Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Andrew.

We will now move to Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I would like to thank all the representatives of the various Churches here for their testimony before the committee.

The question of the Refugee Appeal Division is one that is very important to me. Having worked in co-operation with a number of volunteer groups on the issue of sanctuary in places of worship—I now have seven cases—, I am aware of the weight that falls on the shoulders of volunteers. It is commendable work, and I thank you for doing it.

I must also agree with what Ms. Leddy was saying: that MPs also seem to be a form of recourse, and we do not control all the means at our disposal.

The media are also becoming a form of recourse, and we do not find this at all normal. The Appeal Division is therefore necessary, and I am pleased to have my colleague Nicole Demers, who has agreed to table the bill on the Appeal Division. I don't know if you know, but it was a random draw. I am 290^th. The chances of me having my turn this session were thus very slim. However, I have a very generous colleague who, I think, shares my opinions. We decided to request the immediate application of certain sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Thanks for the support with the Appeal Division.

We also have a correspondence with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which says it is disappointed that Canada is not establishing the Appeal Division and gives the reasons in favour of setting up an appeal division.

You have talked a lot about the issue of sanctuary in places of worship, and I would now like to ask you a few questions on the refugees' environment and the whole context of limitations on refugees' rights. The committee heard some unsettling testimonies a week ago, when it learned that pre-removal risk assessment officers were given only two weeks' training before conducting pre-removal risk assessments.

In your opinion, is two weeks' training sufficient to properly understand the potential environment of a person seeking protection and claiming refugee status?

Ms. Leddy, you have already come to speak to the committee to warn us about the coming into force of the Safe Third Country Agreement. Now that the law has been in effect for two years, do you have a particular opinion on the subject?

Thank you.

[Mary Leddy]

I guess I thank you for the question.

When I spoke to the committee about the safe third country, there were certain things that we predicted, and they have all come true. The numbers of refugees entering Canada have dropped dramatically, some say by 50%; I think it's more. Many people are prevented from even leaving their own country.

Again, this was done by stealth. I think if most Canadians had been told point blank, “We are shutting the door on 50% of our refugees”, most would be upset. Most Canadians are quite decent when faced with that kind of thing.

The other thing we predicted was the number of desperate people who would then try to enter Canada illegally, and we have some anecdotal evidence of this through people who have arrived.

I'm going to give you a very concrete example. Yesterday we had a family arrive at our houses, a mother and father and a little boy from Colombia. Colombia is not on the list of countries that we will allow to enter. Colombia has a terrible problem. They will not be accepted by the United States, because the United States is saying that their government is in control.

Desperate, this mother and father and little boy waited in the bushes on the American border. As a train passed over a bridge—and there was a river hundreds of feet below—they hopped on the train. They clung to the side of the train with their little boy on their back, counted to 20, I think they said, and then they were told to drop off; then they hid in the bushes on the Canadian side.

That's what people are doing. And there are couriers making a lot of money. We have a history of what happens during times of prohibition: big business for crooks; thousands of dollars to deliver people across remote border entry points; thousands of dollars to pack tour buses through more visible places. But the ones that bother me the most are these people forced to hop onto trains or forced to go under trucks. It's happening.

I know that none of you here like that; we're better than this. People whose lives are in danger should be able to go to an officer representing us and say: “This is why I'm afraid”; and “This is why I need the protection of your government”. Corruption has increased, and danger has increased, and my fear is that we do not know the ones who have died. We know of one person who drowned in the river. We know that in other countries, when officers come near a boat and there are illegals, they are pushed over. We don't know those stories.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Leddy, for that.

Now it's Mr. Siksay, please.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It takes the breath away, because we were afraid of those kinds of stories when we heard about the safe third country agreement. We've been dreading, knowing that was going to happen, but we were all expecting it.

I want to thank you all for coming, and for your very articulate and moving statements this morning. I think it's really important for us all to understand how this is something that church congregations enter into only with great and careful consideration. Also, I hope we all have an appreciation of the huge commitment this involves.

I was only very peripherally involved with a sanctuary case, as a supporter of a congregation in Vancouver at Trinity United Church and St. Mark's Anglican Church. It was a single woman from El Salvador with five or six children, which presented huge challenges for that congregation, and it went on for quite some time. I know some of the challenges involved in this, at least peripherally.

I wanted to ask specifically about the situation of l'Église unie Saint-Pierre in Quebec City, the United Church congregation where Mohamed Cherfi was in sanctuary. I think it's the only case where officials entered a church in Canada and removed somebody who had sought sanctuary. I wonder if Heather or others could tell us about that specific case and what happened there.

[Heather Macdonald]

Yes. We had a young man in our sanctuary. I think it was almost an act of collusion. I know I should be careful with that word, but he was dragged out without any negotiation with our church. The Quebec police came in on a charge that he had failed to advise a change of address. He was taken out of the building, and immediately handed over to the immigration authorities. All criminal charges were dropped.

He was deported to the States, where incidentally he was found to be a refugee. He is still in the process of applying to come back to Canada, and we are very much in support of his return.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

To everyone's knowledge, is that the only time officials have gone into a church in Canada and removed someone in sanctuary?

[Heather Macdonald]

As far as I know, it is the only time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I think Mr. Allen would like to make a comment, Mr. Siksay.

[Stephen Allen]

As a footnote on the safe third country agreement, Amnesty International, the Canadian Council of Churches, and the Canadian Council for Refugees have launched a court action challenging that agreement on the basis that it violates our charter.

For example, in the case of Colombian applicants, Canada accepts 80% plus of those seeking asylum, seeking refugee status in this country. In the United States, it's far less than 40%.

Canada also takes into account persecution on the basis of gender. There are many things that Canada does very well internationally. South of the border, our neighbours have a far less generous approach to gender persecution. On that basis, a court challenge has just started. I think it's before the Federal Court of Appeal now, and we'll see what the outcome is for all the ethical and theological reasons you've heard this morning.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I want to come back to the question of police action. Has anybody ever been charged in Canada with assisting a refugee who sought sanctuary?

[Heather Macdonald]

Not that I know of. I know the United Church has nominated me.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Heather Macdonald]

No. I think I'd be the first to go, should it ever happen.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I know the document that the United Church has produced, Heather, and I think you worked on that.

[Heather Macdonald]

Yes.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

It talks about the situation in the United States and in Britain, where there have been different circumstances. Can you tell us a bit about what's happened there?

[Heather Macdonald]

There were several priests charged in the U.S. in the early 1980s, and I believe in Britain. We have certainly warned all our ministers that if they enter into this action, this is something they need to figure could be possible.

It's going to sound bizarre, but it could affect their pension, because we have to go into our court procedures about the person not being in charge or being in jail. We know we could be fined severely. There' s jail time. We've even thought of other infringements, such as it's become residential in a non-residential zone. We go into it knowing that, hoping it wouldn't happen. We think it would be political suicide for someone. Yes, we bear that; it's heavy on us. We hope it won't happen.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

You mentioned the Raza family in Winnipeg and showed us the photograph of them.

[Heather Macdonald]

Do you mean the family we're giving daily school to, with the six children?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Yes. I just had a response back from the minister to a letter that I wrote on behalf of that family, and the minister uses the phrase “people hiding in churches”. He uses that a number of times in the letter.

I wonder if you could respond. That language seems a little strong to me. Given what you or perhaps someone else said--that this was something done openly, and there's no attempt to be underhanded or anything like that--it seems to fly in the face of the term “hiding in churches”. I wonder if you can respond to that.

[Heather Macdonald]

Yes. I would suggest the minister's use of that word is unfortunate, because from the day it happened we advised the immigration department and the minister. I have written at least three letters. Members have written. Our moderator--that is, the head of the United Church of Canada--has written; ministers across the country have written, as well as congregations and individuals. We are consistently ignored.

We think there are some options that could be pursued for this family. We'd be willing to work with the government, but the government does not want to engage, so we continue trying to figure out what to do. We feel we're just being totally stonewalled, that there isn't a concern to look to the needs of this family.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Are there many congregations or parishes that have done sanctuary more than once? Are there places where it happens frequently? It seems to me that I haven't heard of that. I don't know of it offhand. Given the kind of commitment it makes, I'm sure it's--

[Pierre Gauthier]

There's one church in Montreal that has done maybe three. It's the only church, to my knowledge, in Canada that has done it in the last 20 years or so.

[Heather Macdonald]

That would be Union United Church.