Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

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

One of the things we have noticed in the last few years is the length of time it takes to reunite families. You mentioned in your speech that it's taking something like 16 to 24 months. In some cases it might take a little longer.

What facilities are there, be it from the church or other organizations you are working with, to make sure you provide for the stability and well-being of the families and encourage a healthy state of mind until this reunification of father, mother, and children? Sometimes we have a wife with a couple of kids here. The kids come when they're eight or ten, and it takes three or four years before the father comes. By that time the young adults are 14 or 15, and you see them doing all kinds of weird things and acting out.

What kinds of services are there, or are lacking? What would you recommend this committee supply the communities--what kind of funding or help--to make sure these Canadian families are strong and positive?

[Most Rev. Brendan M. O'Brien]

Perhaps I can just give an example. At the basilica in St. John's, we've had a collective agreement to bring a family from Sudan. We started three or four years ago to try to bring this family to Canada, because one of the relatives is a member of our parish community. They were living not in the Sudan, but in another country, and I believe, for example, that parishioners of the parish were sending money to this other country to try to help them live while this process was going on.

Through our committee, also, in Canada, we were supporting this relative. For example, we were allowing him to phone Africa regularly to keep in touch with them. Mr. Doyle knows this case very well, because we appealed to him a number of times to help with this case, because there seemed to be, for whatever reason, delays.

Happily, about a month ago, the family arrived. There are four sons, if I'm not mistaken, and one of them is very young. We've been able to find a house for them--someone gave his house. Right now what we're doing is looking for 20 people to give $35 a month, which will help us, then, to support them in some way until they get established. We found a school for them. They don't really speak English that well, so they're going to have quite a difficult time. This is just one example I'm familiar with of the things we need to do.

Our concern is whether there is some way this process can be sped up. As I say, I think it was about three to four years for this case to be looked at.

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

I know there are other colleagues who want to ask some questions, so I'm going to defer my time to the next on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Andrew, you have about three minutes or so.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much.

I just want to make the point that I think what you're doing in terms of sanctuary is very important. I just want you to know that the committee has always agreed that we should have the RAD and we should implement the RAD. Unfortunately, we're not able to get that message through to the minister who is in government, because he relies very much on the bureaucracy. Until this issue that we should have the RAD is raised high enough on the political agenda, the bureaucracy is going to block it every time. I'm just putting it out for you.

I think you're doing very important work in terms of educating people when you're giving sanctuary, because it's an educational process, as well. It really is inconceivable to me that we passed the RAD and it was never implemented.

On that, I very much commend you and wonder what you can do to raise public awareness about it, because refugees are not a sexy issue. Refugees, as a matter of fact, too often get stigmatized and get tied in to criminality and security kind of stuff. It really is unfortunate, because they really cannot defend themselves. So to the extent that you have been involved, I commend you for it. What can you do to raise the political profile even more?

[Most Rev. Roger Ébacher]

First, as far as the rights and dignity of refugees are concerned, I firmly believe that we cannot give in. We must practice hospitality. We all know what is happening on a global scale. The situation of refugees is a major issue in our world today.

As for the case I mentioned, it is very clear that had there been a right to appeal, it would have been possible to take some time to launch an appeal. The fact that a single official can make a decision on a plane is, in my opinion, a very short sighted way of operating. I am not sure that this respects human rights.

That is why we made the point in our letter and we will continue to make it. I think that this is necessary. These types of situations raise public awareness to a large extent. At least that is what happened in our area. People are beginning to understand what is happening and are offering their support. There is no doubt that the civil society must support the efforts made by government on behalf of refugees. I think that we still have to raise awareness about that. We have to continue to ask the government to implement the process prescribed by law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Your Grace.

Madam Faille.

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

Thank you.

Welcome to the committee. It is refreshing to hear what you have to say. We need this kind of support. Since 2002, the Bloc Québécois has often insisted on the fact that refugees must be treated more fairly and equitably. The Appeal Division is something we hold very dear to our hearts. A private member's bill was tabled and will be debated in the House of Commons in the not too distant future. Mr. Telegdi said that this issue should become a little more political and should become more important to Canadians. Everyone, everywhere, keeps on repeating this. However, we don't feel that the subject is getting the attention it deserves.

Over the years, immigrants' rights have been eroded. This is worrying. Your letter accurately reflects the situation. You of course have a great deal of experience in this field. Furthermore, I am pleased at the greater role Mr. Raymond Gravel will play. I had the opportunity to work with him on several immigration and refugee cases over the past few years. We need more people like him. We must also pass legislation.

Unfortunately, some provisions do not go far enough compared to what was originally called for, including how to deal with people who do not go back to their countries of origin because they are on the list of countries affected by the moratorium. The case of Mr. Jean Bosco, a Rwandan national, quickly illustrated the limits of the immigration system. It also became clear that the people who believe in our system were powerless. In fact, we have only just touched the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, several hundred nationals from Congo are currently in the same situation as the Rwandan national in question.

The immigration community is not as strong as it used to be, but government officials do not seem to grasp the reality of the situation. In your letter, which is fairly complete, you may have forgotten to mention some situations. I would like to draw a few of them to your attention. Mr. Khan and Mr. Falcón Ríos, whose claims were upheld by the Committee against Torture, now find themselves in a legal vacuum in Canada. There are also people whose geographic situation has changed and who have become stateless. All these people are here, on Canadian territory.

Furthermore, there is the issue of religious asylum. As far as I know, the claim to religious asylum has been rejected in the case of Mr. Cherfi. However, the United States granted him refugee status. Quebec has already agreed that Mr. Cherfi can stay, but there has been no movement at the federal level and, in fact, there have been delays.

Further, the court challenges program was abolished by the Conservative government. The most vulnerable persons — who include immigrants or stateless persons — could turn to this program to defend themselves before the courts. Who will challenge the Safe Third Country Agreement if access to justice has been denied?

Do you find it normal that refugees who have been granted protection should have to wait such a long time to be reunited with their families? I believe that in answering the question, one begins to understand the reality of immigrants to Canada.

[Most Rev. Roger Ébacher]

You have asked a number of highly relevant questions, but I cannot answer all of them. I would at least like to reassert the great importance — and I hope your committee will stress this — of refugees in our world and in Canada. In fact, some 14% of the foreigners we welcome to our shores are refugees. One might say this is generous, but the needs are great, and that should be taken into account.

The issue of family reunification is a very painful one, however. In my diocese, over the past few years, we have established a sponsorship program with assistance from the governments of Quebec and Canada. Over 200 refugees have come to Canada in that period. One person waited three years for an answer to his reunification application, and when the answer finally did come, it was no. After three years! I could feel how much that person suffered.

Is there no way to fast-track these procedures? if the answer is no, people have to know as quickly as possible so that they know what the situation is. What I hear is human suffering. These are human beings, not numbers. We see a situation like this every day. What you have just said is extremely important. As for the other cases, they are very numerous. We have not listed them all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Madam Faille.

Mr. Siksay, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you both for your presentations this morning. As a New Democrat and as a Christian, it's great to be reminded of the justice requirements of our faith. I think you've put that very clearly. I've always believed that the hospitality requirements, the justice requirements that it involves have been a key element of Christian practice. I want to thank you for making that very clear this morning.

Also, I did write to you at the time this document was distributed, to express my appreciation for it. I think it's a very important document. It outlines the issues facing refugees very clearly. Again, it's an excellent piece of work and a very helpful one.

I also want to thank you for your very strong language this morning and for the clarity of that language on the issues that you enumerated. I think it's been very helpful to us to hear that and to have such very clear recommendations around abrogating the safe third country agreement, around the refugee appeal division, and around the private sponsorship program. I think you'll find sympathy in most quarters around this table on those issues.

I want to ask you two specific things.

You also distributed a letter that was sent to President Bush back in the summer. I'm wondering if you could tell us a bit more about it. I know you mentioned it in your presentation, Archbishop O'Brien, but could you tell us a bit more about how that came about and about the concerns in there? It is a very powerful letter, a very strong letter, and I think it backs up your concerns about Canada's participation in the safe third country agreement.

[Most Rev. Brendan M. O'Brien]

I don't have the letter with me, but if I remember correctly, it has to do with how things have changed so much in the last few years because of the security concerns, especially this issue of material support. For example, if someone is considered to have given material support to some group that could be recognized as being somewhat of a terrorist group in their country, then when they apply for refugee status in the United States, they will often be refused. We have a whole bunch of examples of this.

When you look at what is considered material support, it is sometimes almost ridiculous—somebody who perhaps had to offer material support under duress, or some situation in which someone is living in a regime that is very undemocratic and that person in some way has given even insignificant help to some group that is in contestation with the government. If this can be shown, they are excluded as a refugee claimant.

As you say, it's signed by about 20 or 25 leaders in the United States, really bringing to the attention of the President that whatever this material support was supposed to mean, it is being used in a way that is really detrimental.

Thank you.

[Most Rev. Roger Ébacher]

The very broad definition of terrorist groups and unofficial terrorist groups in the U.S. pact is also causing problems. There is a risk it will have huge repercussions on refugees who want to come to Canada. They cannot even apply for refugee status because they are blocked before the application process. If they could get to Canada, they would be received.

There is also the issue of material support. For example, a nurse required to care for a terrorist as part of her duties runs the risk of being considered a terrorist herself. That is unacceptable. This is the kind of thing I feel we should look at very closely indeed.

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

Thank you.

I think this letter is very helpful to us in examining our obligations to those folks who don't get an opportunity to make a refugee claim in Canada. So I very much appreciate you bringing it to our attention.

I want to also ask about the comments you made about the Holy See's concern about detention and the rise of detention. You didn't mention anything specific about Canada. I know we haven't used detention to the same degree that other countries have, but I wonder if you have any specific concerns about the use of detention in Canada. It is something the committee has done some work on recently.

[Most Rev. Brendan M. O'Brien]

I am not familiar myself with particular cases, but I think what we're trying to say is that in trying to safeguard, obviously, the necessary national security and what not, one has to be careful that this does not become such a preoccupation that you put aside any concerns for human rights. There has to be, really, some kind of balance between those two values.

I think that is basically what we're trying to insist on, that this idea of detention not become generalized. There may be instances when it is needed, but it should not become a generalized procedure or approach.

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

Has the commission taken a stand, for instance, on the use of security certificates in Canada? Has that been part of your deliberations?

[Most Rev. Brendan M. O'Brien]

Not that I am aware of. Perhaps Monseigneur Ébacher may know. I know that we have written to the minister a number of times on different issues of this nature, but I am not particularly sure of that.

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

I had another question. I know that in the document you mentioned the incident when, in 2004, the immigration officials and police went into the United Church in Quebec City and removed someone who had sought sanctuary there. You had concerns about that. I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about that. I think that was the first time it ever happened in Canada. It was the first time a religious institution's ability to offer sanctuary had been violated in that way. I wonder if you would make some comments about that.

[Most Rev. Roger Ébacher]

At those events, the Archbishop of Quebec, Catholics and Anglicans all protested together. In my view, that is a non acceptable situation. Religious hospitality is an exception that underscores the fact there is a problem. This is not a rule for churches, obviously. However, there was a problem. Instead of breaking down doors and using force, the problem should be examined to see where its roots lie. The solution isn't to deport people by force, particularly since the person in question came back to Canada afterwards. That person was recognized as being eligible for refugee status.

This is a very clear case, which shows we have to look at the issue very carefully. However, as we said earlier, we cannot guarantee that similar cases would not happen again if there was a right to appeal. Respect, as well as freedom and responsibility of conscience, all play an important role.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

By the way, has the Bush administration made any reply to the letter as yet?

[Most Rev. Brendan M. O'Brien]

I am not aware of any, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Komarnicki, please.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you very much. I just have a few questions.

There's no doubt that there are a great number of refugees in the world, into the millions. The question is how many you can absorb, and it becomes a numbers thing, in that sense. I know that proportionately, among other countries in the world, Canada ranks quite well in terms of the numbers we take in. I'm sure we can do better, and perhaps more, and that is something we need to look at in terms of numbers and perhaps of the effect of the safe third country agreement.

Many people have felt that in terms of general outcomes, the United States and Canada are comparable. In terms of how the process goes through it's different, but the total numbers at the end of the road are what count. In the first year's report with respect to the safe third country agreement, some of the comments made were that the objectives of the agreement are “to enhance the orderly handling of refugee claims, strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our respective refugee systems, help reduce abuse of both countries' asylum programs, and share the responsibility of providing protection to those in need”.

So there is the public interest component as well. The two have to be balanced somehow. And of course, if it were in numbers of refugees you're going to take in, there are a number abroad and a number who would make applications through the United States, and part of the reasoning behind the safe third country agreement was to deal with the public interest in the absence...or to try to do away with some of the abuse.

Of course, I realize your concern was with the issue surrounding material support and how it might have an effect on that issue alone. I wondered whether there were any other issues.

Then, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees also had input to the review and said that essentially—as far as I know, it's the UNHRC's overall assessment—“...the Agreement has generally been implemented by the Parties according to its terms and, with regard to those terms, international refugee law. Individuals who request protection are generally given an adequate opportunity to lodge refugee claims at the ports of entry and eligibility determination decisions under the Agreement have generally been made correctly.” And then the Government of Canada noted in that review that it accepted in whole or in part 13 of 15 new or outstanding UNHRC recommendations in its monitoring report.

Would you agree with me that there are two sides to that coin? There's an issue of the integrity of the system—a public interest dealing with any abuses that may take place—and then, that the two countries do have reasonably good refugee systems compared with what's happening in other parts of the world?

[Most Rev. Brendan M. O'Brien]

My understanding is that this past year the number of refugee cases in Canada is considerably down. I guess the question would be whether this is due to the fact that they're being weeded out through this safe third country agreement. I don't know. That would be a question.

The other thing that has come up in our discussions with different people is that there is a sense that in Canada we might be more sensitive to certain issues than is the United States with respect to refugees, and that if the person, for example, were able to make the claim in Canada, perhaps they would be looked on more favourably than they are when doing it through the States. Again I can't really say that's the case.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Probably following from that, resources have to be expended if you're going to take refugees outside of Canada or inside. If you spend a lot of time within the system inside Canada, obviously you have fewer resources to process them outside. In terms of numbers in the world, it's true that refugee numbers have dropped somewhat, but they're still in the millions. There are far more refugees than any country can absorb—and that's the legitimate refugees, without too many issues of determination. So again it's a bit of a balancing act.

But moving to another subject, the sanctuary cases, you mentioned that there's—