Thank you. My name is Philip Nagy. I'm representing the First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa.
Ottawa First Unitarian fully supports the points made in the previous briefs. The case of Samsu Mia, who lived in sanctuary at First Unitarian for 18 months, illustrates some of the problems encountered within the CIC system.
Samsu Mia lived in sanctuary at Ottawa First from July 2003 to December 2004, when Minister Judy Sgro granted him and his family permission to come to and stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Mr. Mia came to Canada in 1995 as a domestic employee of a senior official in the Bangladeshi High Commission. He was treated as a slave. His wages were withheld. He was not given his contractual trips home. He had to sleep on the floor, and his shoes and passport were confiscated.
In 1999 he escaped and attempted to recover his wages and passport. He, his family at home, and his rescuer in Canada, a Bangladeshi Canadian, were all threatened.
Mr. Mia's initial refugee claim was turned down by a single judge on the grounds that this was simply a personal dispute between two individuals. The judge ignored the fact that one individual was an illiterate cook and the other a powerful official. Shortly after the turndown, Mr. Mia's brother in Bangladesh was threatened by a different official, who had been transferred home from Canada. This was new evidence, and evidence of continuing danger, but there was no way to present it under present procedures.
Judicial reviews of the case actually agreed that the initial judge had failed to consider all evidence, but concluded that Mia had failed to show that the Bangladeshi government was unable to protect him. This was a situation in which officials of the same government were in fact the problem.
In 2001 his son in Bangladesh was beaten and admonished to “Tell your father to be quiet and go home.” In March 2003, the pre-removal risk assessment noted that this beating, although reported in a humanitarian and compassionate application, was not documented. The result was a removal order.
It would have been better if a decision on removal had been delayed to allow time to document the son's beating. In many countries doctors are reluctant to provide such evidence out of fear for their own safety. With the help of one of our contacts, a Canadian who operates several orphanages in Bangladesh, documentation was finally obtained, but it took some time. However, there was no procedure in place to allow him to present this new evidence; the decision had been taken.
There are times when a refugee cannot get such evidence; there are times when it takes longer; there are times when the need is not understood until it is too late.
In July 2003 Mr. Mia went into sanctuary in our church. Sanctuary is no small commitment, either for the individual involved or for the church. That is one reason it is used so rarely.
Mr. Mia became a voluntary prisoner in the church for a period that eventually became 18 months. With no guarantee of success, the congregation committed itself to provide for all of Mr. Mia's needs, including sending money to Bangladesh to support his family for an indefinite period.
For the first year we provided 24-hour accompaniment out of fear that either CIC or the RCMP might enter the building and remove him. Only a deep belief that an injustice had been done sustained the effort.
In the first weeks of sanctuary, we were kept under surveillance by unknown individuals in cars with diplomatic plates. We continued to collect evidence. On the basis of the dossier we put together and their own research, Amnesty International supported Mr. Mia's case. The turning point, I believe, was when a refugee from Bangladesh gave oral evidence to an MP that he was unwilling to put in writing out of fear for his own safety. The MP, Marlene Catterall, conveyed the information to the minister. Finally, in December 2004, the humanitarian and compassionate application was successful.
Let me move to subsequent events.
Please understand that everyone we have dealt with in CIC has been cooperative and helpful, and has appeared competent. The point I wish to make is that the system is overloaded, underfunded, understaffed, and poorly organized: we came within a few weeks of Mr. Mia's two-year minister's permit actually expiring before the paperwork for permanent status was completed.
The lack of a forum for presentation of new evidence, combined with poor communication across government units, presents a problem: the removal process carried on, independent of any outstanding humanitarian and compassionate applications. Granted that documentation can be forged unless we check carefully, surely there could be a triage process saying in effect that the government ruled that documentation was absent; this new evidence seems to be exactly what was declared to be absent; and, pending verification, the removal process should be put on hold.
It would not take more than an hour or two decide that the piece of new evidence, on the face of it, seems to fill the gap identified in the refusal decision. Simple communication would save heartache.
The process of settling Samsu Mia, his wife, and four children was inordinately slow and inefficient. The medical certificate for one of the sons was actually lost at CIC and had to be redone at the church's expense. The other five medical certificates expired because they are only good for one year and also had to be redone. Basic forms were filled out two and even three times because officials simply couldn't find them.
Record-keeping is deeply flawed within the system. Samsu Mia's passport was confiscated by the Bangladeshi official in question. Canadian officials had Mia renew his Bangladeshi passport for use in his removal. They immediately confiscated this new passport when it was issued. After Mia was granted permission to stay, this history was put into the record in an affidavit in early 2005.
On September 28, 2006, just five weeks ago, I received a phone call from a CIC official asking for a copy of his passport. This should not happen. The stakes are too high for these kinds of record-keeping errors.
In conclusion, I offer the following.
There must be an appeal process and a regularized method of presenting new evidence. It should not be dependent on churches and on the minister's compassion. It should not require a large, well-organized pressure group to achieve justice.
There must be additional funding for more staff and a reorganization of procedures. The system is in danger of breakdown. Time spent on searching for lost documents could be better spent processing claims.
Thank you for hearing our concerns and allowing us to tell Samsu Mia's story.