Evidence of meeting #22 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you very much for your excellent presentation and some of your compelling arguments as to why you feel sanctuary should be an option. I'm glad to hear that it's a matter of last resort and a place of second sober thought.
Of course you are also concerned, as Mr. Allen said, about the integrity of the system, such as it is. My sense tells me that even if RAD were to be implemented, it would not, as you've mentioned, necessarily mean an end to sanctuary cases, because it would still be a case-by-case determination.
Can you tell me whether the various groups of churches have gotten together to try to establish--not within their own denominations, but on a cross-denomination basis--a type of protocol that you might adapt and follow, so that there is some objectivity to the claim, and whether there's perhaps some training aspect involved?
It's a principle, I suppose, that would be out there. I know it's a huge challenge, and it obviously puts a lot of demand on you and your resources. You would probably be involved whether or not RAD was there. Either of you may want to comment on that aspect.
The other aspect is that when you look at commentaries, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has indicated that the Canadian policy and practice are often seen as setting an example for other countries; they're recognized as being a fair system, comparatively speaking. I think it was Ms. Leddy who mentioned that there's a myriad of options.
Maybe we need to look at whether there's a better way of doing it, but as I understand what happens, you can make a refugee claim; it's heard by someone, and you might not agree with their assessment of the evidence, but in the end they've made a decision; then there's a pre-removal risk assessment that somebody makes on some sort of objective basis, which you may or may not agree with; and then there's a potential for an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Then somebody exercises their discretion, and a minister may or may not issue a certificate.
You have also, on top of that system, appeals to the Federal Court of Canada, notwithstanding that they're matters of law and somewhat restricted. Then there would be a RAD process as well.
If all of that were implemented, there is, as you say, a fragmented approach to the whole issue, but my sense is you're more interested in a second set of eyes looking at not just the law and the facts. Are you prepared to look at the whole system of options available and bring it down to a hearing on the facts, and then maybe a second look by someone on an expedited basis, as opposed to a court judge?
I just want to get your thoughts on those issues.
10:15 a.m.
Director of Romero House of Refugees, Sanctuary Coalition of Southern Ontario
I think you're getting to the heart of the matter. Sometimes people oppose deficiency in justice, but as I see the present situation it is the inefficiency that is the injustice.
You mention all these different avenues, and it's true, but when they actually operate there's a time factor. For example, the Federal Court application has to be launched within 15 days of receiving a negative decision. A humanitarian application can be submitted. It's quite costly, and it can take up to two years even to be read. By that time the person is potentially gone.
It's that inefficiency that drives some people to sanctuary. There's another timeline around the PRA, and so they conflict, and in fact they can not be considered as a whole, because the amount of time is so variable.
I think what would be efficient is if there were a single appeal that folded all those things together. I really believe it would be less costly than what we have now, which is an office in Vegreville, an office in Scarborough dealing with humanitarian applications, a PRA office up at the airport, and then the whole Federal Court system, and then all the MPs who have to hire double the staff to deal with these.
This is not efficient, and it's that lack of efficiency that is injustice, I think.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Perhaps you can comment on the protocol as between denominations.
Maybe it wasn't to you, but I had talked about having a protocol amongst denominations whereby you get together and say that in these cases, under these objectives or circumstances, we might consider it.
10:20 a.m.
Director of Romero House of Refugees, Sanctuary Coalition of Southern Ontario
I'll let the others speak, but I think we have a common understanding. Most of us use the United Church guidelines. We would never go through this unless we had gone to several responsible bodies and considered this case objectively.
10:20 a.m.
Program Coordinator, Refugee and Migration, Justice and Global Ecumenical Relations, The United Church of Canada
I can say that in Toronto, if there is a case on our doorstep, I always refer the individual in the congregation to an interfaith sanctuary coalition in Toronto. In Vancouver I refer them to Amnesty or to other groups. I've worked intensively with the Unitarians in the past. We don't do this alone; we can build from each other and get each other's expertise. It's nothing we want to do alone.
We don't keep on top of it all the time, because it's very difficult to know all the cases across the country. Right now I believe there are eight active cases, most of them Anglican, some Roman Catholic, some Baptist or United Church. We try as much as we can to be in consultation with each other and to have common protocol.
10:20 a.m.
Associate Secretary, Justice Ministries, The Presbyterian Church in Canada
In the case of our denomination, I think information, insights, and support from other parishes, congregations, and other denominations would be appreciated. But ultimately the decision to provide sanctuary or not to provide sanctuary would be made by the congregation, with the support of the presbytery. That's what our policy allows for.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you, Mr. Gauthier.
Everyone wants to get in on this one, Mr. Komarnicki, so I'll go to Mr. Gauthier, as well to Mr. Nagy.
We'll have to go to Mr. Telegdi.
10:20 a.m.
Refugee Outreach Committee, St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church
Ms. Leddy pointed out the difficulties of the process in the system and its fragmentation. Our experience is that the removal process works very efficiently: within 12 to 14 months after a negative decision, you are removed from the country. However, the humanitarian and compassionate application takes up to three years to be reviewed; the waiting time to have your initial hearing is about two to three years also.
There's a lack of efficiency in the operation which traps people into not being able to afford to go to the Federal Court and thereby appeal. They're lucky if they get a sympathetic ear in the neighbourhood where they are. There aren't many churches with refugee committees that have a knowledge of the system and an experience of meeting these people and knowing how to listen to them, be sympathetic, and understand them with all of their difficulties of communication—because this is when they first arrive, and a lot of them are not fluent in French or English. It's not an easy task to accept.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I'll have to ask for brief responses, because quite a number of people want to have a word, so a brief response from you, Mr. Walt and Mr. Nagy, and then Mr. Telegdi.
10:20 a.m.
Vice-Chair, Congregational Council, All Saints Lutheran Church
All I want to say is that as I understand it, the agency application does not delay the removal process at all. In our case, Mr. Nano would be delivered into the hands of the Ethiopian government by our officials and turn over his passport, and that wouldn't be a good scene.
10:20 a.m.
Chair, Hitschmanova Committee, Unitarian-Universalist Congregation, First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa
I want to tie this back to the offer that Minister Sgro made a couple of years ago. There is a danger that the churches would become a quasi-official part of the process, and that's the last thing we want. We do this reluctantly, and that should be clear.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've been listening to Mr. Nagy's name being mispronounced quite a few times. It's Nagy. I just came back from the land of the Hungarians, so that is the proper pronunciation for the record.
Dealing with these cases is so very emotional and you have so much invested. I know, from my experiences, when you see an obviously bad decision, then you try to correct that particular case.
You really document well all the issues that are involved that should be changed within the refugee determination system. On political appointments who then get reappointed, we would never stand for our judges being reappointed every four years. It just doesn't make any sense. In cases where IRB members want to be reappointed, they feel that they must please the government of the day, if you will. That, to me, is totally wrong. It's not the way justice is supposed to work.
It's quite the misinformation that our system is just and fair, because you can't have a just and fair system if you don't have an appeal.
You mentioned that in 2004 there was a unanimous vote of the citizenship and immigration committee to implement the RAD. I hope when this issue comes up again, we will once again get a unanimous vote from this committee calling on the government to implement the RAD. We have heard evidence before this committee that if we had a fairer system, we could do it much faster and it would cut down on costs because we wouldn't have to have the appeal to the Federal Court, and this is something it does not want to do anyway.
I'm sure you have turned down many cases that came to you for sanctuary. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to do what you do. I really hope that your advocacy role also goes into the public arena more, because this mindset that we have a fair and just system really has to change. It's difficult when you're dealing with the cases themselves, but I think the churches could get it together and have a political action arm, if you will, one that is totally non-partisan but pushes issues that you all work toward and you all believe in.
I wonder if you have a comment on that.
10:25 a.m.
Refugee Outreach Committee, St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church
I want to invite you all to the public advocacy meeting that we are holding at St. Joseph's on November 15, where we will have the pleasure of dramatizing one story and some aspects and have a forum where some people will be able to ask questions and give answers addressing the refugee dilemma, following Peter Showler's book, Refugee Sandwich.
10:25 a.m.
Associate Secretary, Justice Ministries, The Presbyterian Church in Canada
Responding to your question, this feels like what Yogi Berra once said—“déjà vu all over again”.
During the fall of 2004 and the winter of 2005, KAIROS, the Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, which brings together churches and their development agencies, launched a petition campaign. This came after the meeting church leaders had with the minister in the summer of 2004. The petition called for the implementation of the refugee appeal division.
Over 25,000 Canadians signed the petition. Refugees issues are not necessarily the number one issue in the minds and hearts of many Canadians. I found when I did workshops across the country—and I was learning about these issues—that people learn something about Canada's obligations under international law and under our own charter, and they learn something about who our neighbour is and who our neighbour might be. It was an epiphany for many of us in our denomination.
So 25,000 Canadians signed the petition. The petitions were submitted to the House of Commons in April and June of 2005; they were formally tabled. The response of the then minister was that the system, even without an appeal—and I'm quoting—“effectively provides protection to those who need it”.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you.
Ms. Leddy, you had a comment. Then we'll go to Mr. Devolin.
10:30 a.m.
Director of Romero House of Refugees, Sanctuary Coalition of Southern Ontario
In response to your question about the just and fair system, I believe we have a myth of innocence as Canadians. Justice Thomas Berger of British Columbia has documented how in times of social stress Canadians become more intolerant than most. During the Second World War, we interred Japanese Canadians; we had the worst record in the western world in terms of accepting Jewish refugees; we have invoked the War Measures Act; and we have treated Jehovah's Witnesses in Quebec terribly in times of social stress.
I think something similar is going on now. We appear to have a refugee determination system, but in fact the vast majority of determinations are made overseas, as officers and airline officials prevent people from even getting on a plane, never asking them why they are coming here. They are determining, over there in places that we can't see, who are refugees.
I'll just give you a very concrete example. During one of the genocides in Burundi, a family was trying to leave and went to the Canadian embassy. The officer there simply said: there's no problem here; I will not give you a visa. The same day the American embassy was closing, because of the danger that was sweeping through the capital. That's where the truth of what's going on is happening.
10:30 a.m.
Program Coordinator, Refugee and Migration, Justice and Global Ecumenical Relations, The United Church of Canada
Let me add that we are very good at interdiction policies, at keeping people away from our shores. We are now also getting very good at not allowing sponsorship into Canada. I'm told there's now a four- to five-year wait for any sponsorship I submit. I am told to cut my numbers in half.
I have congregations phoning every day asking whether there are visa officer-referred cases they could help. The answer is no. It is deeply frustrating to us that we can't reach out to the world as we feel we should.
November 2nd, 2006 / 10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you for being here today. This is a difficult subject, and I certainly appreciated the presentations that were made and, as has been said already, the very compelling stories.
One of the difficulties of being the sixth questioner is that you have to try to think up new questions when all your other questions were asked already.
As I listened to your presentations, I deciphered really that that there are two issues here that are related. One is the issue of sanctuary, which predates Canada. I mean, it not only predates our current policies on refugees, but it predates the whole country. I respect the fact that churches feel that they have a right and a responsibility to deal with the notion of sanctuary and to extend it at certain times. I also appreciate the fact that you don't feel you have the right to negotiate it away somehow or to negotiate quotas of those who will be offered sanctuary. There's a fundamental incongruency there that I see.
The second issue really is public policy in terms of the refugee determination process that we have in Canada. I've only been on this committee for six months, and I am learning about the complexities of these issues and sometimes, quite frankly, the absurdities that result from applying processes that take years and years to answer questions that seem pretty obvious in the first place. I've said that the longer I'm in Ottawa, the more sense Monty Python makes.
The RAD was passed by Parliament. The RAD has not been introduced by the government. I do not ask this from a partisan point of view, but my question is this. As those who are practitioners in this area, why do you think that has happened? Why do you believe that the RAD has not been implemented, when it was passed by Parliament four years ago? I'd like to hear a quick response from anyone who's interested.
10:35 a.m.
Program Coordinator, Refugee and Migration, Justice and Global Ecumenical Relations, The United Church of Canada
Initially the excuse given was they wanted to address the huge numbers in the backlog. Then it became a matter of efficiency. It was actually talked about as being very efficient not having the RAD; we were managing the system better.
I think it's probably resource-related. It may be beyond that. There could be some ideology there, but I think it was a resource issue.