Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Mary Leddy]

Pardon me, but it's not a helpful way of framing the problem, and for this reason. I think most of us who are involved in this would like to be able to agree with the officer. It would be easier. That's one thing to say.

The other thing I would say as an academic and as somebody who's worked as a journalist is you can evaluate the evidence. And I think that I, the people I work with, and Amnesty International have the solid method for evaluating evidence: historical context, political context, and sources of information. I think we are often dealing with judges who have two weeks of training and with officers who don't have that much training.

I would give you as an example presenting extensive evidence from reputable sources, and having it refuted by an officer who refers to a web page—

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Let's assume you have a competent officer beside you.

[Mary Leddy]

—and the web page says that this information should never be used in the judicial process. Now, that's not just a case of interpretation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I wasn't so much concerned with that. But you will have a case where someone has gone through the process in some logical fashion but comes up with a decision that's different from what you might like to see.

[Mary Leddy]

Yes, I don't think it's just simple disagreement. We can look at that decision and say yes, that's a good decision; that's right. That's what we would prefer to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Maybe we'll allow Mr. Siksay three minutes or so. I think we'll have to cut it off there. So please go ahead.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I think the issue is confidence in the system. There are lots of people who are removed from Canada every day, but people don't protest those removals, because they have confidence that the system worked in those cases.

I wanted to come back to something that Monsieur Gauthier mentioned about language rights. I know that in the case of Maoua Diomande, the specific issue of language rights at her hearing was ultimately why she was allowed to stay in Canada. Monsieur Gauthier, I wonder if you could tell us specifically what the situation was there.

I also wanted to raise generally folks' experience around interpretation. I know we heard earlier this week from one of the security certificate detainees. He alleged that at one point in his questioning, the interpreter who was there with the police was a CSIS agent. I know that in other cases we've heard allegations that the secret police of other countries are active in Canada. I'm just wondering if there's been any evidence or any suggestion that this has been related to interpreters or the kinds of concerns you raised around interpretation.

[Pierre Gauthier]

On the language rights issue, she is a person who was educated in French in her country of origin. She speaks a couple of African languages as well, but French was her functional language. When she approached the system here, she was presented with an English-speaking lawyer. To be accommodating--because you're asking for help, and this is a lawyer provided by legal aid--you don't question. You try to be accommodating, but being accommodating sometimes is to your own detriment.

Her ability to understand the questions and to respond through an interpreter was.... It's fudgy. I was brought up in French and English, but not all of us have that benefit. It led to misunderstandings, led to errors in translation, which we were able to verify, because we looked at the transcripts. That kind of process jeopardizes people's ability to receive justice.

I'm not concerned only about the French and English. I look at some of the languages that are particular to very specific regions, and that's all some of these people can speak. Where do we get the translators?

Some of them are picked up, former immigrants who have very little training in translating and probably don't have the command of the English language that they need to understand our own societal systems, and they make mistakes, so whenever you're dealing with translations, you need to have a very broad perspective and go beyond the meaning of just one word when you're assessing a situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Are there any wrap-up comments anyone wishes to make?

[Phil Nagy]

I have one brief comment on the issue of church involvement. We've had about ten people or families approach us in the last few years about sanctuary, and in the other nine cases we found other avenues for them to deal with their situations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Allen.

[Stephen Allen]

Will this committee be recommending that the appeal process be implemented?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

At the end of the day, of course, we will write a report, and the committee will sit and consider what you've told us. Until we meet, I don't believe that I can say on behalf of the committee whether we will make that recommendation, but I can tell you that most of the committee members from whom I've heard on this matter are very sympathetic to it.

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

The private member's bill is coming up in December, so there will be an opportunity to speak about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

A good opportunity for you guys to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I want to thank all of you on behalf of the committee for your presence here today and for sharing your experiences. Your stories were very intriguing. Hopefully our committee can make some recommendations and incorporate some of your stories in our recommendations.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.