Evidence of meeting #45 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was changes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:40 p.m.
Director, Islamic Humanitarian Service
I'm sorry, I didn't get the right channel. Excuse me.
6:40 p.m.
Bloc
6:40 p.m.
Director, Islamic Humanitarian Service
No, we were not consulted at our level, no.
6:45 p.m.
Employment Advocate, Enhanced Language Training Program, Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services
In answer to the question, I attended the original technical briefing at Richmond Hill. No, we were not consulted prior to it, but I would like to also add that I asked a question to the chair of that technical briefing.
One aspect of Bill C-124 was that the minister would be able to designate what percentage of applicants would be deemed economic class or family refugee class. My question was who the primary groups or agencies were that they would be consulting. The answer I got was rather disparaging. It was the 35 regulated bodies that exist in Ontario at the present time.
I personally feel that the primary groups they should be consulting with are the very people who deal with settlement and immigration: places like ICNSS, places like these people here, and places like the groups this gentleman represents.
I strongly feel agencies and organizations dealing with settlement and immigration should be the first and foremost people who should be consulted, prior to the regulated bodies or any other group in Ontario or perhaps the rest of Canada.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I asked the question about consultations because I was very worried when I realized that the government has consulted almost no one. When the minister appeared before the committee, she told us that when she sent out directives, she would consult the public. However, she has not done so on this proposed major legislation before us. If she does not bother to consult people at the very moment that she has to present the bill in Parliament, imagine what is going to happen when she can send out directives from her office without consultation or control from Parliament.
Mr. Gauthier, you told us about a person in your constituency who sought sanctuary.
6:45 p.m.
Refugee Outreach Committee, St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church
That has happened.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I hope it ended well. Abdelkader Belaouni lives in my constituency, in Pointe-Saint-Charles. His problems lay with the Refugee Appeal Division, a division that still does not exist, is still not in operation, even though it is provided for in the legislation. His difficulties were because he was rejected by a commission member who turns down 98% of the applications brought before him. It seems clear to me that something in the system is not working. If a Canadian citizen appeared before a judge who convicted 98% of the people who came before him, no one would say that it made any sense or that justice was being served. That is why the act provided for an appeal division. Unfortunately, Mr. Belaouni was not able to use the provision. Like a number of others, however, he used another resource at his disposal, an application for residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. A number of people have done that. You must have often seen it in your organizations too. In Montreal, the Laetitia Angba case was settled that way.
Now it seems that the government is going to shut another door by no longer requiring applications on humanitarian or compassionate grounds from outside Canada to be reviewed. Do you share my concern that, by closing more and more doors to possible recourse for people who believe their lives are in danger, Canada is no longer meeting its international obligations on the protection of refugees?
6:45 p.m.
Refugee Outreach Committee, St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church
You are right. It is ridiculous to pretend that an appeal on humanitarian or compassionate grounds is an effective way to correct mistakes made by the panel that determines the status of refugees. The Border Services Agency initiates the removal process within 12 months after a decision in the negative. It is usually done in the 12 months following. According to all the information we have about the way the department handles applications on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, they take a minimum of 36 months. In the case we went through, after approaches to the minister were made by members of Parliament, we were informed that we would still have to wait a year, a year and a half, maybe 24 months before the case would be considered.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you very much. I am going to turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Carrier.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
First of all, let me tell you that I very much appreciated the comments that you have provided to us today. You were our last witnesses in this flurry of committee meetings that we have been holding since Monday morning. I think that you have summarized the general feeling that has emerged from the testimony. You tell us that responding to a labour shortage through immigration applications is only part of the picture. Our immigration process is not an employment agency for employers.
Ms. Seepersaud, you listed a number of qualities that should be considered when looking at immigration applications, such as loyalty to the country, and people's human qualities. Immigration means accepting citizens into our country. This is why it seems such a shame that we are being rushed after being confronted with the fact that just two pages of a 130-page bill suddenly start bringing in the whole area of processing immigration applications.
Like my colleague Mr. Fast, I am a member of the transport committee. In that committee, we just want to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which seems to be easier than immigration. But it was dealt with in committee before a bill was brought forward to amend the current act. The transport committee followed a good process. Over here, where we are dealing with the question of immigration, which is a lot more important for people and for the country's reputation on the international stage, we find it a shame that things are being done differently.
Mr. St-Cyr and I are from the Bloc Québécois and we share your opinion. We understand the arguments you are putting forward and we are going to take them into consideration in the recommendations that we will begin to write after meeting you.
Perhaps you would like to add something to my comments.
6:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services
As an agency that serves immigrants and is very much entrenched in our region in doing the work we do, I found it rather strange that two years ago I was given an invitation to sit on an advisory committee of the IRB that addressed issues relating to appeals for applicants who are trying to come to Canada under a sponsorship of a spouse, for example, so under reunification or sponsorship of a family member.
I found it very strange that there was no representation on that advisory committee of agencies such as ours. There are numerous agencies like ours across Canada doing legitimate work on behalf of the Government of Canada for the resettlement and adaptation of immigrants in Canada.
I was the very first non-profit organization that was allowed to sit there. I was invited to sit there and I was sitting among people who didn't understand what we did, who were making decisions around appeals and policies that related to appeals.
Thank you.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Carrier.
One brief response, Mr. Hudda, and then I'll go to Madam Chow.
6:50 p.m.
Director, Islamic Humanitarian Service
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the honourable member said that we also want to protect and preserve our international reputation. My only comment to that, respectfully--and I appreciate his work as well--is let us do what is right, not just what is popular or internationally keeping our reputation positive.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you, Mr. Hudda.
Madam Chow, seven minutes, if you wish to have it. If not, you can share it.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Thank you.
I know all your organizations have a lot of front-line workers and you come into contact with a large number of people. Do you think the majority of the people you serve understand why--in my mind, in the NDP's mind--these changes are damaging, irreversible, why this bill sets a bad precedent? These are all the things that have been said so far. Do you think there is a deep understanding of it? Or are they looking at the advertisements that are being put out and saying, “Well, it's only to deal with the backlog and we need to fix the system anyway”? Do you think people are buying that?
This really doesn't have anything to do with the backlog. It doesn't apply to the 925,000 people in the applicant backlog.
So for those of you who have workers or clients you serve, who would want to take that?
6:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services
I'll have a go at that.
In my opinion, no, they don't understand what's happening. It takes a great deal of advocacy and a lot of education on the part of agencies such as ours with our front-line workers to get them to understand and to appreciate the impact of such changes.
You also have to consider the fact that as a charitable organization, we're restricted in how much of those advocacy pieces we can actually do on a daily or annual basis. We're very much restricted in doing that. The only thing we can possibly do is to indicate rather clearly that there are changes that aren't very friendly to the work we do with the immigrants we serve or the clients we work for and to become educated about them.
I would say no, absolutely not. For example, when Pat Hynes was sent to go and get more information, I was specifically invited--and it was by invitation only--to attend that session--
6:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services
That's right, and he travelled all the way to Richmond Hill, which is really far. Obviously that is not going to be covered by the kind of work we do under travel, because that's advocating, and that's basically information-gathering.
We found it very hard. I couldn't spare the time; he went and represented me there and brought back the information.
6:55 p.m.
Employment Advocate, Enhanced Language Training Program, Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services
Ms. Chow, perhaps I'll just reiterate our executive director's comments.
Briefly, here is one of the things I've found as a work placement advocate. In our enhanced language training program, we deal with internationally trained professionals. In order to get into our program, you have to be Exit CLB 6--Canadian Language Benchmarks 6--in one of the four areas of reading, writing, speaking, or understanding.
The point is this: our program focuses on two things, enhanced language training and a bridge-to-work component, and by the time most people wind up on our doorstep, they are there for a specific reason. They have not been able to bridge to work because of a language issue or related issues--
6:55 p.m.
Employment Advocate, Enhanced Language Training Program, Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services
I understand.
To answer your question, no--by and large they're dealing with more elementary issues; however, they are concerned.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Thank you very much.
Would anyone want to comment on whether it would not be better if this committee went, for example, to different regions across Canada and had public sessions in the evening? We could invite people to come. We could hear people. We could have a bit of a public debate--this is what the CIC or the government or minister said, and these are some of our opinions. People could come and listen. They could debate and participate. Wouldn't that be far more democratic than having...?
So far we have three days--Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday--of hearings, and that is it. You are the last group. I'm very depressed about this, because many others want to speak and have not been given the opportunity. I don't think that's the best way to have a bill like this, one that is so fundamentally important....
In about five or ten minutes, we are going to be putting our recommendations together. Knowing what's going to happen in the House of Commons in a week or two, I'm afraid this bill could become law, because some Liberal members--not necessarily the ones who are here--may not be voting against it. I'm concerned about that. I just don't know how to deal with it.
