Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

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

Iraqis who have lost their refugee determination cases have the benefit of a provision that allows them to remain here indefinitely, as long as Iraq is on the moratorium list. Is there a potential avenue for people who might come from the United States? The list is restrictive. There is a certain number of countries on the list. Iraqis who have lost their refugee determination cases are still here.

[Micheline Aucoin]

Mr. Chair, Ms. Faille is alluding to the list of countries for which there is a temporary stay of removals. In fact, that list is prepared by the Department of Public Safety and not the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. There are currently eight countries on the list. Certain criteria have to be met in order to be on the list. The countries on it are countries where there is a generalized risk of violence everywhere in the country. The United States is not on that list.

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

Are there Iraqis who participated in Saddam Hussein's war, who have come to Canada, who have claimed refugee status and to whom you have granted that status? These would be people who have come here and said they opposed what happened and had seen atrocities.

[Micheline Aucoin]

There is no policy on what kinds of claims are and are not acceptable. The IRB considers and examines each case. I do not have statistics with me on the IRB's acceptance rate for Iraqis, but in any event it considers each case on its own merits.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's seven minutes, and I barely have time for two more speakers of seven minutes each.

Pardon me?

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

I have 10 seconds left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No.

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

Did I have a little time left? It's over?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Did you want to finish up?

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

This question is somewhat general. What guarantee is there, when people make their application for humanitarian consideration, that Canada will not deport them even before their application is examined? At present, an unsuccessful refugee claimant may apply for humanitarian consideration. When the person makes the application, he or she has no guarantee that Canada will not deport him or her.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have a response?

[Les Linklater]

Yes, Mr. Chair. When a humanitarian and compassionate application is made, there is no stay on the removal, and should a person come to the attention of CBSA, they may in fact be removed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Madame Faille.

Ms. Chow, go ahead, please, for seven minutes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Between 1969 and 1972, people in Canada as visitors could apply within Canada. That's no longer the case. You cannot apply within Canada. Also at that time you could apply at the border. That's also no longer the case. So if someone here in Canada would like to apply within Canada, they cannot do so, no matter whether it's through the point system, through family class, or independently. You just cannot do so. You cannot apply within Canada. Since we have had the safe third country agreement, even though it was struck down in the Federal Court, someone who is coming across can't apply in the United States either, so what possible route would there be?

You cannot compare apples and oranges, because at that time the immigration system was completely different from what we have now. How could someone in Canada now apply as an independent person in Canada? You can't. Am I correct?

[Les Linklater]

Mr. Chair, under the current act, an individual who is in Canada can apply for humanitarian and compassionate reasons to remain in Canada as a permanent resident without leaving the country. If an individual is here and would like to apply as a skilled worker, for example, or as a provincial nominee, their application would normally need to be processed by one of our missions overseas.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

That means the war resisters would have to go back to the U.S. and face the military. It's a vicious loop. While they apply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, they could get deported, as you just said when you answered Madam Faille's question.

My understanding is that a program was offered to adjust the status of those who have been in the country, but not landed, before November 1972. There was an amnesty program to allow those who didn't quite fit the criteria to stay in Canada. In total, for the period from April 1965 to November 1972, we are looking at something like 19,846 females and 25,865 males. In total, close to 50,000 Americans landed in Canada and became citizens of Canada through a combination of programs, and that venue is not available to the war resisters today.

My question is whether you would recommend a regularization program to adjust the status of those who have been in this country, just like the department and the minister did in November 1972.

[Les Linklater]

Mr. Chair, I think under the current provisions of the act the ability to apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds exists. It is meant as a category to provide an avenue for permanent residence for people who do not necessarily fit into any of the other categories outlined in the act or the regulations. As my colleague has mentioned, each applicant is assessed on their own merit, given the relative weight of the circumstances of the case, which would allow them to make a case for permanent residence in Canada.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I'm saving you some time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Chow.

I will now go to Mr. Batters for seven minutes.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank you, Mr. Linklater and Ms. Aucoin, for appearing before our committee today. We appreciate your bringing your expertise on immigration and refugee policy to this committee.

Mr. Linklater, you spoke in your remarks about the need for fair and consistent application of our immigration and refugee policies. Frankly, I think this goes beyond a need. We in government should always strive for fairness, prudence, and consistency in our policies.

Canada's refugee system is among the most highly regarded and respected in the world. We care about maintaining the integrity of our system through due process, fairness, and consistency. We believe in these things and we're committed to them.

I don't think Canadians support creating a special loophole for a small group of people who are running from their voluntary--and I highlight “voluntary”--commitments and who our own independent expert in judicial systems has said are not legitimate refugees. These people don't fall under internationally accepted definitions of people in need of protection. Creating a special class or loophole for them is not fair. It's not fair to real refugees who face persecution and the threat of torture and death. It's not fair to people who are truly in need of protection and who are in desperate situations. It's not fair to people who have been in camps for over a decade.

We've helped out the Karen refugees and refugees from Bhutan. We're working with the UN--

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm going to hear a point of order from Mr. Telegdi.

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

Mr. Chair, number one, I was wondering if there was a question. Second, I wonder if Mr. Batters would be assisted if we got him a teleprompter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's not a point of order.

Let me point out to all members that the member can use his seven minutes to either ask a question or talk out his time or make a statement, whatever he wishes to do. It's totally up to him.