Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 2nd, 2012

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Okay, thank you.

[Rivka Augenfeld]

I just want to add that the whole issue of family separation and not giving people permanent residence for five years was already something that was done years ago, mostly for a group of Somalis without proper ID papers. It was litigated. I think you'll hear more about it tomorrow, because one of the lawyers who won that case, the Aden case, will be here tomorrow. Families of people accepted as refugees in Canada were not allowed to come for five years. It created great harm. It created great pain and anguish. The Federal Court finally said this was wrong, and the Canadian government conceded, and there was an agreement reached on how to let people come.

So why are we doing this again? Our Canadian courts have already spoken. We've already seen the terrible costs of not allowing families to reunite. I would put to you, if a person is found to be a refugee in Canada upon arrival, their family needs help.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Thank you.

Mr. Cotler, your five minutes are up.

I now go to Mr. Opitz for five minutes.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Bohbot, I want to correct a couple of things. First of all, the minister does not decide arbitrarily or in advance what countries he's seemingly going to pick on. That's not factual. The thing is, we deal with evidence, like the 95% of people who do abandon their asylum claims here in Canada. That's pretty compelling stuff when you see these folks come over here. In fact, some of the CBSA officials actually are told, right to their faces, “I'm here because you're going to pay me.”

Nobody's making that up. This is fact-based evidence coming from countries. It's based on statistics we get, and that's what's going on.

I'd like to put something else into context. Of our entire acceptance of refugee arrivals in Canada, what percentage is made up of irregular arrivals? The answer is less than 1%. We really do want to focus on the 99% of people who really want to be here and try to acclimatize and integrate into Canada and become great Canadian citizens. That's what our focus is on. It's not all on that small number alone. Though it's an important issue, it's not the only issue.

There are broader issues at stake in Canada, because all Canadian citizens have expectations of their government. This country is founded on four particular pillars: freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. All Canadians have a right to look to their government to protect them.

To you, sir, if somebody arrives in an irregular manner, say in Vancouver harbour, would you take any of those people into your home? I will redirect Ms. James's question to you. Would you unknowingly take these people into your home, to your family, to your kids? How would you deal with them?

[Dan Bohbot]

Mr. Opitz, your question does not take into consideration the reality on the ground. This is not about taking random people into your home and giving them your food. That's not the real issue. It has to do with knowing whether to give people the right to have a fair and equitable trial or hearing, in accordance with the four pillars that you yourself have mentioned.

The equality of all people before the law, the principles of natural justice, the rights and freedoms are the principles that we uphold, and we are not going to change a piece of legislation because of 1% or 2% of those people who say they are coming to Canada only for material or financial reasons. I think we have to remain firmly grounded rather than to scare Canadians, as we have heard in the political rhetoric over the past couple of years.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Sir, we are not trying to scare Canadians. We are trying to protect Canadians.

On the Sun Sea security threats, there were approximately five, with one of them being a war criminal. On the Ocean Lady security threats were 19, with war crimes 17, and that's a total of 41. That's significant, because those people pose a threat.

I've served in a war zone, sir, in Bosnia. I've seen what these things look like close up, in a place like that, which has been destroyed by war. When somebody says we're being oppressive to anybody coming to this country.... I wore a Canadian maple leaf on my shoulder proudly for most of my life. I know the system we have in this country. We are proud of the system of governance. We have an obligation to protect the rights of our citizens, and this is one way we're doing it as well.

Immigration is very important, sir. My parents came from a war zone, after World War II. They were in gulags and in forced labour camps in Nazi Germany. I get all the things that refugees bring to this country. It's very important, and I've grown up with that in my household, my home, and our family stories. So I understand and am sympathetic to people coming here as refugees wanting and seeking a better life. This is a compassionate country. We do abide by all the international regulations and obligations we have, and we do make it very accommodating for people to get here.

However, when people do come here, they have to abide by our laws, and we have a right, sir, to ensure who they are before we let them out into the general populace, where they could potentially harm Canadian citizens. Until we know that, we'll detain them.

By the way, as soon as somebody's identity is known, they are released from detention. The problematic people are the ones who are possibly not cooperating and revealing their identity. Until we are absolutely sure who those individuals are, we will detain them. This is under review consistently.

Do you have any comment to that, sir?

[Dan Bohbot]

Mr. Opitz, right now, neither Immigration Canada nor the Canada Border Services Agency has the power to release someone. Any release must strictly go through a member from the immigration division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. So it is not accurate to say or claim that someone can be released because their identity has been established. What you are saying is not accurate.

At any rate, it is important to understand that any present detention reviews take place under the current system on a regular basis. The system that the minister proposes provides for a 12-month detention during which no detention reviews would be conducted.

Do you understand what I am saying?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'm almost out of time.

Sorry, can you say that again? Just the last part, sir, because my mike kind of went out.

[Dan Bohbot]

All I'm saying is that Immigration Canada or CBSA does not have the power to free any individual. It's only an adjudicator or a board member who has that power.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes, it goes through the IRB.

[Dan Bohbot]

When their identity is established you release them--that's not possible.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks for making my point.

[Dan Bohbot]

In any event, there's no reason to detain individuals for a period of 12 months without detention reviews when the current system allows a regular detention review. As we've seen with the Sun Sea or the Ocean Lady, this is what the government has done in order to establish identity and to try to push out whoever was a potential person to be excluded in the definition of refugee.

I see no reason to change the system, because it is working as it is now.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Sir, we disagree.

We think we have a right to protect this country. Until we're satisfied with the identities of these people we're not going to let them out. Once we are satisfied with who they are, they get released. There are many examples of that.

How is my time?

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

You've got ten seconds.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That's it.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Thank you.

I'm now going to go over to Monsieur Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

Mr. Opitz talked about legal opinions based on which the bill seems to respect the Charter and our international obligations. I would appreciate it if he provided the clerk with the documents that include those legal opinions. That would enable us to better understand the government's position.

In terms of the question that I—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

As chair, I will say this is not the time for parliamentarians to debate each other. I want to remind my colleagues that this is the time for us to have a very valuable time with our guests that we've asked to come and present to us. Please confine yourself to questions to our witnesses, please.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

In your brief, you pointed out that the bill would eliminate the possibility to submit claims on humanitarian grounds during the first year following a refusal before the IRB.

Could you give us some specific examples of individuals affected by this type of situation?

[Richard Goldman]

It hasn't come into effect yet, of course, but it would come into effect under Bill C-31.

To give you one example of a person, a real case we worked with, a woman from Ethiopia was forced to be married at age 12. She was a victim of sexual assault due to her Eritrean background. She came to Canada with no documents, was detained, and therefore had a hearing that was actually accelerated. Because she was detained she didn't realize she had contracted a serious medical condition during her sexual assault. She had her hearing without that evidence. As I said, it was quite sped up, similar to what would be the case under Bill C-31, because she was in detention and had arrived with no documents. She only found out later on about this medical condition she had contracted in her sexual assault, which corroborated her whole story, and she was eventually accepted on humanitarian grounds.

Under the new system, if it does come into effect, she could have been removed immediately after her refugee hearing, with possibly no appeal if she had been designated an irregular claimant, with no humanitarian application, no pre-removal risk assessment, and no Federal Court.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You opened the door to my second question, which has to do with the 15-day timeframe for submitting a report.

What sort of information does the person have to include in the report? Why is it difficult to obtain all those documents in 15 days?

[Richard Goldman]

That is the timeframe for an appeal. Perhaps my colleague Mr. Bohbot would like to answer that question.

[Dan Bohbot]

Yes.

Mr. Giguère, any individual who wants to be accepted as an asylum seeker must submit as many documents as possible to support their claim. The documentation may include letters from lawyers,doctors or family members, pieces of identification, documents verifying their studies and employment, in order to show that what they are saying is true. It is simply impossible to do all that within 15 days, if only because of the time it takes to mail the documents from the country of origin to Canada. On its own, this factor is a major obstacle to mounting a case effectively in terms of documentation.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Within the 15 days, could those people easily have access to Canadian doctors to confirm the state of their health or the abuse suffered in the past?