Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 11th, 2010

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

That's good.

In your presentation, you also spoke at length about board member appointments. You suggested a model to us, if I correctly understood, that was based on what's being done in the administrative tribunals in Quebec. We're talking about three members, one government representative, one board representative, in this case, and a lawyer from the province concerned. That's how it is in the administrative tribunals of Quebec.

Is that also the method used in superior tribunals, which are currently being discussed, such as the Bastarache Commission, or is it another mechanism?

[France Houle]

These are two separate mechanisms, but they are very similar. The Bastarache Commission, in particular, is examining the procedure for appointing Quebec Court judges. That process is very similar to the appointment process for members of the TAQ, the Tribunal administratif du Québec, which is also being examined by Justice Bastarache. Yes, the processes are very similar to each other.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Lastly, this process won't necessarily reassure a lot of people. As long as a politician somewhere is making an appointment, there is always a fear, or a possibility of partisanship. Lastly, I won't get you to state a position on that.

[France Houle]

No, but I do want to say something. What is important is the competence of the individuals. That said, avoiding all political issues is quite impossible.

There is a matter here of public education that has to be done. It's the government that decides who will be appointed and, in the choice..., if you say choice, it's because there are one, two or three possible individuals. The criterion that will ultimately be used to determine who must be selected should be competence first and foremost.

[Catherine Dagenais]

I'd also like to suggest that at least 50% of board members be member lawyers of a bar association of at least 10 years standing.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

All that concerns the part on board members.

As regards the officials who will be at the first level, earlier today it was suggested that there be an appointment method that is somewhat similar to that used by the Chief Electoral Officer to appoint returning officers. He can therefore go directly to the general public, somewhat shortcircuiting the Public Service Employment Act, to really get the people he considers most appropriate.

What do you think of that proposal?

[France Houle]

That's a possibility, but that appointment method exists solely for what are called administrative oversight agencies, such as the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Privacy Commissioner and so on.

Independence is granted at that level, which makes it possible to get the most competent people possible. Will that really solve the problem of appointing officials or do we want to have people who will nevertheless be appointed by cabinet for a term that will be renewable? These are options, but in fact, the problem—

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

That's assuming they keep officials at the first level. How will they be selected? Currently, the act just says that the process will be based on the Public Service Act. If we don't want that, we'll either have to draw on something that exists or do the whole thing.

What do you suggest? What should we draw on? How do we do that, as a committee?

[France Houle]

Going for that model is indeed an option. But that also probably entails an entire restructuring of budgets, the way in which budgets are organized. I can't state a position on that, but that's definitely one way. What are the implications of that from a budgetary standpoint? I don't know.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

In addition, with regard to designated countries, I thought you were quite opposed to the principle. Earlier today, it was suggested that, by abandoning the designated countries concept, we would at least enable the Canada Border Services Agency to identify a number of cases that it considers dubious and that it asks the IRB to handle on a priority basis, more quickly. So we would nevertheless go through all the stages, we'd do them all, but perhaps without abiding by the principle of first-come, first-served. That would enable us to respond to all the potential problem situations in which a number of important cases that seemed to be problematic would be coming from a region.

Do you think that might be a path that would enable—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Thank you, Mr. St-Cyr.

[France Houle]

No, because the IRB is an independent tribunal. So if we say another government agency... The Canada Border Services Agency is a government agency that is part of the central government. Telling the IRB how it should behave in specific cases doesn't work. Then the IRB would no longer be independent.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Thank you, Mr. St-Cyr.

Ms. Chow.

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

I have a question for the Parkdale legal clinic. We've been talking about the importance of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The proposal right now is to either go into the refugee stream, and if you do that, you will have no access to the humanitarian and compassionate grounds.... A lot of people, when they first arrive in the country, have no idea...let's say it's abuse, domestic violence, from Mexico, or whatever country. Can you perhaps describe why that element is not always clear cut and why there should really be humanitarian consideration, given that people still get deported even when the humanitarian considerations are being processed? It really has nothing to do with the whole backlog issue. But why is that important?

[Geraldine Sadoway]

Really, it's just because it's not a black and white issue if you're a refugee. The suggestion is that if you lose your refugee claim, then you're somehow a cheater, or you're lying, or you're bogus. That is not the case. In fact, a lot of people who lose refugee claims have very strong grounds. They have suffered a great deal and have a very strong humanitarian case. Maybe another board member would have found that with what you've suffered you should be accepted as a refugee, but this one board member said no, you don't meet that standard, that well-founded fear, but you do meet the standard we've had for a long time for humanitarian cases, which is that you would suffer disproportionate hardship, or maybe your child would suffer disproportionate hardship, if you were removed to the country where you came from.

By taking away the humanitarian application on grounds of hardship and disproportionate risk, and saying that if you make that refugee claim, you can't even file a humanitarian application for a year after if your case is refused, the minister is punishing people for making a refugee claim. He is saying, okay, you lost, you're not even going to be able to make a humanitarian case.

We've seen many cases that really do fall into the humanitarian category, even if they've been refused.

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

And you've been successful in arguing—

[Geraldine Sadoway]

Yes, 90% of the refused refugees that our clinic has dealt with over the past 13 years that I've been staff lawyer have been successful, and that's—

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

What kinds of cases are they?

[Geraldine Sadoway]

Well, there are not a lot of them—and that's actually another chart I'd like to hold up. We're not talking huge numbers here. If you look at the numbers of humanitarian cases—these are the last facts and figures. Do you see this little tiny green pie here, the smallest one?

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

You know what? We're not going to be able to see it. I only have a few minutes, so rather than showing me a chart that we can't see, could you...?

[Geraldine Sadoway]

Sure. It's in our written materials.

In 2008, 4.3% were accepted on humanitarian grounds in all of our big immigration programs. So it's a tiny number.

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

I only have a few minutes.

In the last minute or two, can you describe this? Right now there's a section--we heard it's section 96--that means that when you put in your case on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or considerations, you cannot describe the harm you have experienced. This is strange, because if it is, say, abuse or domestic violence, or the person is being tortured because of being in an arranged marriage, let's say, or whatever the reason, it could be humanitarian grounds and that person has suffered harm. Right now that section says you can't put that in as a consideration. I would imagine that's a problem.

[Geraldine Sadoway]

That's right.

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

In the 3% of cases in which you've been successful, can you just give us a concrete example of one case? Describe a story. Who are the ones we may end up excluding?

[Geraldine Sadoway]

Sure. I'll tell you one.

One case we had was of a Roma woman from Hungary, and the board found she was completely truthful. She'd had a terrible life experience of being beaten up repeatedly by skinheads. She'd gone to the police. She had never been protected, and eventually she came to Canada.

The board found that she was truthful, that she had had a terrible experience, that she shouldn't be going back to Hungary. One board member told her, “You have a very strong humanitarian case. I find that you're basically in fear of severe discrimination that is still continuing in your country, but I can't accept you as a refugee in danger of persecution.” Another board member might have made a different decision, but that board member said that discrimination in her case didn't reach the level of persecution, but it was a strong humanitarian case.

So that case came to us. She was a wonderful person in her community. She actually organized the Hungarian Roma in Toronto.