That's okay.
So I speak from hands-on experience. I am not talking for political motives.
I will give you a most recent example. This happens on a regular basis. I got a call last week from a gentleman, an Armenian in the United States, who's there on an ESL visa, either to study or to teach. I wasn't quite sure. He said that he wanted to make a refugee claim and he was there legally with his family in the United States. I said, “Well, make a claim in the United States”. According to the international convention of 1951, a genuine refugee will make a claim in the first safe country he arrives in.
He told me that he knew he had a good claim because he had consulted with an immigration lawyer in the United States and was told that he had a good claim. I said, “Well, then, make your claim”. He said, “But no, here in the United States, I have to pay for a lawyer, I have to pay to live somewhere, and I have to support my family”. He said, “I want to come to Canada because I know I can get a free lawyer and free housing, and if I want to get a work permit, I can get one”. I said, “Well, I'm sorry, but I can't help you”.
This was not an exceptional call that I got. This is a run-of-the-mill call.
I should also advise you that I am duty counsel for the legal aid panel of refugees and immigrants. Every other week on Monday afternoons I go to OCISO, the Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization, on Wellington. I have hands-on experience with what's going on in the community. Through my consultations with people who come to OCISO, I see that many are attempting to use the refugee determination process as a back door to immigrating to Canada.
People come to me and say they want to sponsor their parents who are here as visitors. I tell them to start the sponsorship. They're very open because they know there's client-solicitor privilege and I'm not identifying anybody. They'll say, “Well, we were told” by one of the settler workers, “that my parents should just make refugee claims and then we don't have to sponsor them and they can stay here”. Then they won't have this 10-year obligation; they're very open about it. I tell them, “Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not here to give you that kind of advice, and I really can't help you”.
This is not unusual. We do have to tighten up the system. We have to make sure that the refugee determination process is used for legitimate refugees and is not hijacked by those who want to immigrate another way and those who want to avoid financial obligations for their parents or grandparents. That is not what it's for. And we have to respect that genuine refugees are made to wait far too long to get their status determined because of a significant portion of applicants--claimants--who are not genuine.
As for the safe country of origin, I'm an advocate for this, because I cannot understand why we would even look at or consider a case from any of the European Union countries. Any citizen of any one of those 27 countries has the right to work and live in one of the other 26 countries--not to make a refugee claim, but to work and live. So I cannot quite understand why they would come here, unless I were to be facetious and say that in the other 26 countries they have the right to live and work, whereas in Canada they have the right to live, make a claim, and not work. Maybe I am being facetious, but we have to take this into consideration.
I can't understand why we would accept claims from the United States, Australia, or New Zealand. They are democratic countries. We are not the only democracy in the world; we are not necessarily the best. I don't think anybody could argue about New Zealand, Switzerland, or most of the EU countries. Those are safe countries of origin and have to be respected.
We cannot let people from those nationalities who come from those countries abuse our system here. We have to focus on genuine refugees. We have to focus on having non-genuine refugees or failed claimants removed from our country, or those who have come in and lied and may happen to be criminals, terrorists, or persecutors--like from Rwanda.
I think of the case of Mugesera. It's one of the most infamous cases we have. In 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada deemed that Leon Mugesera, exiled ethnic Hutu hard-liner, was a war criminal, and ordered him deported for helping incite the genocide we all know about that occurred in Rwanda. He was a failed refugee claimant from 1995. It's now 2010 and he is still here, appeal after appeal. That is not what the refugee process is for.
Then we have another one from 1987: Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad. He's a Palestinian terrorist who received a 17-year sentence from a Greek court for an attack on an El Al airline in Athens in which a passenger was killed. He entered as a landed immigrant by using a false identity. He has managed to avoid deportation to this day even though he was ordered deported. I believe his latest appeal is on health reasons: that he cannot get the same level of health care back in the West Bank that he can here.
I have a whole list, but I won't go through it. I'll be happy to include it in my speaking notes.
So yes, the government is going in the right direction. I believe it's only a first step. More reform is needed to tighten up the refugee process and make it more efficient and effective for genuine refugees--not for bogus claimants.