Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Julie Taub]

By the current government at the time, because it was anti-Vietnam War. There was a climate of opposition to the war in Vietnam and I was part of the opposition. I marched in demonstrations at the time as a student at the University of Toronto.

But it is irrelevant, completely irrelevant, to today's situation in the United States. There is no compulsory draft. People who are in the U.S. Army--

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

Ms. Taub, please, just give short answers.

Historically in 1960 and today--

[Julie Taub]

It's a democratic country and I believe it's a safe country of origin--

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

Sorry, Chair, could you ask the witness to please not cut me off until I finish my question?

[Julie Taub]

I will finish it with that. I believe I've answered your question. I think you are just carrying on as usual.

If somebody else would like to ask a question, I'd be happy, but I will not engage in this kind of trite debate.

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

Well, it's my seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You'll be pleased, Ms. Taub, that his time is up.

Madame Thi Lac.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Good afternoon, Mrs. Taub.

Good afternoon, sir.

I am pleased to see you before this committee.

First of all, I want to tell you that I come from a country that saw many of its citizens come here as refugees. I came from Vietnam and I can tell you that this Board is very important. Even though the situations may not be comparable, many American citizens as well as Vietnamese citizens came here because this legislation existed. I did not come to Canada as a refugee but I came here during the same period.

Some of your statements fill me with anger. You systematically condemn all claimants in saying that they abuse our system. However, did I not hear you say that some of the people who call you are referred by consultants? We know that consultants are not regulated at this time. Some fly-by-night consultants give very bad advice to illegitimate refugee claimants. I would have liked to see this profession regulated in this Bill.

Yesterday, we heard the minister say that he intends to do that but later on. You said that many claimants try to abuse the present system. Do you not believe that the fact that the Minister did not regulate the profession at this time, like the legal profession... By the way, I believe that people who call you are protected by the fact that your profession is strongly regulated.

Some say that the system is clogged, but that is not due only to false claimants. It is also due to fly-by-night consultants advising illegitimate claimants to try and abuse the system.

[Julie Taub]

Allow me to clarify something. Here in Ontario, consultants are regulated. There is an association that is supposed to manage those consultants. Unfortunately, I regularly get calls from clients of such consultants and I always tell them to make an official complaint. I try to help them. When you call those consultants, you always get answering machines. There is never any follow-up.

This type of control is nearly nonexistent in Ontario. The association of consultants was set up by the government of Ontario but it does not work.

You are right, but this is not only a matter of regulating consultants, we shall also limit their number. I fully agree with you, having fly-by-night consultants is a major problem...

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Do you not believe that the minister should have regulated consultants in this Bill instead of saying that he will do so later on with another Bill? Should he not have used this Bill to do so now instead of simply establishing new deadlines to try and limit the number of false claims?

[Julie Taub]

I agree that we should stop those consultants but there is nothing we can do about those from other countries. Our government cannot restrict their power, their practices, overseas. What happens overseas is terrible, I know.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

However, it would still have been a good start for those who are...

[Julie Taub]

Indeed, we should begin here in Canada but it should only be a first step. The Bill is a step in the right direction but it has to be followed with other measures if we want to stop those who abuse the system.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mrs. Taub, you say that the Bill is a good first step. However, even if it is passed, if the number of public servants hired is not sufficient compared to the number needed, is there not again a danger that we will end up with a huge backlog?

[Julie Taub]

Are you referring to public servants?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

If the number of public servants sitting on the Board is lower than what is needed, do you not think that it will once again create a backlog?

[Julie Taub]

I do not believe that the exact number has been determined. I believe it will be set after the Bill is passed.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I do not agree with you, Mrs. Taub, for the simple reason that a third of the member positions have been unfilled since 2006. This has contributed enormously to the backlog, which is not due only to the present legislation. Since the Conservatives got into power, a third of the member positions have been left vacant. This undermines public trust in the system. Do you not believe that, politically, the Conservatives share part of the blame because they have left a third of the positions vacant?

[Julie Taub]

I believe that the Board should be reformed before appointing new members. I believe also that you ignore the fact that, according to some rules--I know because I am a member--members are obliged to put their reasons on paper when they disallow a claim but not when they allow it. So, a member might receive a refugee claim and accept it after one, two or three hours, or even 10 minutes. However, if the member disallows the claim for good reasons, he or she has to justify the decision in writing, which might take 6 to 10 hours of work. The legislation is deficient in this regard.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Let me simplify my question. One person cannot do the work of three. Even if the legislation is changed, do you not think there will still be a backlog if a third of the members needed are not appointed?

[Julie Taub]

Yes, members must be appointed to make decisions, but I believe that decisions should be made mainly by public servants rather than by Board members because those latter appointments are highly political. Furthermore, I believe that we should pay much closer attention to the level of education and the experience of those who are appointed to the board.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Still, there must be enough of them to do the work.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Chow, you are next.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Collacott said that, in his experience, some of the visitors who would like to come to Canada didn't get approved even though they probably had really legitimate reasons to come to visit their loved ones in Canada, because there was the fear that they would claim refugee status in Canada. Unfortunately, as a result of that, whether it was a legitimate reason—a wedding, a funeral, or a birth of a grandchild—those people couldn't come to Canada because there was a fear they would stay and submit a refugee claim.

I just want to say that, really, that's not a good reason to turn down a visitor, because most visitors are here to celebrate some special event rather than wanting to claim refugee status. Some countries end up having visitor visas being turned down at the rate of 30% or 40% at some visa offices.

I also heard Mr. Collacott say that Mexico would be a safe country.

Rather than talking about Turkey, you were trying to say Mexico is a safe country, but what I have found is that a large number of refugee claims are being supported by the Immigration and Refugee Board because they are legitimate, in that they were fearing drug lords, they were fearing domestic violence, etc.

So I think it is very difficult for us, or for the minister, for that matter, or for anyone, to say which country would be a safe place. Because it seems to me, and according to people who are involved in human rights, you really can't say that a country is safe or not safe. It's the individual case....

My question is for Ms. Taub. What do you think should be the number of refugees we should admit into Canada each year? If you were to be immigration minister tomorrow, how many refugees should we accept within Canada?

[Julie Taub]

I don't think we can establish a limit. I don't think we can establish a limit to the number of genuine refugees. That's why I think it's important to streamline the system in such a way that we can avoid having the system overrun with bogus refugees.

You cannot limit the number of genuine refugees. I cannot give you a number. All I can say is that I believe there is a substantial number of bogus claimants. This is based on my personal experience as a member of the refugee board, as a lawyer, and as a legal aid duty counsel. I see it, unfortunately, on a weekly basis.

So I am saying you cannot limit. If a genuine refugee makes it to this country, I can't say, all right, you're number 7,000, so that's it, finished. No: if you're a genuine refugee, you're in.

What I want to do and what I'm hoping the government is attempting to do—and they're going in the right direction—is to set aside the bogus claimants who are trying to use this as an alternate route to get to Canada because they don't qualify on their own or because Canadian sponsors who don't want a 10-year obligation of paying for their parents tell them to make a refugee claim. This is what I would like to eliminate, but there are no absolute numbers.