke all her status in Canada. If it is successful, she will be removed from Canada, away from her children and husband, and deemed as a foreign national with no status in Canada. She has been fighting against this and is now defending the third court case filed against her by CIC. She has also been forced to file her own case to lift the freeze on her citizenship application.
Surely, any reasonable person can see the absurdity of this. By the way, Mrs. Esfand was not a refugee at risk in the first place, only her husband was, and she came under family unity.
Her case is just one among many. Through FOI, an internal document show that an annual target of a minimum of 875 vacation or cessation cases has been set for CBSA to execute. As a result, refugees are being investigated, their PR status ceased, and cases are ending up in court. This even applies to those who come from countries where there is a moratorium on removals and those who are still at risk if returned. This just makes no sense.
As we know, in real life, people travel to visit a sick or dying family member or for other legitimate reasons. To top it all off, the investigations for some of these families are triggered when they apply for citizenship. Now we are hearing reports that people are afraid to apply for citizenship. How much of taxpayer money is being wasted on cessation cases? How many officials are working on cessation cases instead of processing the backlogs of family reunification cases? How many cases has the government targeted? How many people have been deported? These are the questions that people are asking.
(1945)

[Expand]
Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for raising this important issue in the House and for her continued advocacy on the part of immigration issues as the opposition critic.
This is an important debate on cessation issues in the former Bill C-31 enacted by the previous government, and the impact it has on permanent residents.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has asked a very important question, and has raised this previously with our government. In fact, the government is in absolute agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver East on the need to review this very important piece of legislation and its impact since it was enacted under the former Bill C-31.
We have, in this country, a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those in need. We have one of the fairest and most generous immigration and asylum systems in the world. Our immigration laws are applied impartially, they are based on facts, and they are meant to accord with due process.
The authority of the independent and quasi-judicial IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, to determine whether an individual's refugee protection has ceased is not itself a new provision. It actually predates the 2012 asylum system reforms. As well, it is important to specify that the authority to revoke permanent resident status, including the permanent resident status of a refugee, also existed before Bill C-31.
However, what is very troubling about Bill C-31 is that under the 2012 reforms enacted by the previous government, cessation of protected person status was added as grounds for losing one's permanent resident status. That effectively meant it was double-barrelled. That meant that both protected person status and permanent resident status now end simultaneously once a refugee in Canada has demonstrated that they are no longer in need of protection.
The minister, himself, has said in the House that he agrees that the legislation, which has been identified by the member for Vancouver East, is part of a long legacy of matters inherited from the previous government that our government desperately wants to review, and will review.
As members know, we are not at liberty to discuss particulars of a specific case due to privacy considerations, but the minister has expressed public sympathy with the point the hon. member is raising. I can assure the House that the government is reviewing policies and legislation introduced in recent years with a view to developing proposals to improve them.
In a relatively short time, and I will demonstrate to the House a number of measures we have taken in short order to address the legislative initiatives of the previous government that were very problematic.
For example, in terms of the government's respect for the rulings of the Federal Court, the Federal Court had found in December 2011 that the policy requiring the removal of face coverings to take the oath of citizenship was unlawful. We agree with that decision; the previous government did not. We dropped the appeal of that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the case of Ishaq v. Canada.
Another example of us being more than willing retract and retrench on legislation by the previous government is rescinding the legislation that came in under Bill C-24. We have introduced amendments to the Citizenship Act that members of the House will be familiar with. Bill C-6 makes it easier for applicants to meet citizenship requirements and helps encourage their sense of belonging and connection to Canada. It also eliminates the two classes of citizenship that were perpetuated by the previous government, which we stood fundamentally against and campaigned against.
Another example of our government's review of existing procedures that help to promote greater openness and better processing is our response regarding Haitian and Zimbabwean nationals. On February 4 of this year, the Government of Canada announced that Haitian and Zimbabwean nationals in this country would be provided another six months to apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds—
(1950)

[Expand]
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):
We have to resume. The hon. member for Vancouver East.
[Expand]
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
Madam Speaker, there are laws that are fair and just, and there are laws that are not.
The cessation provisions contained in Bill C-31 is an example of an unjust and absurd law. This law discriminates against refugees by effectively setting up a two-tier system for permanent residents. The way the Conservatives decided to target refugees in this unreasonable and punitive manner is simply un-Canadian.
Canadians welcome refugees to our country. The time has come for Canada to start a new chapter on the world stage. It is time to repeal the cessation provisions of C-31. This was a law that the former Conservatives brought in. The NDP voted against Bill C-31, and so did the Liberals.
I have a private member's bill to repeal the cessation provisions, drafted and all ready to go. Nothing would make me happier than to have the government take my bill and turn it into a government bill.
I urge the government to take immediate action on this urgent situation.
[Expand]
Mr. Arif Virani:
Madam Speaker, our government is very committed to addressing this issue. We are looking at that as part of an overall assessment of the immigration and refugee system in terms of amendments that need to be made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, speeding up processing time, producing more fairness within the system itself.
Cessation is a problem. Bill C-31 is a problem. I look forward to continuing this discussion with the member for Vancouver East. I look forward to seeing the content of her private member's bill.