Evidence of meeting #41 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was detention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Stop the clock.
You know, there you go; you're starting to alienate the government, and then they'll alienate you.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You have every right to ask those questions, but try to do it in a way that's less confrontational to the government, because they can do the same thing to you.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Sure.
These are from lawyers and facts that I got from the National Post. We know that it's a very right-leaning newspaper, so if.... Anyway, I digress.
I'm going to jump to timelines, because it will change gears.
What are your thoughts or views on the timelines that have been imposed under Bill C-31 and the consequences of these new timelines?
6:15 p.m.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
On timelines, we appreciate—and I want to say it—the government's efforts to create a more efficient system in the processing of asylum claims. This is reasonable and legitimate. We also support implementation of efficient timelines.
Of course, the issue is what are efficient and what are adequate timelines. It's important that the timelines should not impact upon certain rights of the processing. That means the right to counsel and also the ability to collect and review information. What is the preparation stage for an interview? It's the right to counsel and also gathering information.
The timelines should be adequate to this process, and also, considering that Canada has a sophisticated legal process, it is necessary for a certain, particular category of vulnerable asylum seekers to find their way in the process.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
I want to pursue this and get your response on it, because I know that the issue of detention is an area of concern for all of us, not just the opposition. The purpose and intent of what we're trying to accomplish with respect to detention is to ensure that individuals who should not be out in the Canadian public are simply not.
I would ask you: when those slightly fewer than 500 individuals landed in British Columbia, would it have been right, just based on the fact that a majority of them could apply for refugee status, to simply release them all into the country with no regard for background checks, no regard for identification, and no regard for ensuring the safety of Canadians, simply because a majority of them were not considered war criminals?
6:20 p.m.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
I'm sorry I haven't brought with me ExCom 44, which I would have read in that regard. But I have quoted it before, saying that detention is permissible; that it's possible to include a detention phase at the beginning of the process in order to exactly meet those concerns that you are referring to.
I would have liked to read it because there are safeguards anyway in that detention that would have called for a review mechanism, for instance, which is very important. So, yes, it's as you say, but Bill C-31 doesn't really comprehensively adhere to the safeguards and review mechanism that are contained in ExCom 44 or international standards at large.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
One of the areas I wanted to ask you about...and you have done a great job of complimenting Canada in terms of the system it has. I mean that in a very non-partisan, non-political way, because I truly believe in the system that we have, but it is in fact broken in many ways.
We've heard over the last week and a half about the thousands of individuals who are coming from the EU, claiming refugee status here in Canada by the thousands, abandoning their claims, and going back to their countries of origin. We know that there are in the neighbourhood of 40,000-plus individuals in the country right now who have either abandoned their claims or have simply not pursued them any further and are not located, either by the CBSA or by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
We also know that there are over 2,000 individuals whose refugee applications were approved but then subsequently were found under appeal to be fraudulent or not true, and we are in the process of trying to ensure that those individuals do not remain in the country; that they are sent back to their country of origin.
So while I submit that there are great things about our system, part of the reason Bill C-31 is here is, for example, the thousands of applications that are withdrawn or simply abandoned.
In your opinion, if a claimant voluntarily withdraws or abandons their claim and returns to their country of origin, is that not an admission by the claimants themselves that they simply are not in fear of persecution in their country of origin?
6:20 p.m.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Of course, in a sense case by case, every case has to be seen within its own merit and within its own study. Of course, I know there is this element of this large number of people coming from EU countries.
The other thing I want to say is the refugee definition is universal in nature. People may have a good asylum claim regardless of whether they are recognized as refugees or not; they may have a valid asylum claim from all countries. Issues arise in EU countries as well that may warrant a valid asylum claim.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
To be fair, I understand your point. But you are acknowledging that there are thousands of applications that have been made in Canada that are in fact not refugee claims.
6:25 p.m.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
I haven't said that; I'm sorry. I don't know about numbers in that respect very well. I am saying that all applications have to be studied on their merit. There may be a number; I wouldn't know exactly the number.
But I also want to say that there are situations in all countries, including EU countries, that may warrant valid asylum claims.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.
Clause 19 of Bill C-31 introduces a concept that is radically different, in other words, giving refugees conditional permanent residence. A person who has been recognized as a legitimate refugee and who has obtained permanent resident status can have that status revoked at the minister's discretion if, at any point, he feels that the refugee's country of origin has become safe. Does that not violate refugee status rules allowing an individual to truly make a new life for themselves?
6:25 p.m.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Yes. I was speaking earlier about the importance of the durability of solutions. Of course, if someone arrives in Canada, especially as a resettled refugee but also as a claimant, and receives his permanent residency, it should be durable.
However, I also understand that the minister, here in this committee a few days ago, recognized that this will not be applicable to refugees only on the basis of changed circumstances in the country of origin. We recognize that this is very important, and we applaud. If this will be translated into the bill, it will be very important that only for changed situations...circumstances in the country of origin; this should not be a basis for cessation. But I understand that the minister has announced that, and we are very glad to hear that.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
In terms of what these provisions mean for refugees, the ban on humanitarian and compassionate applications, so-called irregular arrivals, and the one-year ban on accessing a PRRA also go against international rules, don't they?
6:25 p.m.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Yes, the analysis of the pre-removal risk assessment should be conducted in a timely manner to ensure that those protection needs that are not captured within the refugee process may be found within the PRRA, or the pre-removal risk assessment. It's a safeguard.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
They are prohibited from submitting a refugee claim on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
6:25 p.m.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Do you mean after 12 months?
We are thinking that not having an appeal, or a review phase, is a problem. Without a review phase, the pre-removal risk assessment is a safeguard in the process. If there were a review process, of course, the pre-removal risk assessment would be less important. That's why it's so important that the process maintain a review element.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Mr. De Angelis and Mr. Casasola.
The time has expired. Thank you for coming and taking the time to meet with the committee to give us your comments. We appreciate it very much.
I have just a couple of words for the committee. I regret to advise you that there will be no meetings tomorrow.
6:25 p.m.
An hon. member
Gee whiz.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm sorry. The deadline for submitting amendments is tomorrow at noon. So if you have amendments, submit them to the clerk by that time or they will not be accepted.
We agreed on April 26 that we would start clause-by-clause at noon on Wednesday. The clause-by-clause schedule is starting Wednesday from noon to 2 p.m. and from 3:30 p.m.to 7:30 p.m. Thursday is from 8:45 a.m. to noon and from 3:30 p.m. to midnight.