Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 31st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We will begin.

As I indicated, I think some members will be along a little later. We're running a bit late today in the House of Commons. We'll begin, and I'm sure we'll see other members come.

I want to welcome today the SOS Viet Phi. We have Maxwell Vo, president; Hoi Trinh, attorney with the Vietnamese community in Australia; Mai Nguyen, a volunteer with the VCA office in Manila in the Philippines; and Richard Mahoney, legal counsel and adviser.

I welcome all of you to our committee.

You have an hour today. Generally there are ten minutes to make your presentation; then we will go into questions and discussion of your presentation.

Did I detect that you wanted to say something, Mr. Siksay?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You did see some signalling going on there.

I just wanted to let the committee know that I'd be prepared to see the motions I tabled on Monday go to the steering committee, the agenda and planning committee. We can put them in prioritization rather than deal with them today, if that makes the business today easier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes. Thank you.

We will go to our main presenter.

[Maxwell Vo, President, SOS Viet Phi]

My name is Max Vo.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and esteemed members of the committee.

I want to thank you once again for allowing us to appear for a second time in front of the committee.

I'm going to be representing SOS Viet Phi Canada. Appearing as my expert witnesses today are Hoi Trinh, a Vietnamese Australian lawyer who heads the legal aid office in the Philippines; Mai Nguyen, a Vietnamese Canadian who has volunteered at that same legal aid office in the Philippines; and attorney Richard Mahoney, who is our legal counsel.

When we were here in February of last year, there were still some 2,000 stateless Vietnamese boat people living in the Philippines, people who had fallen through the cracks, who were living in limbo and without hope. The international community, including Canada, has heard their voices. Currently, as we speak, only 188 boat people remain in the Philippines without a durable solution. We are here again today to ask the committee and our government to please close the book on this ongoing tragedy that has lasted much too long.

Since we were here last February, a motion recommending that the Canadian government accept approximately 500 stateless Vietnamese as refugees has been passed by this very committee. Subsequently, in March 2005 the immigration minister at the time, the Honourable Joe Volpe, announced a new public policy allowing up to 200 stateless Vietnamese to be reunited with their close family members in Canada. Thanks to this policy, two individuals are here today in person to thank Canada. There is Mr. Lang Nguyen and Mr. Lam Nguyen. Because of your graciousness, they were reunited with their families earlier this month in Vancouver, after being separated for more than 14 years.

Of the 200 stateless Vietnamese who were qualified to come to Canada, only 27 applied. The resettlement programs of other countries were less restrictive and had recognized them as refugees. The other countries could not take them all, and still 188 remain. They include the father of young Phuong Nguyen and Patrick Nguyen, who are present today with us from Toronto. Note that they have not seen their father for 14 years.

At this point in time I'd like to pass it over to Mr. Hoi Trinh, who will speak more about the current situation in the Philippines.

[Hoi Trinh, Attorney, VCA (Vietnamese Community in Australia), SOS Viet Phi]

Good afternoon, everyone. As Max has said, my name is Hoi Trinh. I am an Australian lawyer of Vietnamese origin and I've been working in the Philippines since 1997.

I basically just want to brief you on what's been going on over the last year. When we appeared at this same committee last year, we had 2,000 people left. At the time I did inform the committee that the U.S. government was processing cases. I also informed the committee that we expected about 500 people would be left behind. As a result, the committee passed a motion recommending that Canada accept those 500 Vietnamese refugees. Fortunately, the U.S. took more than that; they took 1,600 people. Fortunately, Norway also jumped in and recognized those people as refugees. That's why we have only 188 people left.

In front of you there should be a booklet entitled Stateless Vietnamese Refugees in the Philippines. I ask you to please go to page 22 in part 4, which relates to Canada. That's a letter from the former Minister Volpe writing to the Honourable Bill Siksay, who is here today, stating among other things three points that I want to mention to the committee.

The fourth paragraph says, “Our mission in Manila has confirmed that the Australians did not accept the Viet-Phi as refugees but rather as members of a special category.” What I can say is that is plainly legally wrong.

In parts 5, 6, and 7 you will see evidence from Australia, the U.S., and Norway saying that Australia did accept people as refugees. Then it goes further. It says in terms of the Norwegian program, “participants need relatives in Norway...and will not be considered as refugees.” That is also wrong.

The third part states that “The American representative indicated that their policy is defined as a resettlement program and that they accept the applicants as refugees under a modified definition.” Well, they accept people as refugees, period.

I want to inform you that I don't understand why there was such an assertion from the former minister. However, I urge you to please recognize the 188 people left as refugees, as other countries have done. What I hope is that Mai Nguyen will be able to give you a Canadian perspective on what being stateless means, and why these people should be considered as refugees and in need of protection by Canada.

The last point I want to raise is that among the 188 people left in the Philippines is Phuong Nguyen, the father of the two young children who are sitting behind me here. The boy has never seen his father. His father is still stranded in the Philippines, and he wants to say a couple of words if you could let him.

[Patrick Nguyen, As an Individual]

Hi. My name is Patrick Nguyen and I'm 12 years old. I've never seen my father before, and I live in Toronto with my mother and sister. So far there have been many Vietnamese refugees in the Philippines, and they want to come to Canada. One of them is my father. I really want him to come over. Many people are waiting for their refugees and their families to come to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

All right. Thank you. We'll do something to help you out there.

You can continue, Mr. Trinh.

[Hoi Trinh]

Patrick was not able to sponsor his father because the expanded policy announced last year by the former minister did not cover young sponsors, only adult sponsors.

I now turn to Mai to speak about her own experience.

[Mai Nguyen, Volunteer, VCA Office in Manila, Philippines, SOS Viet Phi]

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Being born and raised in Canada, a nation that prides itself on freedom and equality, I did not find it easy to grasp the complete concept of what it means to be a stateless person. Now, as a firsthand witness of this tragic disregard for human rights, I would describe the effects of statelessness as much, much more than destitution. To be stateless is to be stripped of your sense of belonging and to be exposed to a complete lack of options.

While in the Philippines, I witnessed impoverished Vietnamese as targets of discrimination, bribery, and violent crimes, yet they were unable to turn to the local authorities for fear of arbitrary arrest and denial of equal protection in front of the law. I spoke to countless hardworking men and women imprisoned for selling goods on the street, even though it was their only method of survival. As stateless persons, they are denied the right to legal employment. I met children and became friends with young adults just like myself, yearning to learn and go to school, yet denied a right to further education.

I urge you to turn to section 10 of the booklet in front of you and put faces to the 188 people we have mentioned. They are real people. Notice the families and the children.

I have been on the ground in the Philippines. I have volunteered my time, but there is only so much I can do. However, you have the power to do much more. Let's come together and do the right thing. We can give these 188 remaining stateless faces recognition, nationality, and a future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Mahoney.

[Richard Mahoney, Legal Counsel and Advisor, SOS Viet Phi]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Richard Mahoney. I appear today as a volunteer counsel to the SOS Viet Phi.

Let me give you a little about my background in this organization. I don't think I can add much to the very powerful evidence we've heard from people who have been there, but I have been involved in this issue with the SOS Viet Phi for a couple of years, and in a prior part of my professional life I spent a number of years as an immigration and refugee lawyer, so I have some perspective on this.

First of all, this committee did some very important work when it met last on this issue. Just to put some clarity on this, it's fair to note on the record that our immigration department has some reluctance to characterize these people as refugees because of an approach to the definition of “refugee” that they take.

Notwithstanding that, Minister Volpe and the Government of Canada and this committee did what I believe and what we would humbly submit was the right thing in trying to make sure that Canada did its bit to step up and take up to 200 of those people. For a number of reasons, as we've heard, that didn't happen. Some people came, but many went to other countries. We now find ourselves here.

Through the clerk, I have some submissions to make on the law on this, which I'll leave with you. Give me a couple of seconds, if you would, to go through it a bit.

First of all, it is our submission that notwithstanding, and with respect to, what the department says, the SOS Viet Phi now stranded in the Philippines clearly meet the definition of the country of asylum class, and I'll give you a couple of examples why. The country of asylum class is defined in the regulations, which say that foreign nationals are members of the country of asylum class if they've been determined by an officer to be in need of resettlement because they are outside all of their countries of nationality and habitual residence and they have been and continue to be seriously and personally affected by civil war, armed conflict, or massive violations of human rights in each of those countries.

Well, these people are stateless, have no country, and as a result of the civil war in the country--admittedly, a civil war that has now passed--are outside the country of nationality and unable to seek that protection. Your committee recognized this very fact last year by making two findings of fact--that they have remained for 16 years out of their country and that they have been seriously and personally affected--so you've already found, as fact, that which I just said happens to be a matter of law.

You went beyond that. You added a couple of things that I think were very appropriate. One is that these individuals have no possibility within a reasonable time of having a durable solution. They are, in most and all cases, privately sponsored by existing Canadian citizens and they have suffered violations of human rights.

In my submission, first of all, if this committee chooses to take that approach again, I think you can easily find as a matter of fact that these remaining 188 people meet the test of the definition of the country of asylum class.

Having said that, and having acknowledged that our department has some reluctance to so find, I can say it's not the only option available to the minister. The minister has lots of other options in law to recognize these people. He can, as my submissions say to you, find under subsection 25(1) of the act that these people should be granted admission to Canada under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In questions, I can, if you like, expound upon that in terms of what the test in law has been for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, but I think we would quite clearly find agreement in this room that humanitarian and compassionate grounds exist. So there's the second option.

The third option is that you could easily ground the proper and lawful admission of these people to our country in international law and the conventions and treaties Canada has signed. The Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indochinese Refugees has actually expired. It expired in 1996. Our department has always taken the position that since these people weren't found to be refugees 16 or 17 years ago, they can't be refugees now; that plan of action has expired. What do we do in law if that plan of action expired in 1996--how do we treat them? It's certainly a very credible and easy argument to say we go back to general international law on this.

We are, as a country, signatories to a number of conventions, including the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. And again, we have, in practical terms, a number of stateless people here.

I'll refer you to my remarks; if you want to get into it in questions and answers, I can expound on that, but we also can ground that finding, Mr. Chairman, in international law.

Finally, I was able--and I was honoured, frankly--to help last year when the SOS Viet Phi, along with the member for Burnaby--Douglas and others, pressed the government and your committee to do the right thing. Our history as a country on this issue is quite admirable. When the original Viet Phi crisis happened, Canada literally led the world in stepping up and taking Vietnamese.

If you look at the Vietnamese community in Ottawa, the city where I live, many of the Vietnamese Canadians who are now very productive and happy members of our community came to this country via that original crisis. It's the same in almost every major city in this country. We did the right thing then.

I would argue that last year you did the right thing--and the minister and the government did the right thing--in attempting, in our own way as Canadians, to find a way to deal with the remaining people there. Fortunately for the world, the United States, Australia, and other countries did the same. Now we're left with 188 people--fewer than you as a committee and we as a country agreed to accept.

Our submission is that we should honour not only our traditions in this country and our great work in terms of responding to these people, but also our Vietnamese Canadian community. Let's finally do the right thing for those people who live in what is really a stateless no man's land.

Thank you very much for your time and patience.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We were to accept 200 people, was it, from 61 families? I'm looking at my notes here.

[Richard Mahoney]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

But to date only eight families in Canada have come forward to sponsor a relative. A total of three cases, representing eight people, have been accepted; five other cases are pending. Why would we have only eight families in Canada coming forward to sponsor a relative?

[Hoi Trinh]

May I answer your question?

Under the new policy announced by the former minister, basically the rule required that you not only had to pay for all the fares and all the costs involved in the resettlement, but the sponsorship had to be for 10 years. At the same time, Norway and the U.S. agreed to take people as refugees, and therefore none of them had to pay any kind of fee, nor were sponsors needed. As a result, some of the families here, although they wished to be reunited with their families here, basically did not have the money to satisfy the 10-year sponsorship requirement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

We will go to questions. I don't know where to begin today.

Madame Faille.

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

I'm delighted and honoured to see all of you here today. Admittedly, we worked very hard last year and we expected to achieve greater results. Inevitably we encountered a number of obstacles which you have clearly identified.

In order to give you a little more time to focus on the whole question of humanitarian consideration or the criteria...Earlier, Mr. Mahoney stated that maybe he could look into this and provide us with more information. For the benefit of those in attendance, I think more detailed information is needed. Perhaps the committee could review some of the initiatives taken last year, with a view to asking the department to ease some of these criteria. We need more substantial arguments to work with.

[Richard Mahoney]

What kind of details are you looking for? Do you want details on the current status of these individuals, or do you want to know more about the legal arguments presented?

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

I'd like to hear more about the legal arguments. We're well aware of the status of these persons. We need to know what they are up against, from a legal standpoint. We need to hear legal arguments from departmental officials. It would be useful, therefore, if you could shed some light on the situation. Thank you.

[Hoi Trinh]

Basically, CIC does not think that these refugees meet their resettlement needs. If you go again to part 4 on page 22, the minister at the time--last November--says in paragraph 3, line 3 that “Canada has considered this group against the broader definition of refugee under the Country of Asylum Class and maintains that they are not in need of Canada's protection.”

Basically, that's the standard they take. Whether these people need resettlement or the protection of Canada depends on CIC. It depends on the minister. If the minister, as was the case in the U.S. or Australia or Norway, thinks that they are in need of resettlement, that they need protection, and that they are refugees, then they will be recognized. In Norway, in fact, there is no program such as the country of asylum class. In Australia we did have a similar class, called the special humanitarian program, and that's how Australia accepted these people as refugees. Norway had to pass a special law to recognize them as refugees. Canada, in the end, just didn't want to, but that's just CIC.

[Richard Mahoney]

Let me try to add to that--and please, members, interrupt or drill down when you think it is important.

I am reluctant, both in terms of specifically trying to help the SOS Viet Phi, and more generally to try to represent or not adequately represent the position of the department, of CIC, but I believe their reluctance to recognize these individuals as refugees literally dates back to the original process that the UN led in the Philippines, where there were literally hundreds of thousands of these people, if not more. There was a process; at the end of that process, almost everybody was resettled somewhere. I think a couple of thousand were not found to be refugees.

We could argue until the cows come home whether that was the right decision and whether it was adequately done, whether the UN did a good job or a bad job. I don't think that's the point here. The department's view is that since they weren't found to be refugees then, as a matter of law we ought not to find them to be refugees now. I think that's a fair characterization of their view.

While I am a lawyer, let's not get too hung up on the legalities of this--but if you want to, under the regulations of the act there is something called the country of asylum class. I would argue that the test, which is set out there in front of you, is clearly met by not only the evidence you have in front of you in this book, but by evidence that's generally available through human rights reports, state department reports, and so forth, that these people are, first of all, stateless. Second, they fled their original country, Vietnam, for fear of persecution, and can no longer return there because they have no rights of citizenship there. They are truly stateless. They fled their country for persecution; they fled their country for reasons of civil war; they clearly meet the test of country of asylum class.

That having been said, if you as a committee don't want to go down that road, or if the Department of Citizenship and Immigration--CIC--doesn't want to go down that road, there are other legal arguments and other findings available to you. As you will know as members of Parliament--you have to deal with this every single day--the minister always has the power, under section 25 of the act, to allow someone entrance into Canada, and the test is humanitarian and compassionate grounds. We can go through that if you want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Now we will go to Bill Siksay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you folks for being here again this year. I'm disappointed that you had to come back, because it would have been nice if the situation of these folks had been addressed in the past year, but thank you for coming again.

Welcome again to Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Nguyen. I waited at the airport for three hours, until I had to catch a flight to Ottawa from the airport in Vancouver, and missed their arrival by two hours. We were getting a little worried. Maybe the committee will want to look at delays at clearing customs and immigration in Vancouver as a result of their experience. I unfortunately missed out on what I understand was a very happy reunion, but I'm glad they're able to be with us here today.

I also want to thank Patrick and his sister for testifying this afternoon.

I think we could have stepped up to the plate and done a better job than we have on this issue, and I still think that opportunity exists for Canada. I think the country of asylum class is the appropriate way to go, given the experience of these people. Don't accept that they aren't refugees by any definition or any standard in that case.

It's very important that the committee pursue this matter again, perhaps in exactly the same way we did last time. I think Canada can offer a final and enduring resolution to the terrible situation these folks find themselves in.

Just looking around the room, I'm also very moved by the support of the community. I think the strongest community representation we ever saw on any matter before the committee was last time, when the Vietnamese community came to show their support for this solution. It's moving because it's a community that, now that it has settled and is for the most part Canadian, has learned about the Canadian value on refugee resettlement. You experienced that generosity and now want to return that generosity. That's a tribute to our adaptation and to your adaptation, and to your adoption of Canadian values. It says good things about the Vietnamese community and good things about Canada in general. I wish the government would make it a little easier for the committee to take on the responsibility that they're so willing to undertake.

[Applause]

We don't usually have applause in committee. That's great, though. I enjoyed that.

Anyway, I think it's very important that we proceed, so I'm hoping we can make the appropriate representations to the current government and the current minister. Maybe we can get a different approach with the new minister.

I wanted to ask Mr. Mahoney to expand a little bit on the convention on statelessness and how it might be used in this circumstance.

[Richard Mahoney]

As I said, Canada has had a great tradition on this and tried last year to get as many as they could. Some have come; for other reasons, other countries stepped up, so we are where we are now.

There are a couple of things in connection with the convention on statelessness. First, both Canada and the Philippines are contracting states to that convention. That is a fact. I think we can read as a matter of record into this hearing that these people are currently stateless. I don't think I need to leave any evidence to convince you of that.

Canada has previously indicated, as a point of fact, a willingness and a readiness to reduce statelessness in the world by signing the convention. We are a contracting state. We said we'll reduce the amount of statelessness in the world. So are the Philippines.

Finally, the UN General Assembly has recognized the basic human rights of individuals who are not nationals of the state in which they now reside. That's exactly the case of the Viet Phi. While we're not bound by law in any way to admit these people simply because they're stateless--otherwise we would have to do that in each and every case--given all the facts that people have put in front of us and otherwise, it's certainly yet another persuasive argument saying that whether we do it by change in regulation, whether we do it by country of asylum class, whether we do it by subsection 25(1)--whether we do it by whatever approach you deem appropriate, frankly--the fact that we have signed and obliged ourselves to reduce statelessness, and the fact that other countries and the UN General Assembly have done the same, is yet another argument for us to do the right thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

The Liberals haven't had a chance yet, and I think Borys had his hand up.

Blair, do you want to defer to Borys?