Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2006

[Janet Dench]

We haven't looked at that particular case, and we don't generally get involved in these. It's not the first time an IRB member has been accused of improper conduct. Of course it is a concern, but we would rely upon the IRB to have the proper processes in place and to make sure it is dealt with according to procedure, and in the firmest way if there is any wrongdoing.

But also, to come back to the question of appointments, what we would like to see is an appointment process that ensures that the highest quality of people are being appointed, who are there with the right motives, who are there not because they're looking for a well-paid job and opportunities to make even more money, but because they believe in public service and in ensuring that refugees receive protection in Canada.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Janet.

I hope the government is also looking into other decisions made by Mr. Ellis, in case there's been this kind of interference in the process.

Earlier, when you were discussing the “lives on hold” situation in the moratoria countries, you mentioned the situation of people whose lives are on hold here in Canada and alluded to job problems and problems with the school system. I also understand that health care is an issue for those folks. I wonder if you can just expand on the specific problems people face in those three areas, or any other areas, that make life difficult for them here in Canada while they're on the moratoria lists for removals.

[Janet Dench]

Yes, in terms of work, you have access to a work permit renewable maybe every year or every six months. You have a social insurance number that begins with a nine. Employers, therefore, will know you don't have permanent status in Canada, and that means they are unlikely to be hired for any highly qualified job or sent off for training or invested in by an employer. Most people in this circumstance are forced to rely on minimum-wage jobs. In terms of improving themselves or getting an education, primary and secondary education is fine, but after you get past that, you are treated as a foreign student, and therefore you have to pay fees as a foreign student, and of course most families are unable to do that.

With respect to health, people from moratorium countries have access to the interim federal health program, which covers only emergency health care services. This will do for most things, but if you have something more important or more chronic, then it is a problem. Obviously, the name interim federal is meant for a short period of time, but when you have people relying on that program for years, then they are in difficult situations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

On family reunification, if the person here is waiting for peace in a moratorium country and the family is not here, they will not be able to bring their family until they are accepted as landed immigrants, and that could take 10, 15 years sometimes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Good. Thank you, sir.

Barry, and then over to Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here today. I'm new to this committee and this Parliament, and I'm still learning many things about this issue, but it strikes me that what I've learned, both on the immigration and on the refugee side, is that it's not a partisan issue and it's not really an ideological issue. There seem to be logistical issues or administrative and bureaucratic challenges in terms of how the process should work.

One of the points you made was that it would certainly be less expensive to bring people into Canada for family reunification and to process the cases here rather than processing them overseas.

When some people apply for visitors visas, it appears they are being denied them because there's a concern if they arrive here and then decide they don't want to leave, it's very difficult to deal with that situation. People who would have been granted visas in the past are not being granted visitors visas today because they can claim charter rights once they arrive in Canada.

Would this be the same situation for family reunification? If your suggestion, which was that it would be less expensive and simpler to bring those cases into Canada and process them here, as opposed to wherever they are taking place, would that be a legitimate concern that once those people come into Canada to be processed, regardless of the outcome of that process, the decision has been made because they're already in the country and would be unlikely to leave? From the point of view of a government having a prudent process, would that or should that be a concern?

[Janet Dench]

You began by mentioning it seemed a lot of problems were logistical, and I would suggest it's a question of priorities. Our top priority is making sure refugees are treated right. We hear--and you were referring to that--the legitimate concern for the integrity of the system, which is the favoured phrase. We don't dismiss that as a concern, but we ask what our priorities are. Are we more concerned about the 99 family members, children, who are going to end up in Canada and deserve to be with their parents, or about the one who after further examination may be found not to be who he or she claims to be?

For us, the first priority has to be making sure children are with their parents. If we look at the statistics, you'll find the vast majority of people who put in for their family members, those family members end up coming, because after they've been through the process, it turns out that, yes, they are the family members of the refugee in Canada.

Why are we going to put all of them on hold if the vast majority of them are people who deserve to be in Canada? There are always going to be difficult cases. That's what the government has to deal with. But where are our priorities?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

In the interest of time, I have to cut you off and go to Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, CCR, for coming out and giving a presentation.

I'm here filling in today. I'm going to try to be very non-partisan. I hope you are also very non-partisan. I was reading your press release stating that the Conservative minority government appointment failures hurt refugees. Mr. Wilson made a comment. It's perceived as very non-partisan.

It is a very interesting topic: private sponsorship efforts. Have you had contact with the VietPhi refugee advocacy group that dealt with this kind of situation as well? What is their experience? Do you think it will serve the bona fide refugees in Canada?

[Debra Simpson]

Can you clarify whose group you're talking about?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

It dealt with the Vietnamese people. It's called the VietPhi refugee advocacy group.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It is the Vietnamese stateless people....

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

They were the stateless people who were in the other country. In fact, I was there to see them, along with the member on the opposite side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have any comment on how they were dealt with in the whole scheme of things?

[Janet Dench]

We have worked with them and have been sensitive to their issues, but we haven't really followed the more recent developments in order to be able to comment on that.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

It's not necessarily that. I'm coming from what their experience was. Right now we are starting to see that people are trying to take advantage of this private sponsorship effort. When I looked at the people who came in under that program, the only other people who were in a stateless situations for many years.... In fact, there was good work done by that particular advocacy group. This is where I was coming from.

Anyway, you don't have any comments.

The other question I have is this. You are saying that the family members who are left over there should be given the opportunity to come right away. The previous Liberal government had a policy whereby the parents and grandparents who were left there and sponsored by the sponsors here should be given the visas right away to come here and visit them. In fact, when I look at this--and I'm sure all the members in this room will agree--we as members spend 75% of the time on immigration matters, and we are acting like an immigration agency to help the people. That policy is not adopted yet either by the CCIA. How would you say that the policy that you are bringing in will also be adopted?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

We have serious problems with the issue of visitors visas for relatives who have applications pending in that particular post, not only for mothers, fathers, grandparents, but for children or spouses. They assume that because there is an application, the visitor visa is going to be used for people to come and stay in Canada, which is true. But they don't seem to have a concept of a humanitarian program that would imply that the person can come here and wait.

We have a huge rate of rejection for family members who try to come to visit Canada for a while because of poverty. Most of the refugees we are talking about don't have resources back home, so they don't meet the criteria of having property--do you know what I mean--credit cards, and whatever. They are refused on the basis of poverty because they don't have a way to prove the link with society. On the other hand, it would be wonderful if we could have a humanitarian visa to come to Canada for family reasons or for other kinds of reasons, to wait for the process here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll have a final comment from....

[Debra Simpson]

In reference to your first point, I wanted to emphasize that regarding the private sponsorship program, the target is between 3,000 and 4,000 people a year. The government program is 7,500. That's roughly 10,000 spots in Canada a year.

We would love to be able to respond to these situations you're referring to, but we're limited. We are working together with the Canadian government on the situation of the Karen refugees who have been long-stayers in Thailand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

It's 10:30, but we'll go five minutes over time to allow Madam Folco the opportunity to have a few words this morning.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

How kind and generous. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I apologize for being late. But I'm here now, as usual.

Ms. Dench, I'd just like to correct something you said earlier. In your view, many board members speak French. I would say that that was true in the past. Unfortunately, we are now experiencing a shortage of French-speaking members.

In your submission, you state that 64 vacancies must be filled. My question is for the members opposite. Does the government really intend to fill these vacancies as quickly as possible?

When a company is short 64 employees, that means that the wealth of experience acquired over the years disappears all at once, or over the course of a few weeks. As a former board member, I know all about this. That's certainly the case in Montreal, and is likely to be also true in Toronto. Therefore, I urge you to lobby the Conservative government even harder to fill the vacancies as soon as possible. This shortage has led to longer wait times. Furthermore, after being appointed by the government, board members must undergo formal training and need time to gain some experience.

I would chastize the government for dismissing as many people as it did at the same time. A number of dismissals were warranted, but the government should have phased in its action so that replacements could gradually have been found to staff IRB offices in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and elsewhere.

I totally agree with you on the subject of videoconferencing. As a former linguist, I know that people who don't speak a language very well have considerable difficulty understanding and responding by way of telephone, videos and so forth. I believe you're well placed to make that observation.

I'm simply emphasizing your long-standing position. It's critically important to remind the current government that videoconferences are not a solution for persons who have experienced traumatic events, who may not necessarily speak English or French particularly well and who, despite the presence of an interpreter, finds themselves speaking to a machine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Do we have any final comments with respect to what Madam Folco said?

[Janet Dench]

I'd like to suggest to the committee that it hear from IRB representatives and ask them about the repercussions of the shortage of appointments. Obviously, they could talk about how the IRB has been affected by this situation.