Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 6th, 2010

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you. I'm done, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Actually, Ms. Wong is going take the seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Dr. Wong.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you very much to both of our witnesses today. Thank you for your time.

I have to address one of the remarks made by our honourable opposition here. We need to add something about the discouragement of bogus consultants in each bill. What do you think? We had similar challenges for temporary foreign workers. We had similar challenges for live-in caregivers who were cheated by consultants. We also had other cases.

Should we not, collectively, have one law to just address that program, which covers all the consultants, rather than what has been suggested just now, which is that if this is not directly handled in Bill C-11, then it shouldn't be there, that we shouldn't really approve Bill C-11...? I'll open this up to both of you.

Ms. Taub.

[Julie Taub]

I'm not sure if I quite understood. I gather what you're saying is that if we're not addressing the issue of consultants, we should not proceed with Bill C-11.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

That's what the member opposite said. I do not agree.

[Julie Taub]

I don't agree either, because while I agree that the scourge of consultants is terrible and contributes to the abuse of the system, Bill C-11 is attempting to address the issue of bogus claims in another way: by addressing safe countries of origin and having them go through another stream, a speedier stream, to be dealt with. I agree with that.

As for the consultants, this has been a festering issue for a long time. I think it's going to take a lot more consultation with different members of law societies of the various provinces, as well as victims of consultants, before the government can come to some significant decision on new legislation. I don't think one should mix up the other, because the government has to consult with all the law societies and with those who were victims. I'm sure they can find thousands of them.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you.

You also have given us some cases which demonstrate that our current asylum system is vulnerable to abuse. How do you think the measures in Bill C-11 will deter abuse?

[Julie Taub]

I think by having countries of safe origin in a separate stream, as they do in the European Union; in some of the countries, they deal with claimants from their list of safe countries of origin within 48 hours to three weeks. I have all the lists here of how they deal with it.

If we can effectively deal with a stream of claimants from safe countries of origin in a speedy way and have them removed from the country, then we will have more resources and more time to deal with genuine refugees so their cases can be heard in a more timely fashion as well.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Why do you think the proposed changes to our current refugee system are necessary? You talk about abuse and you talk about speedy removal as well. What other areas in the bill do you think will be a big improvement?

[Julie Taub]

I think the biggest improvement is designating safe countries of origin. That's the one I would recommend the most. The fact that the government is now going to implement RAD for refugee-producing countries will also allow for speedier appeals for claims that are denied.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to ask Mr. Collacott about the ability to exempt subpopulations from a safe country designation under the safe country of origin policy, and if that makes the policy sufficiently nimble to deal with countries where most people are safe, but where there may be discrimination against gays or there may be a particularly dangerous region.

[Martin Collacott]

I'm not exactly sure how that subnational policy is going to be spelled out. I think you'd still have to look at whether there is government persecution, because there's no question that in many countries there is discrimination against particular groups.

I raised the issue that if we just used discrimination as the criteria, then we could probably take 100 million people from India alone. I'd want to see more about how the subnational group would be spelled out. I think, though, that there's certainly a clear case for having safe countries of origin.

Going back to a question that Ms. Chow raised about Mexico, when we talk about safe third countries, we are not talking about a country simply being safe. We are talking about the nationals from that country being safe from persecution by the government.

Mexico is not a particularly safe country, but the UN convention is not built around simply taking people because there are high levels of crime or, in this case, because a drug war is going on. Otherwise, we'd have to take large portions of the populations of all countries. We're talking about cases of government persecution. And you have to draw the line somewhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead, Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you for a fulsome answer.

Let me clarify a little bit. I'm talking about where people are at risk. I don't want to get hung up on the word “discrimination”. I don't want to get hung up on the word “persecution”. I want to talk about where a subpopulation might be at risk. Do you like the concept or do you feel there's a nimbleness to this policy that will allow a minister to determine a safe country but identify a subpopulation that may be at risk?

[Martin Collacott]

It's conceivable, but to me, either it's a safe country in general terms, because of questions of persecution, or it's not. Now, if a particular group is being persecuted by the government, I think there would be a case for looking at that situation.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to direct that question, if I could, to Madam Taub.

[Julie Taub]

The list of safe countries of origin is not a fixed list. It would be a list that could be changed by the minister in reaction to world events, so it's not a fixed list. It's not written in stone. It can change from time to time depending on political events in the world.

For example, I have successfully represented some Mexican complainants, one a Mexican woman in regard to domestic abuse, whose boyfriend was the head of a drug gang. That is an obvious case. Also, there was a journalist who had written against the drug gangs. These are obvious cases where they have high profiles. It's not that they're being persecuted by the government; it is the fact that their government can't protect them.

But in general, the average citizen in Mexico is not being targeted by the drug cartel; they may be innocent bystanders in a shootout.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Bevilacqua has the final word.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank both of you for your presentations.

I found your presentations interesting in some ways. I'm concerned about it in other ways, because even when the minister appeared in front of the committee he had some concerns about his own legislation and how to improve it.

It seems to me that both of you are 100% behind this legislation and not really offering much when it comes to improving the legislation, which is the reason why we are gathered here at the committee. I am going to give you an opportunity to--

[Martin Collacott]

I'm sorry, but I can't hear you out here in Vancouver. Can you speak up a bit?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

I can't speak that loud. You're far away.