Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2012

[Richard Kurland]

Today, we no longer have a visa relationship with Taiwan.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

That's right.

[Richard Kurland]

That's because of this government, by the way.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Yes.

[Richard Kurland]

The thing is this. I agree that more can be done. In 1989 when the identical questions and concerns were raised, they wanted a fast system, with expeditious decision-making. Guess what delivered it? At that time, there was a federal budget to directly compensate the refugee lawyers in the process. An adequately resourced refugee bar delivers fast results. I'm waving a known flag. It is the equivalent of the unemployed immigration lawyer relief act.

The reality is that if you put what we have here under the government of the day—I think it was Flora MacDonald at the time—there was compensation that did not go through the provincial legal aid systems but went directly to the refugee lawyers themselves. Magical processing times ensued. If you are serious about faster processing times, contemplate resourcing an expeditious processing system by compensating the key component in the system, the refugee lawyer.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Edelmann, and Mr. Kurland, we enjoyed your spirited presentations. It is because of you guys that I love my job. I thank you also, Ms. Thomson.

We will suspend for a few moments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to reconvene the meeting.

We have two witnesses, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture. I see only one person here, so we'll see what happens.

We have Derek Fildebrandt, the national research director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and we have Ezat Mossallanejad—

[Ezat Mossallanejad, Policy Analyst and Researcher, Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture]

It's pronounced Mossallanejad.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

—a policy analyst and researcher.

Mr. Fildebrandt, you have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation to the committee.

[Derek Fildebrandt, National Research Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you very much.

Honourable members, on behalf of the 70,000 supporters of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, I thank you for the invitation to testify today regarding Bill C-31.

My name is Derek Fildebrandt. I am the national research director at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

The CTF is a not-for-profit citizen advocacy group dedicated to lower taxes, less waste, and accountable government. We do not have charitable status and we do not accept a penny in government support—we never have, and never will.

Canadian public policy is riddled with sacred cows that cannot be touched, and very few people are willing to take the heat for wading into them. Few in Ottawa have roots in the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, however. I will pre-empt what will likely be an inevitable point raised and note that our alumni includes Jason Kenney, the author of the bill before us today. Since he left the CTF 16 years ago to run for Parliament, we have supported several of his initiatives, including Bill C-31.

The CTF makes no claim to being immigration and refugee experts, but we are a watchdog of how our public money is spent.

The bill has our full support for three reasons. First, it upholds the belief of Canadians that our refugee system should be compassionate and welcoming. Second, it strengthens that system by making it more timely and efficient. Third, it is projected to save Canadian taxpayers at least $1.65 billion over the first five-year period.

Included in the reforms in Bill CC-31 are a new appeal process for applicants, a guarantee to remove failed applicants in a timely manner, and a safe-country designation to help streamline the process. Estimates put the waiting time for a refugee claim to be heard at 60 days under the proposed reforms, a massive improvement over the 19-month average right now.

Currently a failed asylum seeker costs taxpayers over approximately $50,000, a cost carried mostly by provincial governments for health care and welfare spending. It is estimated that this cost will be reduced to $29,000 per claimant under the proposed regime. This is still not cheap, but it is a marked improvement nonetheless.

The bill will ensure that refugee claimants of questionable status will spend less time using the generous health care and welfare benefits of our provincial governments, creating major efficiencies for taxpayers. In Ontario alone this will save more than $1 billion over the first five years; in Quebec, $465 million; in British Columbia, $99 million; and in Alberta, $46 million.

Getting better bang for our buck is a goal that has long been left out of the conversation around refugee policy for fear of this sacred cow, that any change would be viewed as uncompassionate or present a political target for opponents.

At the Canadian Taxpayers Federation we are critics most of the time, pointing out where governments do wrong. Here you might recall our calculation in January of the pensions of members of Parliament. Nevertheless, when governments do something right we're unafraid to support it. The government's willingness to take this on has the full support of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and we encourage members of Parliament to work together to pass this bill and avoid the temptation on all sides to turn this into a political football.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sir, I'm not going to attempt to say your name again, because I messed it up.

You have up to 10 minutes as well, sir.

[Ezat Mossallanejad]

Thank you very much for this golden opportunity.

I speak from the perspective of survivors or torture, war, genocide, and crimes against humanity. I also speak to you from the perspective of a person who came to Canada as a political refugee. I'm a victim and survivor of torture and spent four years in jail for human rights purposes.

I will share with you initially the positive aspects of Bill C-31. Then I will come to some areas of concern, and finally I will have some special requests for you.

To begin, let me bring to your respected attention that since its inception in 1977, the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture has provided its holistic services to more than 19,000 clients from 136 countries. It is the most important centre in North America, and the second at a global level.

Let me begin with some of the positive aspects of Bill C-31. The fact that you give discretionary power to the minister to release designated foreign nationals when exceptional circumstances arise is very positive. Exemption of children below the age of 16 from detention is positive as well, but separation from their families during the incarceration of their parents is an area of concern. Finally, the consideration given to the best interests of the child and to the lack of emergency medical care in the countries of origin when someone applies on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is positive as well.

Now I come to the areas of our concern. The first concern, as a centre providing direct services to survivors, is the very short time period for processing refugee claims. It ranges from 30, to 45, to 60 days for different categories of refugees. In our view that is neither feasible nor just. It sometimes takes me three months to come up with the proper documentation of someone's torture, by using psychiatrists, psychologists, and physical practitioners. I don't know how it is possible to do that in a short time, and whether there are resources for that.

The second area of concern with Bill C-31 is the fact that almost five categories of refugee claimants are denied access to the refugee appeal division, and in some cases they are denied Federal Court remedies.

I'll give you one example. The bill has denied people whose credibility is rejected. Most of my clients contradict themselves because they are survivors. They are disassociated. They suffer from deep depression and severe mental health problems, so they are rejected. There are other remedies that in the course of time will prove their credibility. We believe they should have access to the appeal division and Federal Court remedies.

Another area of concern is the designated countries of origin. Please note that we are living in a changing world: The situation of a country can change overnight, so please be extremely careful in preparing the list.

There are also some categories of people, for example LGBT people, who are subject to torture almost everywhere. Canada is an exception. But when you just come up with designated countries of origin, they might be denied protection. We are very concerned about that.

Also, another area is designated foreign nationals. We are very concerned about this. Based on my experience working with refugees in Canada for 27 years, I know they can be in detention forever. They can be in limbo also for many years, because they are denied access to...for five years. They have no opportunity for family re-unification. Even if they are accepted as protected persons, they should report to the police. This is against article 16 of the Convention Against Torture that speaks to the prohibition of other inhumane, cruel, degrading treatment or punishment. Please do something about that.

Also, we are concerned about the limitation of pre-removal risk assessment and coming up with some limitation on applying on humanitarian and compassionate grounds after one year of rejection. These are the remedies for survivors of torture and we have done it in the past.

Finally, we are very concerned about the vacation of status and the cessation clause. Let me tell you that the scars of torture never go away. Psychologically, the scars will remain for the rest of one's life. People “mis-present“ themselves as survivors and that should not be grounds to vacate their status. Also, a country's situation might change, but I think that is a change on its face value not real value, given the fact that impunity is a global problem and that warlords and torturers remain active even if a country's situation changes. That should not grounds to come up with this cessation of refugee status.

Now, I come to our special request. Please, our beloved legislature, I beg you to incorporate all important provisions in the legislation itself and not leave them for regulations.

My second request is to please provide the minister with the discretionary power to protect people who need protection. Even the most comprehensive legislation cannot anticipate exceptional cases.

Then my third request is to please be as flexible as possible. Tough legislation and tight restrictions will be counter-productive if they fail to consider the root causes of the problem.

Finally, you know that since 1976, the immigration act has gone through many changes, many amendments, and still you have the problem. Please come up with a vital link between immigration and human rights. Please designate an ombudsperson responsible to Parliament for monitoring immigration practices.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you sir. I will call you Ezat, if I could, because I don't want to insult you by trying to pronounce your last name again. Thank you for your presentation.

Ms. James has some questions for both of you.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

And thank you to our two guests. I'm happy to have both of you here today, but I'm extremely happy to see someone from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Yesterday in committee, I talked about welfare fraud. From talking to constituents for the last six years in my riding of Scarborough Center, east of the GTA in Ontario, I know that welfare fraud comes up again and again. People are sick and tired of welfare fraud. While we're compassionate and help refugees—and this bill actually seeks to help legitimate refugees by allowing them to be processed quicker and to integrate much faster into Canadian society—one of the key aspects is actually cracking down on the fraudulent claimants.

You talked about the cost to taxpayers, but could you tell me what it is for Ontario? Did you mention that? I didn't hear it.

[Derek Fildebrandt]

In Ontario it was more than $1 billion.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

That's what I thought I heard, but I wanted to clarify it. I'm not surprised, but I think constituents in my riding would be shocked to hear that figure. Anything that we can do as Canadian citizens, as the government, to protect Canadian taxpayers and the interest of those taxpayers.... Everybody works hard, we pay our taxes, and we want government to make sure that money is used wisely.

I'm going to ask you a couple of questions because in my province it is a concern. Do you know offhand how long it takes someone after they have come to Canada and make an application to actually start receiving welfare cheques? I ask just out of curiosity, if you have that number.

[Derek Fildebrandt]

We don't have the exact time attached, but we do know that if there is an efficient part of the refugee process, it's the ability to get linked up with social services and plugged into the health care system almost right away.

As we know right now, this is costing the provinces billions of dollars primarily for health care and welfare. In the overall global figure of what this will save, provinces that take in the most refugees will see the largest savings. So the largest being obviously Ontario followed by Quebec, British Columbia, and then Alberta. That works out to $1.65 billion.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

So when you say right away, you're talking in a matter of weeks?

[Derek Fildebrandt]

We don't have the exact time attached to how quickly they're linked in, but the refugees are supported by the government. They come here without a source of income. It's not unreasonable for taxpayers to temporarily support refugees who come here; they obviously have no means of supporting themselves.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Do you think that two, five, or six years is a reasonable time to support refugees who are here by fraudulent means?

[Derek Fildebrandt]

No. Also, you can take other circumstances into account, such as language training. If refugees come here speaking English, they'll obviously be able to integrate into the labour force a lot quicker. But I think that attaching a deadline to how long a refugee is able to remain on social assistance before—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Sorry, we've heard actually from other witnesses as well that the lucrative benefits here in Canada, for health care and welfare, are really a draw factor for many people to come here and abuse the system. We're not quite sure of the exact number of weeks it takes someone to actually start receiving cheques, but I can tell you that on average it takes 20 months for someone who comes here as a refugee claimant to have their first hearing at the IRB. So 20 months is just shy of two years. Yes, we want to make sure that the people who are legitimate refugees receive our assistance, and this bill seeks to address that because it's going to be done with a much quicker method, in a much more timely fashion.

But at the same time, we want to make sure those who are simply coming here to collect the benefits, and in some cases.... For example 95% of the claimants from the European Union, amounting to some 25% of the people who actually come here as refugees, actually abandon their claims or withdraw them. So for an average of two years, they're eligible for benefits and I think that is absolutely unacceptable here in Canada.

On behalf of the Canadian taxpayer and myself as a government member of Parliament, I thank you for coming to this committee to bring light to this. I really do appreciate it.

Now speaking of welfare, obviously it's a provincial jurisdiction. Do you think that provincial governments have a role to play to make sure that we're helping to deter bogus refugee claimants from receiving welfare? Obviously we need to help people when they arrive, but do you think that there's anything the provincial government can do to benefit taxpayers? We are footing the bill after all.

[Derek Fildebrandt]

As you're noting, fraudulent refugee claimants often have an incentive to come here because of our generous social assistance programs. While it wouldn't be in the jurisdiction of the federal government to direct them to do so, provinces lessen that incentive for claimants to come here and abuse the system. Provinces can bring in their own measures to try to determine who are legitimate refugees as well as whether these applicants should be receiving social services. Provinces provide social assistance only to those whom they really want to. It's a voluntary act.

Provinces can do their own homework as well. They don't always have to take the federal government's word for it on who is a legitimate refugee, when we have huge numbers of people coming from Europe who are abandoning their claims to begin with. Provincial governments can check the math twice and see if they should really be providing generous moneys—not just welfare but also health care and the many other benefits that come with Canadian residence.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

So in your opinion, provinces should really be support this particular measure in this bill because when I think of about $1 billion for Ontario.... I'm in the GTA, and transit is a municipal issue there; I hear again and again that we need subways. I mean $1 billion could go a long way toward helping municipalities right across the great province of Ontario.

I would like to thank you on that. I know you mentioned that the Taxpayers Federation supports the measures in Bill C-31, but I'm wondering if you've got any specific comments from some of your members on this particular bill.

[Derek Fildebrandt]

For full disclosure, as I said the author of the bill served with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation as its president for several years before running for Parliament. So our members are strongly supportive of this bill.

Our members strongly support having a generous and welcoming refugee system, a generous and open immigration system, but one that should not be abused. Many people come to Canada every year, and we welcome them. They're a vital part of our economy. They're a source of taxpayers, and we need them.