Bill C-31 (Historical)

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act to, among other things, provide for the expediting of the processing of refugee protection claims.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is also amended to authorize the Minister, in certain circumstances, to designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons and to provide for the effects of such a designation in respect of those persons, including in relation to detention, conditions of release from detention and applications for permanent resident status. In addition, the enactment amends certain enforcement provisions of that Act, notably to expand the scope of the offence of human smuggling and to provide for minimum punishments in relation to that offence. Furthermore, the enactment amends that Act to expand sponsorship options in respect of foreign nationals and to require the provision of biometric information when an application for a temporary resident visa, study permit or work permit is made.
In addition, the enactment amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to increase the penalties for persons who fail to provide information that is required to be reported before a vessel enters Canadian waters or to comply with ministerial directions and for persons who provide false or misleading information. It creates a new offence in respect of vessels that fail to comply with ministerial directions and authorizes the making of regulations respecting the disclosure of certain information for the purpose of protecting the safety or security of Canada or Canadians.
Finally, the enactment amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to enhance the authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to enter into agreements and arrangements with foreign governments, and to provide services to the Canada Border Services Agency.

[Michael Deakin-Macey, Past President, Board of Directors, Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Good morning to all members of the committee and all those who are witness to these proceedings.

I recently travelled to Europe with my sweetheart and visited the grave of one of her relatives who died at Passchendaele in Belgium. It's very emotional seeing the name of a relative on a tombstone, especially when so far from home. There are many others there too, and many among them are Chinese workers brought in to dig graves for the fallen. They dug well into 1919 to bury the dead.

I start with this because Canada at that time did not treat the Chinese particularly well, especially by today's standards. Yet despite this, the Chinese are buried in the same graveyard. Despite all of the things that generation did wrong by today's standards, when the time came, they did the most honourable thing possible: they all rest together.

I see myself as a quiet Canadian. By that I mean I work to take care of my family, I volunteer in my community, and run my small business with hopes of employing more people in the future. My volunteer activities have caused me to be here before you today, because I'm the past president of the board of directors of the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society in the city of Victoria, British Columbia.

It's a small organization of approximately 30 full-time staff with a budget of $2 million a year. I was a very involved president. I know business and learned the somewhat arcane business of the Canadian immigration and refugee system at the street level. It works despite itself. Our funding came from more than a dozen sources and it consumed 20% to 30% of the staff's time applying for and administering all of these programs. Simply put, it needs a bit of improving.

I've been following the debate in my current role as a quiet Canadian in a quiet city. Canada is a generous country to the point that some see us as simple and often take advantage. Simple is a country that takes care of everybody, regardless of whether or not they're Canadian.

The Canada Health Act of 1984 guarantees access to emergency health care regardless of nationality. We get many visitors who are sick and show up in Canadian emergency rooms. We treat them, no questions asked. Then we try to get compensated for what it costs us to treat them. Being generous is not inexpensive.

Which brings us to today and the question of refugees, at least that's the reason I was asked to come. The Sun Sea was brought into my home town of Victoria. The first thing that Canada did was to ensure that they were physically safe and then to get them any medical attention that they needed, as well as food, clothing, and a clean place to sleep. Yes, they were detained, but they were not denied entry. Our country took care of them.

As reported in The Toronto Star on August 21, 2010 by Petti Fong, three in five Canadians believe that the ship should have been turned back. Yet the government did the honourable thing despite public opinion at the time.

Bill C-31 is partly a debate about the detail of our refugee system, partly a response to the public's desire to stop large groups of illegal refugees from taking advantage of our generosity. The devil, as always, is in the details. Let us remember that nobody is attempting here, in my opinion, to stop refugees from coming to Canada. Proportionately we take more than most countries.

We want to stop the organized trafficking of refugees using Canada as a target of their activities because of our international reputation as a simple country. This uses scarce Canadian resources that are better utilized getting the horrendous backlog of legitimate immigration applicants—800,000 and counting I believe—processed, letting those poor, quiet people waiting patiently in other countries know whether the answer is yes or no to being allowed to come to Canada.

Like our forefathers who ensured that the Chinese labourers rested with the fallen Canadian soldiers, I want to ensure that we continue our national generosity of taking care of all refugees who come to our shores, while placing reasonable restrictions on how quickly they become Canadians based on their method of arrival. We owe it to all Canadians, past and present, to continue quietly building this simple country we call home.

Thank you.

[Christine Morrissey]

The expedited timeframe proposed under Bill C-31 will not give LGBT claimants a fair chance to obtain competent legal counsel and prepare themselves and their evidence. We are pleased that the government has heard the concerns we expressed that a screening interview at 15 days would be unfair, ineffective, and extremely costly. Returning to a written basis of claim prepared with legal counsel is a step in the right direction. However, with this responsibility returned to community groups and lawyers, it is only fair that we be given reasonable opportunity to do a decent job. Legal aid applications take time, and we work with language and cultural gaps, and extremely intimate and sensitive testimony.

How would you begin to talk with a relative stranger about being sexually assaulted by police officers at gunpoint, or having your family threaten to stone you if you don't agree to an arranged marriage? Under these circumstances, how would you collect the documents that prove your fear of persecution? Could you do so in 30 days? Could you do so if using e-mail or fax put you and your family at further risk?

We know people who have been sent back to harm because they were unable to say what they needed to say, or because documentation was impossible to obtain. We fear that the vast majority of LGBT claimants will be inadequately prepared for hearings, resulting in poor decisions and unfair rejections.

[Sharalyn Jordan]

We strenuously object to the provisions that detain without prompt and independent review, deny due process, and delay access to permanent residency. Recently we received a letter from a gay man in detention in the Lower Mainland. He was from a country that imprisons LGBT people. He was afraid to speak openly with his assigned duty counsel, and felt extremely unsafe around the other detainees. Under Bill C-31 he would have to stay closeted and vigilant in jail for 12 months. His chances for a fair hearing would be severely curtailed.

Detention punishes the 94% of refugees who are not security threats. Existing legislation provides for detention until identity and security can be identified.

[Christine Morrissey]

We have grave concerns about the injustice and harm caused to LGBT refugees designated as irregular arrivals under Bill C-31. Agents may be the only way LGBT asylum seekers can escape persecution, given that neighbouring countries are often unequally safe. In some regions of the world there is no safe haven for LGBT asylum seekers, so overseas refugee protection is not an option.

Consider the experience of one of our members, Adil, a gay man from an east African country that criminalizes homosexuality. If he fled to Kenya, a nearby country, he would face at least an eight-year wait for resettlement, while trying to survive in a country that has a 10-year prison sentence for homosexuality, and having to hide in camps or remain destitute in a city. UNHCR officials, typically locals, are not trusted and are often not trained in sexual orientation or gender identity decisions. We are working with overseas refugees from countries that publicly execute gay men. The UNHCR accepted that they were gay, and nonetheless denied their claims for protection.

Going back to Adil, an agent agreed to take him to Europe. Instead, Adil ended up in South America, where he was forced to work as a farm labourer. Over several months his work crew was moved north. They were eventually dropped off just over the Canadian border with $20 cash each. They went their separate ways. The mode of arrival says nothing about whether someone is a genuine refugee or not.

Adil found his way to a church, and the pastor helped him start a refugee claim. However, Adil was not able to disclose the reasons why he feared persecution. It was only after several meetings with his lawyer that he felt enough trust to say that he was gay.

[Christine Morrissey, Founder and Member of the Board, Rainbow Refugee Committee]

We strongly oppose giving the minister sole discretion to create a designated country list that denies access to appeal. A safe country list cannot accommodate the current state of complexity and flux in safety and protection for LGBT people. For example, Brazil holds the largest pride parade in the world with over three million people participating. It also has the highest rate of homophobic murders reported in the world. Is Brazil safe because the murders are reported, or unsafe because they happen in the first place and police are incapable of curbing them? Would you put Brazil on a designated country list?

South Africa recognizes same sex marriage, is democratic, has an independent judiciary, and civil society organizations. Based on Bill C-31, it could be placed on the designated country list. Yet there are 10 cases a week in which lesbians have been targeted for corrective rape, and the police have done nothing to investigate. Would you give a lesbian from South Africa an expedited hearing and no access to an appeal?

[Sharalyn Jordan]

Thank you.

On behalf of all my colleagues at the Rainbow Refugee Committee, I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to share our point of view on Bill C-31.

Rainbow Refugee supports efforts to create a fair, efficient, effective, and affordable refugee system. We share goals of upholding the integrity of refugee determination. In 2010, we were grateful for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-11 with this standing committee and we took notice when parliamentarians worked together and listened to those of us who work closely with refugees to revise what is now the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

Rainbow Refugee is disturbed to see that Bill C-31 resurrects measures that we identified as problematic, and includes new measures that disproportionately harm lesbian, gay, bi, trans, and queer refugees. These concerns are based on a decade of experience focused on this work.

Canada has been a global leader in refugee protection for those facing persecution due to sexual orientation or gender identity. We were the first country to recognize that transphobia and homophobia can result in persecution; 21 countries now do the same. This protection is vital in a world where 76 countries continue to criminalize lesbian, gay, bi, and trans people.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll start. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 39, Thursday, May 2, 2012. As to the orders of the day, this meeting is televised pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 23, 2012, Bill C-31, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other acts.

You will note that because we have three witnesses on this panel, this meeting will be one hour and 15 minutes.

We have Sharalyn Jordan, a member of the board of the Rainbow Refugee Committee, good afternoon, and we have Christine Morrissey, who is the founder and a member of the board. Hello, you've been here before for the backlog studies, and thank you for coming again.

We have Michael Deakin-Macey, who is the past president of the board of directors of the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society, good afternoon. We put you off from this morning because we had to vote, and I thank you for coming around this afternoon.

We have from London, England, by video conference, John Amble.

You gave evidence on our security study. So thank you, sir, for coming and helping us with this particular bill.

Each group will have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation. We will start with Ms. Jordan or Ms. Morrissey or both.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing before us today. This is indeed a good exercise in democracy. We welcome your comments and input as we are studying Bill C-31.

I'd like to make a few quick points if I may, and elaborate in the short time that I do have about the bill and about Canada and what Canadians expect of good government when it relates specifically to the issue of immigration and refugees. As Canadians, we take great pride in the generosity and compassion of our immigration and refugee programs. But Canadians have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and take unfair advantage of our country. I'll allude to some examples of that.

Canada remains one of the top countries in the world welcoming refugees. In fact, we welcome more refugees per capita than any other G-20 country. Canada welcomes one in ten of the world's resettled refugees. That is more per capita than almost any other country on the planet. In fact, our Conservative government has increased a number of refugees resettling each year by 2,500 people.

Bill C-31 proposes changes that build on reforms to the asylum system passed in June of 2010 as part of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, as you may know. The proposed measures in this new bill will provide faster protection to those people to whom I believe you're all referring, those who genuinely need refuge, and faster removal of those who do not.

I want to speak a little bit about the processing times. With the measures in Bill C-31, the time to finalize a refugee claim would drop from the current average of 1,038 days to 45 days for claimants from designated countries and 216 days for all other claimants. Surely for someone who is fleeing persecution in their country or torture or possible death, to be in limbo in a system for 1,038 days is traumatic.

If we can get those folks processed faster into Canada and reduce that period to as short as 45 days, or an average of 216 days for those who are not coming from designated countries, that will speak to compassion, to faster family reunification, and to the humane aspect that we all want to see in dealing with people who really need our help and support.

As a government, we have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. I don't think anybody in this country would want to permit anyone into their neighbourhood without knowing who they are, without somebody knowing their identity. That's important. As we heard in earlier testimony, and some of you alluded to hearing the testimony this morning or perhaps on other days, it is incumbent on us to identify people before we allow them into our country.

I'm going to use two, what I believe to be, fine examples of what can happen if we do not exercise that responsibility. The Sun Sea and Ocean Lady arguably carried many people who were fleeing persecution in their country and who needed our support and help. On the Sun Sea, four people were found to be a security risk and one was found to have perpetrated war crimes. Five people were denied entry. From the people on the Ocean Lady, 19 were deemed to be a security risk and 17 were found to have perpetrated war crimes. This was a total of 41 people. Had they not been detained, had we not taken the time to identify them, to ensure the legitimacy of their claims plus who they were, we would have permitted 41 people into our neighbourhoods around our families, around our children, around parents.

[Lesley Stalker, Member-at-large, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers]

Good morning, members of the committee.

My remarks today stem from a basic premise, which is that everyone in this room is committed to the protection of people who are at risk of persecution in their countries of origin, and that no one in this room would applaud or welcome the refoulement, or return, of persons to a place where their lives or liberty would be at risk.

This has to be our touchstone. As we go through the bill, we have to ask ourselves whether the provisions of the bill impede or enhance our ability to identify those who are in need of protection.

I would like to share my concerns about two groups of claimants who are, in my experience, likely to fall through the cracks and face refoulement under the ultra-fast timelines of Bill C-31, regardless of our good intentions.

The first group includes those who are traumatized because of past persecution.

There's an inherent conundrum in our refugee system, and it's this: The people who have been severely persecuted in the past and are most in need of protection are often the least able to tell their stories. There has been extensive scientific research into this. Many people think that the first story a claimant tells is likely to be the truth, so it's important to get the account before the claimant has a chance to colour his or her story. But in fact, it typically takes a great deal of time to get a coherent and accurate account. There are a number of reasons for this, but for reasons of time, I won't go through them. I'd happy to answer questions later, if you would like elaboration on the scientific reasons trauma impedes the ability to share a story.

The problem, for practical purposes, is that the more severely traumatized an individual, the greater the likelihood that he or she will be found lacking in credibility. The person's account is likely to be found incoherent, inconsistent, vague, or contradictory. So the claimant is likely to be dismissed as lacking in credibility.

The only way to counter this is to educe medical, psychological, or psychiatric reports that corroborate the physical and mental scars of trauma. And this takes time. It takes time, because claimants who are traumatized often will shut down their experiences. They don't want to talk about them; it's their way of coping. The accelerated timelines under Bill C-31 will impede our ability to identify those who have suffered persecution.

The second group I am concerned about are those who are in detention. As you've heard this morning, detention in all centres outside Toronto and Montreal is in correctional facilities. Correctional facilities are designed to manage people who have been convicted of or charged with criminal offences. These are typically people who are quite difficult to manage. Moreover, correctional facilities impose quite severe restrictions on the ability of people inside the facility to communicate with the outside world. These restrictions apply to refugee claimants. There are severe restrictions on incoming calls. There are severe restrictions on outgoing calls. There is no access to Internet. There is no access to email. As a result, claimants have a great deal of difficulty obtaining identity documents or other evidence germane to their claims, such as complaints they may have filed with the police in their countries of origin, medical reports from hospitals, and so forth.

They also have—

[Marian Shermarke, Clinical Advisor, Centre de santé et de services sociaux de la Montagne]

Mr. Chairman, I join Mr. Sougavinski in thanking you for the opportunity to come before you and to share with you our concerns with regard to Bill C-31.

The idea behind Bill C-31 is to reduce the activities of smugglers and criminals by punishing asylum seekers who come to Canada through underground channels. We feel that this bill is an academic exercise because it will not put a stop to claims by individuals who turn to smugglers to bring them to Canada, so that they can seek asylum for their protection. That academic exercise will, on the contrary, put asylum seekers' lives at greater risk. Those who do arrive may be in bad shape.

I want to share the story of two young Chinese nationals who left China for Hong Kong with a smuggler. From there, they fell into the clutches of other smugglers who took them to Thailand. Then, they left for France and, from there, to South Africa. From South Africa, they went to Brazil, in order to finally join their father in Canada, a father who was an asylum seeker, an accepted refugee. Those young people were abused on their way here. They lived in terrible conditions and were assigned to hard labour. They were in the clutches of smugglers for much longer than expected.

So we have to be careful about what we wish for.

I am now getting to my comments on the time frames provided for hearings. We think that the time frames for meeting hearing requirements are too short. Those time frames do not take into consideration the reality of asylum seekers. By not taking into account the context within which asylum seekers arrive, Bill C-31 sets them up for failure at their hearing.

The reality of asylum seekers is that, within those very short time frames, they must also get their bearings in a society whose language they do not speak. They have to find housing. They also have to initiate the immigration claim procedure and find a lawyer.

Regarding the medical aspect, it is important to understand that those people have been damaged by many traumatic experiences in their country of origin and also by what they have suffered since their departure. During that period—which is part uprooting and part quest for safety—asylum seekers, although traumatized and vulnerable, focus all their efforts on maintaining their physical and mental integrity so that they can reach their final destination.

That concerted psychological effort is often a last-ditch attempt that the country of refuge must match by providing the best possible reception and integration. If the host society fails to fully provide the required protection, the asylum seekers' mental and physical integrity will once again be compromised. That is another possible source of trauma, which makes those individuals even more vulnerable.

[Chantal Tie]

What does fiscal responsibility have to do with Bill C-31? We believe fiscal responsibility is about spending taxpayers' dollars wisely. The CCR is committed to an affordable refugee protection system. When money is wasted, it is not available to fund the important task of providing protection. Right now, we understand from Mr. Dykstra that only one percent of refugee claimants actually need to be detained.

Our current system is doing an individualized risk assessment, which works well to protect our society and ensure the integrity of the immigration system. The figure we used was 6%, from CBSA data, which means that 94% of refugee claimants on average do not need to be detained. If this bill passes, we will be detaining 100% of designated arrivals for a year. The math is simple. Ninety-four percent of the people we will be detaining will not need to be detained, if past experience serves us well.

There is no reason to believe that a smuggled refugee claimant is not a genuine refugee. A refugee's mode of arrival tells us nothing about the genuineness of the claim. The UNHCR has repeatedly pointed out that many genuine refugees arrive irregularly and without papers. The reason is obvious: If you're being persecuted by your government, it is hardly likely to give you travel documents or an exit visa to facilitate a visa application to Canada.

The cost of detaining the 94% of claimants who do not need to be detained for that year is huge, if we use the CBSA's figures of $200 a day or $73,000 a year. But if refugee claimants were given work permits and were able to maintain employment and become taxpayers, the cost differential would be enormous.

There's now compelling evidence of the devastating impact of the cost of mandatory detention in Australia. The figures are all in our brief. Look at them. Let's learn from the Australian experiment instead of repeating its mistakes.

And remember, none of these cost estimates take account of the enormous human cost of detention, the impact on the physical and mental health of the detainees, which is severe. Neither do they take into account the future cost of managing these impacts once the refugees are accepted and join our communities as permanent residents. These include documented incidents of—

[Loly Rico, Vice-President, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Good morning. I came to Canada 22 years ago as a refugee with my husband and two children. At that time I was five months' pregnant. I am bringing to you my story to explain how important it is to withdraw Bill C-31.

When I arrived, I was protected by Canada, and my children were able to grow up with their father at their side. In my country, my husband was almost killed and he was jailed and tortured. In gratitude for our protection and the treatment we received, we founded a refugee house where we welcome women and children who are fleeing gender persecution.

If we had arrived in Canada after June 29 of this year and this bill was law by then and we were designated on arrival, we would have been be detained, my children and I would have been separated from my husband, my children would have been given to a foster home or stayed in jail with me, and I would have given birth in jail.

At the immigration holding centre in Toronto, there are no facilities to keep families together. Women are in one wing with their children, and men are in another wing. They are only allowed to meet for 45 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the afternoon. Imagine yourself in that situation, only being able to see your family for a short time every day, only being able to carry your newborn baby for a short time every day. This is an outright violation of Canadian values.

What I'm trying to say is that we need to focus on the Canadian values of keeping families protected and together. Bill C-31 is a violation of these values.

Another way we will be keeping families separated is through the five-year waiting period before applications for permanent residency will be allowed by designated arrivals.

Most of the women who come to our centre have left behind young children. In the current process it takes them roughly six years to reunify with their children because of the delays, especially if visas have to be processed through the Nairobi office. With the five-year waiting period, they will be separated from their children for 11 to 12 years. This could mean half of a child's life. This will have a strong emotional and social impact, because these children will need to have specific programs and support to be appropriately reunited with their mothers and fathers and vice versa. We are seeing the social impact on the families that are reunified after eight to ten years.

Refugees feel tremendous guilt at having been safe here while their children and spouses were left behind in precarious situations. Families need to go through a process of recognition where children need to be reacquainted with their mothers and the mothers recognize and accept that their children are no longer their babies, but adolescents. Families need help to make this adjustment, which sometimes is impossible. Often they need counselling to adapt.

The CCR asks: How is deliberately separating refugees from their families compatible with family values?

[Chantal Tie]

The Canadian Council for Refugees believes in a refugee system that's fair, independent, and affordable and one that honours our legal obligations under the charter and the UN convention. We have joined with Amnesty International, CARL, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in calling for the withdrawal of this bill. Our briefs detail the myriad ways in which Bill C-31 is unconstitutional, undermines our humanitarian traditions, and violates our international obligations. We care deeply about all of these issues, but today we'll be speaking only about detention and processing times, from a family values and fiscal responsibility perspective. We're asking that those of you with the power to withdraw this bill ask yourselves: is Bill C-31 compatible with these values?

What does family values have to do with C-31? If family values means anything at all, it has to mean protecting and preserving the family and caring for children. It means that we don't deliberately do things that we know will harm families and children physically, socially, or emotionally. Two of the ways this bill harms families and children is by detaining designated arrivals on a mandatory, unreviewable basis, and by delaying permanent residence for five years, thereby preventing family reunification. The CCR has asked, how is detaining designated arrivals in jails or detention facilities compatible with protecting children and families? How can you justify placing children in the care of Children's Aid or in jail because you insist on imprisoning their parents?

I say “jail”, because in Ottawa, where I practise immigration and refugee law, people are detained at the detention centre on Innes Road, along with common criminals. They are subjected to locked cells, mandatory searches, sometimes strip searches, severe restrictions on visitations, and mobility restrictions. Men and women are housed separately, with few opportunities to socialize and communicate. If they have mental health issues, they are placed in maximum-security segregated detention.

[Prof. Delphine Nakache]

First of all, I fully agree with you, and I'm sorry if I was misinterpreted on that fact.

Once again, international law does not forbid immigration detention per se, but it states, among other things, that immigration detention has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Mandatory detention per se is unconstitutional and illegal to me, according to international law. I certainly see where you are coming from and I support this view too.

I would be more than happy to provide the committee with some reports that have been written specifically on alternatives to detention. I think these are very good reports that could certainly provide you with an insight on what the possibilities are here, and there are concrete possibilities.

In relation to other aspects of C-31, I think that many of them are problematic. The one that you mentioned, the fact that we can send someone back if the situation has changed in their country of origin, needs to be considered with caution. Why is that? Because if people in the country of destination here in Canada have—I will say that in French—

They have taken root and have really developed considerable ties to the country of destination. In that case, I see it as very problematic—if only from a human standpoint—to send those people back to their country of origin.

Bill C-31 contains many provisions I consider to be problematic. Those provisions violate the fundamental principles of refugee law.

I prefer to let other people testify and talk at more length about those very important issues, as you said.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have five minutes and I do want to try to get across a couple of points.

First and foremost, I think it's very important that we emphasize that mandatory detention is indeed, from my and the Liberal Party's perspective, unconstitutional and will be challenged.

Not only does Bill C-31 raise concerns regarding challenges to our Constitution, I would ultimately argue that it also tarnishes Canada's reputation to be a world leader in dealing with refugees and whole issue of refugees more broadly, where we have 10 million plus people around the world who are in need of some sort of asylum or are in refugee camps and so forth. Our potential to be able to influence that is being tarnished by Bill C-31.

I want to go to the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady. The Sun Sea carried 492 people and the Ocean Lady 76 people. There are six people who are still in detention. The current system allows us to keep in custody those individuals who are a high risk to Canadian society. They remain in detention. That's an important point that needs to be made.

Ms. Nakache, you made reference to detention. I appreciate your words and that they are based on finances and the fact that it violates the Constitution. Those are excellent points that I concur with wholeheartedly.

The question I have for you is this. There are other aspects to Bill C-31, such that if you are deemed a refugee and your circumstances change abroad, you could lose your status as a refugee or your ability to sponsor a family member, even if you have been deemed to be a refugee for years.

I'm wondering if you can provide a quick comment on that.