Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[Avvy Go]

I'll try to tie it back to the question that was posed earlier. The question was whether granting status to people without status would be an attack on the integrity of the system. I would say the integrity of the system is being attacked by the system itself at this very moment.

We had a refugee board member recently charged with breach of trust. He was trying to date the refugee claimant who appeared before him. In that particular case the woman had the courage to come forward with the assistance of her boyfriend. There are so many other examples, maybe not of a similar nature, but where it cries out in terms of what exactly happens at these refugee hearings and why an increasing percentage of refugees are having their claims denied. That's why we need the refugee appeal division to correct these mistakes. It is not enough to have the refugee going through the Federal Court to seek judicial review--they don't even have a right to do that. It's desperately in need of correction, and that will seriously add to the integrity of the system.

The integrity is not taken away because there are some people who are not even standing in the queue, because the queue was never designed for them in the first place. Apart from that, I think we have to look at the appointment system as well. I know the government is now trying to recruit as many people as possible. We have a serious backlog both at the Refugee Appeal Board and the Immigration Appeal Board right now. Hearings are not being scheduled because there is no member. All these issues need to be tackled. Certainly RAD has to be put in place right away.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Would you consider that the lack of having RAD in place has increased the number of refugees who are seeking sanctuary in your churches?

[Avvy Go]

Certainly. RAD is only one component, but the fact that our determination system is flawed results in many people who should have been granted refugee status, who were in fact conventional refugees being denied that status by the system right now, and they cannot return to their country because they are refugees. Therefore, they turn to the churches, temples, or whatever for help because they can't leave. They become part of the undocumented workers and non-status immigrants.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I think you said 11 church organizations make up the KAIROS. How many of those 11 organizations provide sanctuary for refugees?

[Jennifer Devries]

I'm not sure of the exact number, but I will get back to you on that. I know that the refugee appeal division and sanctuary and all those issues that apply to refugees are really important issues for churches right now. So I will get back to you on that. I'm not sure of the exact number, but many of the churches are dealing with the sanctuary issues.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Do the churches have a policy in place as to who they accept or who they don't accept? How long would the average person be kept?

[Jennifer Devries]

That is a good question. I'll write that down and have the church contact you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Of course, we have some churches coming in. Some of the organizations representing churches are coming in on November 2, so we will be able to put some questions to them on that.

Blair, your time has expired.

I will go to Barry Devolin.

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

Good morning, and thank you for being here. It was an interesting set of presentations to listen to.

I think it's fair to say that all political parties recognize the importance of immigration. I'm relatively new to this committee, but what has struck me since I arrived this year is that there are a lot of administrative and process problems. That's really the issue we as a committee, as a government, and as a Parliament need to grapple with it to figure out how to make the processes work better.

I think everyone recognizes we have a skills and labour shortage today and that is only going to get worse, so to speak, in the future. We had a delegation here from Finland a few months ago, and for the first time Finland is talking about creating an immigration policy. They are dealing with exactly the same problem in terms of the labour shortage and the aging population. Actually, it's a worse problem than we have here. So I think we're all on the same page there.

As I listened to the presentation about the agricultural workers, in particular, who are here for several months and separated from their families, just on a human level, I can hardly imagine that. I have two young children myself, and I am separated from them five days a week for half of the year and I know how difficult that is.

My colleague Nina misses her son so much she actually brought him with her today.

My question is for anyone who wants to answer it. For people who come in, perhaps agricultural or domestic workers, is one of the potential solutions that while they're in Canada they could actually apply for status to come here permanently? If the current system is left in place, where an agricultural worker or domestic worker comes to Canada temporarily and they make a decision that they want to permanently locate here and actually bring their family with them, is that part of this practical solution?

[Avvy Go]

With respect to the live-in caregivers, in fact that's part of the thing. While they're in Canada, they apply. But as Cecilia said, there are many problems within that program. This makes the dream of becoming an immigrant almost impossible because of all these other requirements and the consequences once you fail to meet some of the requirements. I think some have advocated that before they come they are already immigrants. That gives them all kinds of protections.

I want to talk about family reunification. As you said, it's such an important part of our immigration system. If you compare the figures today with the figures from 10 years ago, over 50% of Canada's immigration were family class at that time. Today, it's less than 25%. It's because we're moving more and more toward the independent immigrant skilled workers and so on, without recognizing they have family and that they need their family here.

Part of the problem is also how we define family. When Mr. Komarnicki says that some live-in caregivers have to bring their families through live-in caregiver programs, I'm wondering, maybe it's because their family members don't fit the family class immigration category. Again, that's because of our bureaucratic definition of who is in our family.

I'll use another taxi driver example. On my way here from the airport, the taxi driver found out that I was here to talk about this. He said he wanted to sponsor his brother-in-law, and and he gave me the sponsorship application. I said no, you can't, he's not your family. He said that he is his sister's husband. I said I understood that, but that he doesn't fit the family class definition. There are many reasons why people choose other ways of coming here to be with their families. It's because our system doesn't allow that to happen.

You can go on forever, but there are many issues we have to struggle with--some are processing issues and some are definition issues--that are in the act and the regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thirty seconds, Barry.

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

It's the irony that they're actually here doing a job that no Canadian wants to do, and then they have to turn around and try to prove that they're not going to take a job away from a Canadian who wants to do it.

Stan, what is the situation on the agricultural side?

[Stan Raper]

The agricultural workers don't qualify. They're usually low-skilled. They have low education and low literacy levels. There's no queue for them to jump. Unless the employer is sponsoring them, there's no way they're going to get close to having any points to be able to qualify. So they're completely excluded.

That's why we're calling for the two-year provision. Even if they have been working here for 27 years, they still don't qualify. They've been with the same employer. We've had retirement parties at our centres. At what point do you just say, okay, maybe this guy is decent and he should be able to have citizenship? They don't even have a queue to jump. It's not there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, thank you.

Johanne and then Madam Faille.

Johanne.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have more of a comment to make. I would like to share with you how I feel after hearing your testimony today. I have to say I feel deeply frustrated, as a parliamentarian here in Parliament.

I've been here since 2004 and I realize how much inaction there is, not only in your case but in many areas. We had a minority government in 2004 and another minority government in 2006. Everyone is passing the buck to hide their incompetence or their lack of understanding. I think we have come to a point where, after hearing your testimony, I'm convinced we have to act. There must be a political will. You have presented us with a great report. One only has to go through the pages to find your recommendations.

We listen to you, we listen again and I'm sure you will be back to tell us more about the absurd situation these people you're trying to protect are in. I think we have to take the time to say that we need the political will to put in place the tools you need to stop lobbying and make representations and to start meeting the actual expectations of these people.

I think we're making money on the back of migrant workers. They're here, they contribute to Canadian life as if they were citizens, they enrich the government but they're not entitled to any services. I find this ridiculous.

I'm sharing with you how I feel. I can assure you I feel very, very frustrated. I don't know if you have something to add but I had to say this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Madam Faille has a....

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

There is definitely a problem with the Canadian justice system regarding migrant workers rights.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if it's the right time to say this, but could we ask the immigration department to table the legal opinion they got from Justice Canada on the consequences of this? Could we ask Justice Canada to come and discuss the consequences in different government programs as well as their concerns regarding migrant workers rights?

I'm sure studies of this kind were conducted by Justice Canada. The committee could ask for copies to help us in our own study. If not, we could ask Justice officials to come before the committee. Since they are responsible at the international level and given the work being done on migrant workers rights -- DFAIT is also involved -- it would be helpful to meet officials from these departments and to have these opinions.

I think a study about this was commissioned two or three years ago. It would be helpful to get the results. I am suggesting this, Mr. Chair. Could we follow up on this matter and obtain copies of these studies?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It might be appropriate for you to bring it to the steering committee meeting on Tuesday, October 24. We may not be having a full meeting then, but there will be a steering committee meeting.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

You will understand that these documents can help us examine migrant workers rights.

You're also aware that IRB chairperson Jean-Guy Fleury came on Tuesday to talk to us about the issues with refugees. We found out that once rejected, they come under CIC's responsibility. The department makes an assessment of risks on humanitarian and compassionate grounds before removal. Do you see any problem in this regard with CIC's processes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll allow for a 30-second response. We're well over, so you can have a response to that last question.

Ms. Go.

[Avvy Go]

Yes, that speaks to the humanitarian and compassionate application. There are many problems with it. One issue is around how they define who is facing excessive hardship. They often define it in terms of the risk to personal life. So if someone has lost a refugee claim, odds are almost by definition that they're not going to be considered as facing excessive hardship when they go back.

So I think it's important to look at how to relax the H and C application to allow for a broader set of considerations beyond just risk to life or risk to security, but looking at other forms of contributions that individuals are making and other kinds of hardships they will face will certainly help with some of the situations as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Ms. Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for your time and your presentations.

KAIROS has indicated in documents on its website that too many refugee claimants are detained upon arrival in Canada. Why have the numbers of refugees in detention increased in recent years? If so, what factors in KAIROS's view have been responsible for the increased numbers?

[Stan Raper]

Do you want to take a shot at that, Avvy?

[Avvy Go]

I can't speak for KAIROS, but certainly the figures suggest that first the acceptance rates of refugees is certainly on the decline. It's interesting that it really depends on which cities you are in. If you're from Vancouver and you're from certain countries, your acceptance rate is lower than if you're living in Montreal or Toronto. It shows the arbitrariness of the determination system.

I'm not sure if detention has necessarily increased, but certainly there are many issues around detention and the amount of money that we're spending on detaining. Perhaps the money can be spent better elsewhere.

Even with deportation, I remember a few years back when the 590 Chinese migrants were detained and deported. There was a suggestion that something like $130 million was spent on detaining and deporting these people. You can imagine if we spent that amount of money on anything else, on any other priority in government, we would have a much better result.