Bill C-11 (Historical)

Balanced Refugee Reform Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, primarily in respect of the processing of refugee claims referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. In particular, the enactment
(a) provides for the referral of a refugee claimant to an interview with an Immigration and Refugee Board official, who is to collect information and schedule a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division;
(b) provides that the members of the Refugee Protection Division are appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act;
(c) provides for the coming into force, no more than two years after the day on which the enactment receives royal assent, of the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that permit a claimant to appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division to the Refugee Appeal Division;
(d) authorizes the Minister to designate, in accordance with the process and criteria established by the regulations certain countries, parts of countries or classes of nationals;
(e) provides clarification with respect to the type of evidence that may be put before the Refugee Appeal Division and the circumstances in which that Division may hold a hearing;
(f) prohibits a person whose claim for refugee protection has been rejected from applying for a temporary resident permit or applying to the Minister for protection if less than 12 months have passed since their claim was rejected;
(g) authorizes the Minister, in respect of applications for protection, to exempt nationals, or classes of nationals, of a country or part of a country from the 12-month prohibition;
(h) provides clarification with respect to the Minister’s authority to grant permanent resident status or an exemption from any obligations of the Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or on public policy grounds;
(i) limits the circumstances in which the Minister may examine requests for permanent resident status or for an exemption from any obligations of the Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds; and
(j) enacts transitional provisions respecting the processing of pending claims by the Minister or the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The enactment also amends the Federal Courts Act to increase the number of Federal Court judges.

[Simon Coakeley, Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for inviting me to come today to speak with you. My name is Simon Coakeley. I was appointed to the position of Executive Director at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the IRB, in September 2008. As executive director, I am the most senior public servant at the IRB.

The board's adjudicative support and corporate services staff report directly to me, and I report directly to the chairperson. As mentioned, I am accompanied by François Guilbault, who is here today in his capacity as a senior legal advisor to the IRB. Mr. Guilbault has extensive experience with the Board and is very familiar with the legal aspects underpinning the IRB's operations. He would be pleased to answer legal questions related to Bill C-11.

I trust you have received the submissions from the IRB following Mr. Goodman's appearance before this committee on May 6, 2010. As requested, we provided statistics on refugee decisions, our GIC member complement as well as information on the salary ranges for governor in council appointees and the rates of pay for the current public servant decision-makers in the Immigration Division. And finally we provided a link to the Public Service Commission's report on its audit of the IRB, which includes its recommendations and the board's response.

You have expressed a strong interest in the IRB's approach to the staffing of public servant positions in the new Refugee Protection Division, the RPD. To assist in your deliberations, we have also provided the committee with a copy of a letter the chairperson, Mr. Goodman, recently sent to Maria Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission (PSC) regarding staffing plans and priorities in preparation for the implementation of Bill C-11.

In his letter, Mr. Goodman emphasizes that, while the timing of the coming into force of the new legislation is not yet certain and the IRB has not yet developed detailed staffing strategies, it is clear that passage of the bill will require a major realignment in our personnel over the next couple of years. In addition to the establishment of a new RPD and Refugee Appeal Division, this realignment will necessitate significant changes to some existing IRB roles.

The chairperson advised the PSC that, in implementing these changes within the proposed timeframes, the IRB will need to use the full range of available human resources actions, including internal and external competitive processes, assignments and secondments, deployments and appropriately justified non-advertised processes. In doing so, the board will respect all of its obligations under the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, applicable collective agreements, as well as the PSC core and guiding values of merit and non-partisanship, fairness, access, representativeness and transparency.

Over the past few weeks, the IRB has watched with interest witnesses who have appeared before this committee, and we have noted the comments that have been raised regarding the hiring of public servant decision-makers in the new RPD and whether or not they will be independent.

I feel it is important for me to reiterate the commitments made by the IRB chairperson before this committee, i.e., to ensure that the public servant decision-makers of the new RPD will be just as competent and independent as our GIC members are today.

The board will continue to employ a rigorous merit-based screening process, in which all candidates will be evaluated on their skills and abilities against various competencies such as: written communication, conceptual thinking, decision-making, judgment, analytical thinking, oral communication, information seeking, organizational skills, orientation, self-control and cultural sensitivity. This highly comprehensive staffing approach will ensure that only suitable and qualified candidates will be hired.

Current IRB decision-makers come from all segments of Canadian society. They include adjudicators or mediators at other tribunals, teachers, community leaders, lawyers, as well as other federal public servants and people with experience working in international humanitarian organizations. This type of diversity ensures that all members bring unique perspectives to their role as decision-makers, and this makes our adjudicative system stronger.

In order to ensure that we continue to benefit from such diversity within our group of decision-makers, we will proceed with simultaneous recruitment drives both inside and outside the public service, as Mr. Goodman indicated two weeks ago.

Once hired, all decision-makers, whether GIC appointees or public servants, will be provided with an extensive, world-renowned training program. The IRB training program is recognized internationally, as well as by the Federal Court of Canada and the Auditor General, for its thoroughness and professionalism. In addition, new members' performance during the orientation and training period will be assessed before they are permitted to preside over hearings on their own, with additional customized training provided where necessary.

The public servant decision-makers of the new RPD will be subject to the same code of conduct that applies to GIC and Immigration Division public servant decision-makers currently. The code establishes the standards of conduct that govern the professional and ethical responsibilities of members of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, as decision-makers of a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal. New RPD decision-makers will be bound by this same code of conduct.

The fact is that we already have an Immigration Division that is staffed by independent public servant decision-makers, and we have every confidence that we have the tools, practices, mechanisms and training in place to ensure that this adjudicative independence will continue as we transition to the new system.

As you heard from Mr. Goodman, when he was here on May 6, the IRB began preliminary implementation planning immediately following the tabling of Bill C-11 at the end of March.

To briefly bring you up to date, the week before last, a group of IRB personnel met in Toronto to start mapping out the new process that would need to be put in place from the referral of a claim to the RPD decision, with a particular focus on how the interview function would work. A similar group met in Ottawa last week to do the same thing for the new RAD processes. A lot of good ideas were generated, but it's still too early for us to make final decisions on which ones we will actually implement, because we are fully aware that the details of the legislation may be amended.

For us, the real work to prepare for implementation can only get under way once Bill C-11 receives royal assent in Parliament and transition funding is released. At that point, we will develop rules, finalize work descriptions and accountability profiles for all of the new positions to be created, launch staffing processes, secure office space, and so forth.

I'd like to take a minute to touch briefly on the rule-making process. Rules are one type of policy articulated by the board. Rules, like regulations, are binding. The rules will establish the procedures that must be followed in the refugee protection division, including the timelines for the information-gathering interview and the first-level hearing.

For example, the rules will establish such details as how and when documents are to be provided by the claimant to the RPD and vice versa and the roles and responsibilities of IRB personnel supporting the adjudicative functions. They will also set out the factors that decision-makers will have to take into account when deciding whether to adjourn interviews or hearings at the RPD. Another set of rules will obviously have to be developed for the refugee appeal division.

The process for developing rules includes meaningful consultation with stakeholders and parties appearing before the IRB. In practice, we conduct both internal and external consultations before draft rules reach the stage of pre-publication in part I of the Canada Gazette for formal public comment. After that, the rules are submitted through the minister for cabinet approval and final publication in part II of the Canada Gazette. Once the new rules are in place, they will become the framework on which we will build the structure for the new divisions at the board.

Very important for us in this process is the ongoing relationship we have with our stakeholders, many of whose members have appeared before you in the last few weeks. We will be calling on our stakeholders and asking them to reach out to their membership to help us effectively structure our new processes.

In fact, we already have a meeting scheduled with our national stakeholders group, which includes the CCR, CBA, AQAADI, UNHCR, and others. I can assure you that Bill C-11 will be on the agenda.

There are a couple of points that were raised in committee last Thursday that I would like to briefly address.

Mr. Goodman stated publicly that we will provide a digital record of the interview to the claimant. At this point, it's too soon for us to indicate whether it will be a CD, a USB, a flashcard, or some other format.

The other point is that the IRB would have discretion to adjourn a proceeding for a vulnerable person or for operational or other valid reasons, such as fairness. In fact, one of the benefits we've identified for an early interview is the possibility of identifying vulnerable persons earlier in the process so that they can be appropriately accommodated.

In closing, I'd like to touch briefly on the minister's statement earlier this evening that amendments would be introduced that would see the PRAA function moved from CIC to the IRB. We believe that RPD decision-makers will be well placed to carry out this function, given their access to a world-renowned training program, legal support, and a high-calibre research capacity. But of course we await Parliament's direction in that regard.

As the minister has also indicated, letters have been exchanged between CIC and the IRB with regard to the suggested changes to the timelines for the information-gathering interview and the initial RPD hearing. Mr. Goodman indicated that we will give serious consideration to the proposal of 15 and 90 days, along with other proposals that may arise during our stakeholder consultations as part of the rule-writing process.

Finally, I'd like to quote Mr. Goodman's commitment, and this is what he said to you when he appeared last time:

The IRB will deliver, to the best of its ability, on the requirements of the legislation as determined by Parliament, and we will do so within the timeframes given and within the budget allotted, fulfilling our mandate to resolve cases efficiently, fairly, and in accordance with the law.

Thank you very much.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

What we proposed in the original Bill C-11 is what's called a bar on concurrent claims. Sometimes people come in on a manifestly false asylum claim and will double their chances: on advice of counsel, they'll file an asylum claim and will file a humanitarian and compassionate claim concurrently. What we've been saying in Bill C-11 is that you have to choose whether you're a refugee or whether you fall outside the definition of a refugee but still believe you have extenuating circumstances that should be considered by an immigration officer through an H and C application. So we said, you choose.

Now, some people have come to us and said, well, people might make the wrong choice. Somebody might end up in the asylum stream, even though the nature of their problem isn't really about persecution, doesn't really meet the statutory definition of a refugee, in which case we shouldn't penalize them but should allow them to move over to the stream in which their claim would be better considered. That would be before an independent, unfettered decision-maker in CIC, on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

I call it a bridging amendment. It allows people who get into the asylum queue to, before their hearing, move over to the humanitarian and compassionate queue. It allows more flexibility to make sure that people, once they have counsel, get into the right stream for their case.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have read all of the witness statements as part of this review.

Let me begin by thanking all members of the committee for their diligent efforts over the past month. While not all members may agree on all details of the bill and the broader package of reforms, there is no doubt that all members have discharged their duties as legislators with evident concern for this very serious issue in all of its complexity.

And you are right to have done so because, at the end of the day, this reform is not about words on a piece of paper. It is about people. It is about justice, fairness and about redeeming Canada's refugee system from years of dysfunctionality, so that we might better protect those in need of our help, while discouraging those who would abuse our generosity.

Let's remember why we're here. For too many years governments of different stripes, including of my party, have looked the other way rather than address serious problems that have burdened—many would say have broken—our asylum system. With an average long-term backlog of 40,000 cases, we have a system that forces victims of torture to wait for more than a year and a half for the certainty of Canada's protection, while allowing manifestly false claimants to game our system and our taxpayers for years.

Mexican President Calderon reminded us of the consequences of our broken asylum system just last week, when he said,

I...know that there have been some who, abusing the generosity of the Canadian people, have perverted the noble aims of the asylum system to their own ends, which led the Canadian government to require visas for those travelling between our countries.

He went on to say, “We sincerely hope that the solution that this Parliament is studying through comprehensive amendments to the refugee law will also serve as a bridge that will allow us to renew our exchanges”.

Band-aid solutions have been tried in the past, Mr. Chairman, but they have failed, like injections of more taxpayers' money to fuel the broken status quo, but which left us no further ahead in dealing with a cumbersome system that is, quite frankly, too easily abused.

And so we must act. Bill C-11 represents an historic opportunity to do so. I do not pretend that the bill as presented by the government is perfect. But it is the result of years of study and consultation by my ministry, and experts, to design an asylum system that, in the words of former IRB Chair Peter Showler, is both “fast and fair.”

I believe that this bill strikes the right balance. But as I have said from the beginning of the process, the government is open to thoughtful improvements that achieve what I believe is our common goal: a fair and fast asylum system.

That this is the common goal came clearly to light in March of last year when the official opposition immigration critic, the member for Vaughan, demonstrated leadership by standing in the House of Commons and asking me, “Why has the Conservative government failed to provide a timely and efficient refugee determination system to people who desperately need one?”

His question, to be fair, reflected the policy of his party, which in its 2008 platform said, “A Liberal government will respect Canada's international commitments to refugees while providing a timelier and efficient refugee determination system”.

I replied to his question that I was delighted to hear the interest of the member in hopefully working together to create a more efficient refugee system. We have indeed, all of us, worked together to that end.

As members of the committee will know, I consulted with many of you prior to the introduction of Bill C-11, inviting ideas for sensible asylum reform. Following introduction of the bill, I went across the country to listen to stakeholders and others.

I'm very pleased to report that following that tour, virtually every newspaper editorial board in the country endorsed our reform package, as did dozens of stakeholders. But I took note of concerns expressed by some groups; for example, Christine Morrissey, the founder of the Rainbow Refugee Committee in Vancouver, and Heather Mantle of the Matthew House Refugee Centre in Windsor.

When Bill C-11 came before the House at second reading, I listened to every speech. I can assure you that I've read all the transcripts of this committee's hearings. During all of these debates and consultations, the government has taken note of constructive criticism and we recognize that we must work together with the opposition to craft a bill that will reflect a parliamentary consensus. But let me be clear, we cannot and will not do so at any expense.

As you proceed to clause-by-clause, we are open to sensible amendments that would render a fair and fast refugee determination process. However, if amendments are made to the bill that for example would significantly slow the process or would undermine our efforts to disincentivise waves of false claims from safe democratic countries, then the government will elect not to proceed with the bill and its associated reforms.

So the stakes are high. If members choose to play politics with this real opportunity for balanced reform, then let's be clear as to what we will all be losing. We will lose a new refugee appeal division for the vast majority of claimants, an appeal division that's better than what was contemplated in IRPA in 2002. That means that if the bill fails as a result of unreasonable amendments, no claimants from any country of origin will have access to a refugee appeal division. That will be a choice if people make such amendments.

Protection for bona fide refugees in a few weeks will be lost, rather than 19 months, which is the status quo. Removal of false claimants in about a year, rather than about five years, will be lost, as will some $1.8 billion in savings for taxpayers.

A program of assisted voluntary removal for failed claimants will be lost. Also, $540 million in new resources for the refugee system, including a 20% increase in resettled refugees and a 20% increase in the refugee assistance program for government-assisted refugees, would be lost. Finally, fully independent decision-makers--rather than political appointees--at the refugee protection division of the IRB would be lost.

Colleagues, I sincerely hope that we will not lose these progressive reforms. We can work together to put the interests of Canada, of taxpayers, of victims of persecution ahead of any of our own political interests. We will do so thanks in part, I believe, to the leadership of the official opposition. Their immigration critic has approached the government with determination and with a series of compelling and we believe workable amendments to the bill, as well as related regulations and IRB procedures. Allow me to detail these changes.

In response in particular to Mr. Bevilacqua's request to increase clarity, we propose to include the term “safe” in the legislation in relation to the designation of countries, and to provide greater transparency around the criteria that will have to be met to designate a safe country of origin.

We also propose to clearly limit the powers of the minister in the designation process. The accompanying regulations, which I am pleased to table today in draft form, further outline the criteria that will need to be met for a country to be designated as safe. You will note that these draft regulations further limit the minister's powers and require that a safe designation can only be made if an advisory panel, including at least two independent external human rights experts, recommends it. Of course, as we've said from the beginning, we anticipate the involvement in the UNHCR in that process.

These amendments go a long way toward depoliticizing the designation process.

A second amendment addresses concerns regarding access to the humanitarian and compassionate process. We've tabled an amendment that would allow people who withdraw their refugee claim prior to a hearing before the RPD to make an application for humanitarian and compassionate consideration. So that concurrent bar would be lifted at the front end of the process to allow people to redirect their claim into the appropriate stream.

A third legislative amendment we have proposed is to transfer the pre-removal risk assessment function from my ministry to the IRB. As the IRB presently delivers the majority of risk assessment decision-making, we agree with many experts that it is a more logical place in which to centralize the risk assessment function.

The official opposition immigration critic strongly advocated the views of many that the proposed timelines for the interview and initial hearing are too short. I do not share that concern. I believe, in fact, that the proposed timelines are longer than in all, or virtually all, of the comparable systems--for example, in western Europe--and those are benchmarks against which we must assess ourselves. But in order to get consensus on these reforms, I made the difficult decision to accept Mr. Bevilacqua's recommendations and to write to the IRB to suggest the timeframes for the triage interview or the information-gathering interview be moved from eight days to 15 days, and that the RPD hearing be moved from 60 days to 90 days. We've written to the IRB chairman recommending that and expressing our policy preference, and you will see in the letter tabled before you that he has written back positively.

I'll close now, Mr. Chairman.

Let me be clear, these changes together represent very significant changes to the bill, to procedures, and to regulations, and address most of the principal concerns that have been expressed by opposition members and interest groups. While I frankly have concerns that some of these measures may go too far in the other direction, not maintaining the kind of balance we hoped for, I know that the government must compromise in order to move the Balanced Refugee Reform Act forward, so we will compromise. For the greater good, we will accept these changes.

In closing, I would like to once again thank all of you for your hard work. And in particular, I would like to recognize the member for Vaughan, who has been a tenacious advocate for his party's tradition of fairness and justice, while demonstrating the kind of leadership that we need to make this minority Parliament work for all Canadians.

I look forward to your questions.

[Philip Mooney, Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, committee members, ladies and gentlemen. We have a submission that is on the way and I'll be reading excerpts from that submission.

CAPIC welcomes the opportunity to appear before this committee. We'd like to offer you some different perspectives and workable ideas. Our submission is based on recent interviews with refugee claimants, both current claimants and successful claimants. The existing refugee system is in need of fixing, and Bill C-11 contains both administrative and program fixes. It is to be praised for some new thinking.

We'd like to extend that new thinking. We will focus on three key elements. First, what factors influence an applicant's decision to make a refugee claim in Canada? Second, how can the new process be improved to better protect those who need sanctuary? Third, what elements must be retained to better program integrity?

First, many claimants learn about the refugee option from friends and relatives who are already here or from their communities outside their home country, most commonly in the United States. For example, there is a Creole radio station in Florida that refers individuals to an 800 number where they get such advice.

Second, many claimants come to the border after believing stories they hear from unscrupulous immigration facilitators. For example, we've included in our brief copies of ads run in Mexico by a ghost agent working out of Montreal, who offers to tell applicants exactly how to claim refugee status in Canada for $150, so they can then work here for several years.

Third, some refugees pay human traffickers for false documents and transportation assistance to avoid legal detection until they reach the Canadian border. We know of a consultant who sells maps to the Colombian community in the United States, showing them how best to avoid border inspections.

However, no matter how refugee claimants may choose to come to Canada, one thing is common to them all: rarely are intended claimants given a full and complete picture of the refugee process or other options to enter Canada legally. They are making risky, sometimes life-changing decisions based on incomplete, if not utterly false, information.

The government's initiative to offer failed claimants resettlement assistance abroad is a good one. This is an example of new thinking, but we believe it could also be improved. It's our members' experience that many who claim refugee status would not do so if they had a full explanation of what the process entails or if they found they could qualify to work and live in Canada under another immigration program.

To help refugee claimants make an informed choice, we recommend that they be given the opportunity to have all their options explained to them very early in the process. We believe the eight-day interview mechanism should be changed to thirty days to allow time for individuals, after entering at a port of entry or after indicating once in Canada that they want to file a claim, to consult an authorized third party who would help them understand other immigration options, including applying outside Canada in some other category, and fully understand the quality of their refugee claim.

When it comes to unscrupulous agents, this committee recommended changes two years ago to the regulations, which would have closed loopholes that permit said agents to operate. This committee also recommended that the body charged with regulating immigration consultants be wound down, reconstituted, and given more powers to prosecute those who would pervert the system, which would include the so-called bottom feeders who induce people to take enormous risks in travelling to Canada, often illegally, and in making false refugee claims. This committee repeated those recommendations last year.

We have heard that the government is moving at last to implement the recommendations of this committee, and we support that initiative wholeheartedly. This would help reduce the number of false claims. But we would like the committee to note that it is not a problem restricted to immigration consultants, regulated or unregulated. In fact, we believe that many more refugee cases are filed by lawyers than by consultants.

With regard to filing false claims, in some cases claimants cooperate willingly with unethical agents, paying for false documents and for preparation of claims that are without merit. The biggest deterrent to doing this would be a fast and efficient process that would return them to their home country before they had a chance to recoup their expenses. This then would send a message to that community that any money spent would be wasted, and they would move on to easier pickings.

For those who set out to break the law in Canada, mechanisms already exist to bring these individuals to justice. However, when it comes to immigration it's often unclear to the general public who they should call. Is it the RCMP, the local police, CBSA? What we need is a single hotline where individuals can anonymously report cases of immigration fraud or related criminal activity.

Many of our members report having received such calls from individuals who come from countries where the rule of law is compromised or even non-existent. It is heartening to see that they have already learned the value of participatory justice in Canada, but even more heartbreaking to see that little or nothing is done with their information.

With respect to the safe country of origin, designating certain countries as safe can reduce the number of false claims. However, our suggestion is that you incorporate into the concept that there are populations within any country, no matter how free or democratic, who are at risk of persecution. This list of populations at risk could be worked out with stakeholders and updated frequently.

[Elisabeth Garant, Director, Centre justice et foi]

We will basing ourselves on the brief that you received. We will be providing you with only the main excerpts from it.

Thank you for receiving us here, this evening. I would simply point out that the Centre justice et foi is a social analysis centre that is part of the Society of Jesus, better known as the Jesuit religious community. The centre's objective is to participate in building a society based on justice by promoting active citizenship for all, and particularly we encourage the establishment of a welcoming society for newcomers.

Since 1985, through the Vivre ensemble sector under the responsibility of Louise Dionne, we have been working on issues pertaining to immigration, refugee protection and the reception and integration of newcomers.

Before discussing the details of Bill C-11, which my colleague will be dealing with, I would simply like to point out some general aspects pertaining to the context of this bill. First of all, over the past few decades, we have seen awareness and respect for rights and democracy gain significant ground, making it increasingly more intolerable to accept situations in the world where these conditions do not exist.

Hence we have seen the types of persecution defined by the Geneva Convention applying to more and more individuals, groups and regions throughout the world and an increasing number of individuals are forced to apply for asylum. This situation will not change in the years to come. Regardless of how we try to restrict, monitor or turn away people requiring protection, they will find other ways of coming. It is absolutely essential that we have a bill, a reform, an immigration act, and in particular, refugee protection, that are able to meet our challenges.

I would like to point out that this trend that we see in the bill is a repetition of many aspects and realities that we see in other North American and European countries, at least in the northern hemisphere. Well ahead of us, these countries implemented certain measures such as their visa policies, accelerated asylum review procedures, sanctions against carriers and other measures.

Now that these measures have been introduced, particularly the measure pertaining to the accelerated asylum application review procedure, which this bill deals with specifically, it seems to me that we have to look at the experience in other countries. We are already able to see that the measures covered by the bill are not effective, that illegal migration is increasing and has not been decreased by such measures. We have especially noticed that these measures have been particularly negative for human rights. The fact that Canada has based itself on these models, which have not proven to be effective, is extremely worrisome and questionable.

In the few minutes remaining, I would like to allow my colleague to present the more specific aspects of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good evening. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 21, Monday, May 31, 2010. This is a three-hour session.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 29, 2010, we are considering Bill C-11, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act.

I'm sorry for the delay, ladies and gentlemen.

We have three groups of witnesses. The first group is the Centre justice et foi, Elisabeth Garant and Louise Dionne. Welcome, ladies, to the committee. Thank you for coming.

We have the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, Philip Mooney, the past president, and Timothy Morson, director of policy and certified Canadian immigration consultant.

By teleconference from Washington, we have a lawyer by the name of Howard Anglin. Mr. Anglin, this isn't televised; it's via telephone. As you can hear, we're having technical difficulties and we hope we can pull this off with you.

[Dogan Dogan]

I will start and if Mr. Pinarbasi would like to continue, he will take the next step.

Honourable members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, my name is Dogan Dogan. I am a Canadian citizen of Kurdish descent, a resident of Toronto, Ontario. I am currently working at the Kurdish Community and Information Centre, advising the president and the board of directors on issues concerning Kurds and their community. I hold a Masters of Science degree in International Economics and Finance from Brandeis University in Waltham, U.S.A., and an MBA degree from Suffolk University in Boston.

On behalf of the Toronto Kurdish Community and Information Centre, I am here with Mr. Huseyin Pinarbasi to speak about the Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act.

Canada is a member of the G-8. Its per capita GDP, living standards, health care system, educational system, not to mention—

[Sharalyn Jordan, Rainbow Refugee Committee]

Thank you.

On behalf of the Rainbow Refugee Committee in Vancouver, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our position on Bill C-11.

Canada's refugee protection system is held up as a model for others, not because it's perfect, but because it comes closer than most to upholding our international commitments to protect the lives and safety of those who face persecution. This core purpose must be front and centre in any reform efforts.

Canada has been a global leader in refugee protection for those at risk of persecution due to sexual orientation and gender identity. We were one of the first countries to recognize that homophobia and transphobia can result in persecution; 21 countries now do the same. This protection is vital in a world where lesbian, gay, bi, trans, and queer people continue to be persecuted in at least 80 countries globally.

Rainbow Refugee supports efforts to create a faster system, reducing the time claimants spend in uncertainty. We see efficiency, fairness, and effectiveness as complementary goals. However, we are deeply concerned that Bill C-11 undermines fairness and that lesbian, gay, bi, and trans refugee claimants in particular will be disadvantaged. These concerns are based on a decade of experience focused on this work and are shared by other LGBT refugee support groups—SOY Express in Toronto and AGIR in Montreal.

Our members have left countries where they have been under surveillance, arrested, imprisoned, extorted, and, for some, tortured because of their sexuality or gender identity. Survival has required keeping silent, being vigilant, and remaining hidden. The silencing impacts of persecution and trauma do not disappear on arrival. I know one man who spent 27 days in detention before working up the nerve to tell his duty counsel that he was gay. What kind of interview would he give at eight days? The expedited timeframe proposed in the background to Bill C-11 will not give LGBT claimants a fair chance to prepare themselves or their documents. Hearings held with poor evidence will result in poor decisions and more appeals—not fair, effective, or efficient.

We welcome the long-awaited implementation of the refugee appeal division. The right to a full merits-based review is fundamental to fairness. This appeal should consider all relevant evidence, not only new or previously unavailable evidence. This is important to us because country condition evidence for LGBT claims is very hard to find. Our members bring all the evidence they can to their hearings.

I know a gay man who lost his PRRA because it only looks at new evidence. Canada was willing to deport this man to a country that criminalizes gays and lesbians because he had no new evidence to prove he would be targeted.

Humanitarian and compassionate applications are an absolutely critical safety net for lesbian, gay, bi, and trans people who are at risk of serious harm in their home countries. Determining when homophobia and transphobia cross the threshold and become persecution is challenging. Board members struggle to make this call. Good information is sparse, and the gap between laws on paper and on-the-ground conditions is large.

Consider the experience of one of our members and where the harms against her crossed into persecution. Angela is from a West African country. She was beaten by her father when he learned she was a lesbian. Her church expelled her. Rumours spread. Townspeople began throwing rocks at her window. It became impossible for her to go outside without being harassed. She narrowly escaped from a gang of young men threatening to rape her and she has a knife wound from the attack.

She was not granted protection under sections 96 or 97. The board member found her credible, but determined that state protection would be available because laws in her country only criminalize male homosexuality. Angela has been in Canada for over two years. She works in an office and has begun a relationship with a woman she's met at work. She has found a church that has embraced her. But provisions in Bill C-11 would leave Angela without the option of an H and C application.

If we are going to define the limits of refugee protection this stringently, then we must allow for the safety net of a humanitarian and compassionate appeal. I urge you to eliminate the ban on H and C applications for claimants and to omit the unworkable restriction on considering risk in an H and C application.

We also strongly oppose giving the minister power to create a designated country list that denies access to appeal based on nationality. The list violates principles of equality before the law, has the potential to politicize protection, and leaves life or death decisions in the hands of one person. The designated safe country list is profoundly unsafe for lesbian, gay, bi, and trans refugee claimants. It would be perilously easy to designate a country as safe based on inaccurate or insufficient information about the on-the-ground realities.

A safe country list cannot accommodate the complexity and flux that currently exists in persecution and protection for lesbian, gay, bi, or trans people. Could Brazil be on this list? It hosts the largest gay pride parade in the world, with over three million people celebrating, but it also has the highest rate of homophobic murders in the world. Would it be on the safe list because these murders are reported, or would it be on the unsafe list because the murders happen in the first place and the police seem unable to curb them? South Africa recognizes same sex marriage and yet human rights organizations there report 10 cases a week in which lesbians are targeted for corrective rape and the police fail to investigate. We've heard Bogota described by one man as a great place to be gay. Another gay man described it as a terrifying city, after spending 10 years on the run trying to escape death threats. Within the same country of origin, people's vulnerability and the viability of state protection vary considerably, based on a person's social class, race, gender, religion, and social networks. It is precisely when country conditions appear safe on paper that refugee decisions on people who are lesbian, gay, bi, or trans are most complex and the safety net of an appeal is most needed.

[Sylvain Thibault, Coordinator, Projet Refuge Program, Montreal City Mission]

I am pleased to be making our presentation alongside a representative from Romero House, one of our partners in Toronto.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today representing the Montreal City Mission, which is now celebrating its 100^th year of assisting refugees from all walks of life.

We want to thank you for the opportunity to share with you our opinion on Bill C-11 today. I head the Project Refuge program, a specialized residence for men and unaccompanied minors in need of international protection.

Our mandate is to provide specialized psychosocial services to the most vulnerable asylum seekers. So I see first-hand the immense vulnerability of individuals who have lost all their points of reference after suffering repeated persecution.

The clients we serve often bear deep psychological scars. And those painful scars influence their thoughts and actions, as well as their ability to recollect the events tied to their persecution.

When clients come to us, workers put mechanisms in place to help foster strength and resilience. Those mechanisms will allow the person to recount their situation in a climate of trust, without being afraid of further traumatization. Given our first-hand experience with these clients, we are especially concerned about certain aspects of Bill C-11, more specifically, the information-gathering interview within eight days of the asylum claim being received, an interview which is conducted by an IRB official.

We are very concerned about the ability of our residents to attend the interview under the best psychological and physical conditions possible. You and I both know that any statement made at any level in a refugee claim case can have a dramatic impact. In some cases, someone could be sent back to their country of origin to endure further persecution, torture or even death, if their claim is denied.

It is our belief that vulnerable individuals need more time to regain their strength so as to be able to more clearly articulate what they endured in their home country. For many of them, the persecution has to do with a particular aspect of themselves or even an alleged aspect. That kind of persecution leaves a permanent psychological mark, as you would no doubt agree.

The first few days after arrival are very hard for most individuals. We even see people who are incapable of giving coherent answers to the simplest questions. The goal of organized violence is to put people in a constant state of fear and to destroy their trust in others. And that inevitably leads to a fear of authority figures. Many of them experience mood swings and intense fits of anger as a direct result of the violence they endured. Some even have suicidal thoughts in the first few days or weeks.

Cut off from their social and spiritual networks, and finding themselves in a climate of hostility, where they are forced to recount what they have experienced, some of these individuals will ease their pain by going into denial and disassociating themselves from reality. They are referred for medical care and receive medication, as well as all the side effects that go along with that.

I am here with Kemoko, who agreed to represent our residents. In the past 20 years, more than a thousand people have come through our doors. I asked him if he would have been ready for an information-gathering interview with an immigration official eight days after arriving. I will let Kemoko answer that.

[Mary Jo Leddy, Member of the Ontario Sanctuary Coalition, Founder of the Romero House for Refugees, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Merci beaucoup.

My name is Mary Jo Leddy and I have lived and worked with refugees for more than 20 years at a place called Romero House, which is a welcome centre for refugees. I also teach theology at the University of Toronto and am a member of the Order of Canada.

I have attended hundreds of refugee hearings and hundreds and hundreds of interviews with immigration officers. I believe that at Romero House we now have a collective wisdom about the immigration system, about its problems and about how it could and should work. It's an accumulated wisdom, and we don't have time to deal with all of it at this time.

During these 20 years I've also been an active member of the Ontario Sanctuary Coalition, which is a member of the national sanctuary movement, with members of churches all over the country. Over the years, various churches have offered sanctuary to refugees who were in danger of being deported back to places where their lives would be at risk.

Given the limits of this presentation, I would like to focus simply on three points, and I will be brief. The first is that Bill C-11, as proposed, will provoke a massive increase in sanctuary cases in churches.

Second, having a faster decision-making process and a fairer one is imperative.

Third, we'd like to speak about the unforeseen consequences of the designated country list.

First, on sanctuary, we predict that because of all the reasons we have stated in the sanctuary report, Bill C-11, unless it is amended, will result in a massive increase in requests for sanctuary. Not all of these requests will be granted, but some will--many more than is the case now. Our experience is that very ordinary groups, when faced with a real person whose life is in danger, will offer sanctuary.

I'm here to say, make no mistake, unless this bill is amended, the incidents of sanctuary in churches will increase. And I'm here to say, for the sanctuary movement, we would much prefer that this bill be amended.

On the second point, faster and fairer, it often seems that this is only a concern of the government, but it is the concern of every refugee to have a faster determination process and a fairer one. On a daily basis, they know the cost of the slow and cumbersome and unworkable process we have now.

I want to invite Gift Ogi, who's a member of Romero House, to say this in her own words.

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

We would definitely support efficiency and qualification, if Bill C-11 will stop inefficiency.

The second recommendation is that you cannot deal with time by days. It has to be case by case.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

You are from Toronto. There are lots of members of Parliament from Toronto who are Liberals. Perhaps you can persuade some of them that this is not a good direction to go and that having a safe country destination is not the right direction, because next Tuesday we are going to start doing clause-by-clause recommendations. By Thursday night we'll be finished, and the week after that we'll be back in front of the House of Commons with Bill C-11.

Have you any comments on this part of the bill?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

As you may know, both the New Democrats and the Bloc are very much against the destination of safe countries. Can you imagine the trauma of that young woman from Congo, if she comes from a “safe” country? Perhaps Mexico could be declared a safe country. Any number of countries could be so declared. Ghana is on a safe country list in England. After what she experienced, she may have been so traumatized that she messed up her hearings.

In this case, with this Bill C-11, a safe country means that she will not have a chance to make an appeal. That would be grossly unfair, to my mind.

Have you talked to some of your members of Parliament in Vancouver? I believe that is where you are from.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

There are many things in the bill. There is an appeal process in place. Like you, we believe that we should accelerate some of the process. It can cause social problems, collateral damage. I hear you well when you speak about efficiencies. But what do you think of the principles in Bill C-11? What about the appeal process, the time allotted to prepare a case? Can I have your point of view on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 20, Thursday, May 27, 2010, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 29, 2010, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act.

We have with us our witnesses today, our guests from the CanPak Chamber of Commerce. Shahid Hashmi is the chairman—good evening to you, sir—and Sohabe Hashmi is the administrative director—good evening to you, sir.

Thank you very much for coming to the committee via Toronto. We're going to give you up to 10 minutes to make a presentation to us. Then some of the committee members will have some questions for you. You can start right now. Thank you again.