Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Foster.

Mr. Preston and then Mr. Karygiannis.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be as frugal as I can. As a guest of this committee I'll take as little time as possible, although if I have any left I'll try to share.

First of all, thank you for the strength of your answers today, and thank you for already helping to clear up some of the questions I would have asked. I'd like to carry on just a little further from where Madame Folco was and Mr. Devolin was.

You mentioned that in an immigration sense, you don't know that the standard of criminal court is used anywhere else. Is that what your answer was?

[Alex Neve]

To my knowledge. I don't want to—

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

All right. Someone asked whether there is a procedure like security certificates used anywhere else in the world. I understand the U.K. has some sort of similar system. Is that correct?

[Alex Neve]

They do. A number of countries do now.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

How are they balancing? You're looking, as I am, for a balance between the human rights and the security of the country. Do you feel they're being successful?

[Alex Neve]

No. There are very serious shortcomings there too, although in some instances they are pointed to as being a partial improvement on the Canadian system. It's a minimal improvement, if anything, and certainly doesn't address the real concerns.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I've read of the special advocate system that they use. You've said that Amnesty International is not so much for that. Is not using the special advocate to help the detainee a way to get it towards a criminal proceeding and maybe bring it to an end?

[Alex Neve]

This is always pointed to as one of the ways to address the concerns about the secrecy of evidence, because the special advocate gets to see the evidence. But the minute they've seen the evidence they have to stop talking to or having any contact with the individual themselves.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

So we create another whole basketful of problems.

[Alex Neve]

It really becomes an empty improvement.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That doesn't sound as if it's the way either. I'm trying to find a way around the determination through a criminal court. Through the immigration system we certainly don't set the criminal court standard for a lot of people we refuse citizenship to in Canada. It's not the standard that's used throughout the rest of the immigration system, and yet you're suggesting that it may be the only solution for those who are covered under a security certificate. How do you balance that? Would you see more people trying to move the standard higher from just a straight refusal for immigration to Canada?

[Alex Neve]

What's unique about these security cases is this is immigration law to a certain degree masquerading as criminal law. It's immigration law trying to accomplish what truly is a criminal law purpose. If so, if that's the case, then the facade needs to come down, and it needs to be really understood as a criminal law issue and addressed accordingly.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

If it is exactly that, I agree with you. My point was this. If we don't use that standard under other immigration rules, then would they not all want to move to that same standard?

[Alex Neve]

A lot of other immigration matters don't have that same notion of criminality. That's what's unique here. This is immigration law trying to get at a criminal law concern. Other routine immigration enforcement matters around who comes in, who doesn't get to come in to Canada, and how that all gets worked out don't necessarily involve criminality. It may well be perfectly appropriate in those instances that different standards of proof are used.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Preston.

We will now go to Mr. Karygiannis.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, why are you departing from your usual speaking order? Normally we would come here and then go to other people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It's a little bit difficult this morning because so many people want to get on.

The motion is that witnesses from an organization be given ten minutes to make their opening statement, and at the discretion of the chair during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated seven minutes for the first questioner of each party and thereafter five minutes to be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between government and opposition parties, until all members have been given a chance to participate, after which, if time permits, a new round will commence.

We have to ensure that all members are given the opportunity to get on.

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

However, Chair, you are departing from your normal practice. Every other meeting, the meeting on Tuesday, I would have been given an opportunity now, and then you would have gone to the other people who hadn't yet spoken.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes.

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

What I would like to say is I would defer to Mr. Karygiannis and Mr. Wilson if you return to me after their sessions, on the recognition that it's because we went over time on our presentations this morning and that you are departing from the usual practice of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, it is. I'll be happy to go back to you if time permits, and I'm sure it will--hopefully.

Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Maybe we should be looking at those rules.

Let me state that this particular group that is going through the difficulties right now is not the first one in the history of Canada. We had the Ukrainians, the Italians, followed by the Greeks between 1967 and 1974. My father was an activist at that period and the RCMP was keeping secret files and so on, which I really don't want to go into at this time. I'm not going to waste my time on that.

Let me add a couple of things, if I may. What is happening to your families right now, especially the secret trials, is something that I believe not a member in this House is very supportive of. If Mr. Siksay's motion were to come to the floor, I think you would find a lot of support.

Ms. El-Fouli, let me ask you a few questions, if I may. How are your children being treated at school? How are the teachers looking at them? How is the family coping as far as income is concerned and everyday life? If you can take a couple of minutes to describe that for us, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Mona El-Fouli]

Again, you're asking a very good question.

My children at school, of course, when they're in the playground, are hearing children saying, “Oh, we know your daddy is in jail”. My older son was very upset when he came home after hearing them say that, and he didn't know what to do. That day he just acted in a sarcastic way in the classroom, and they had to keep getting him to answer until he said, “So-and-so told me that”.

I said, you have to tell him yes, my dad is in jail, but he never did anything wrong, he's not a criminal, and we're going to get him out. After that he started to feel a little relieved.

When they were small, in the neighbourhood the children played together. Then other children kept saying, “Ibraim and Yusuf don't have a dad”, and asking, “Where is your dad?” Again the children were very upset, until one day I was talking to my—

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Were any of the children, at any time at school, or while they were playing with their friends, called “terrorists?”