Evidence of meeting #14 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was system.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
In the past, for example in Costa Rica, we applied a visa requirement, because we knew that some people were passing through there.
Do we need to change the law and have designated countries? Instead, can't we have some visa procedures or a change such as in Australia, where they apply a visa requirement to everybody, and not put in jeopardy our own values and the reputation of our refugee system?
4:05 p.m.
Former Ambassador, Former Executive Director, Canadian Immigration Service, As an Individual
I don't think we are putting our values at stake here. France, Germany, England are countries that are democratic. They all have a system that we're now proposing—much more severe than anything we are proposing now. In France, if you appeal, you leave; then the appeal is held when you're not present. We're not suggesting that. And the same is true in England.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for being here.
Ms. Dench, in your presentation, you talked about an alternative mechanism that would expedite the procedure in cases where it is suspected that there is an organized mechanism to bring people here, often to their own detriment. I believe you are suggesting that, instead of having designated countries, the Canada Border Services Agency have the authority to identify a certain number of case it considers potentially suspicious and to ask the IRB to process these cases on a priority basis.
Is that what you are proposing, and could you explain why you feel it would be better than the scenario in Bill C-11, both for refugees and for the system itself?
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
Yes, thank you.
We agree that there is a problem and that there sometimes needs to be a way of dealing with certain cases when most or all of them are unfounded. At the same time, there must be an equitable system that treats everyone equally and gives everyone a fair hearing. That is why we feel that having designated countries is not acceptable.
We also feel that the concept of designated countries could pose a legal problem, because there will likely be charter challenges. There is some vulnerability in this regard. We are looking for a solution that not only recognizes that the IRB and the refugee determination system must treat all claimants equitably, but also recognizes the concerns about enforcement, because some groups of people may not appear to need protection at first glance. We therefore give them the chance to go through the process.
These people may not be refugees. But because the agency determined that they are of interest, this could help it be more consistent in its enforcement actions. In our experience, people are often quickly refused by the determination system, but then nothing is done to enforce the law.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
If I understand correctly, the mechanism you are proposing is not based on the country, but on the individual. With your proposal, any individual whose claim the agency questioned could ask the IRB for faster processing. I imagine that the idea would be to dismantle any dishonest networks before the situation deteriorated.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
That's right. I would add that the government could act more quickly by processing cases in this way. It could take a long time to designate a country using the proposed process. Our proposal would make it easy for the agency to determine overnight that it has a problem and must act quickly. Often it is fast action that counts. This is a fairer process, because everyone is treated the same way at the hearing. At the same time, it can be faster.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
There is another issue we have not had much time to address. Under Bill C-11, failed claimants would no longer be able to use a PRRA, a pre-removal risk assessment, to protect themselves against possible deportation if the situation had changed.
I know that the existing mechanism is cumbersome and not very efficient. What would you suggest that would be more efficient?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
We understand that the current PRRA system does not work. Review requests cannot be processed again; that is not feasible. At the same time, there has to be a possibility... For example, if a person's refugee claim is denied and the next day his family is murdered in his country of origin, the process has to allow for this new evidence to be heard. We propose that the IRB be able to reopen a case if the claimant can submit new evidence that will convince the IRB to reopen the case.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
If I understand correctly, you are saying that the PRRA could be eliminated and claimants could be given the right to ask the IRB to reopen the case. This would not be an appeal as of right. The claimant would have to at least show that reopening the case is worthwhile and that it is not futile or simply a way to buy time.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
Yes. We do not want the process to be too cumbersome. We envision a mechanism whereby the claimant can make a request. The IRB can consider the request quickly. If there is nothing to it—in most cases, there will likely be nothing to it—the IRB can say it does not want to hear any more about it. But if the IRB finds that something dramatic has happened, such as the massacre of a family, it can say that it has to look at the new evidence a bit more.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Ms. Cardinal, you and your colleague questioned the concept of designated countries.
Do you think that a solution like the one that was just proposed, where the agency could designate individuals whose cases would be processed on a priority basis, could be a good way to make the system work, to achieve that objective? The system would not be saturated with illegitimate claims, and no one would be lost in the process.
4:10 p.m.
Coordinator, Refugees, Canadian Francophone Section, Amnesty International
I think that Mr. Bossin is better able to answer that question.
4:10 p.m.
Chair, Anglophone Section, Amnesty International
Regarding that suggestion,
we think that there are better ways to deal with claims that are not well-founded. I think this is what Mr. Bissett is getting at. There are people who come to this country and make asylum claims who, it's pretty obvious at a very early stage, are really not in the right stream and do not fit into that category.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm sorry, sir. I'm going to have to cut you off. I have to keep the clock going here. I apologize.
Ms. Chow.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
To the Canadian Council for Refugees, how many members do you have, and are they aware of this bill? Are you notifying them, and if so, how?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
We have about 180 member organizations across Canada, and obviously there is enormous concern from our membership about the dramatic changes.
But our organizations are also very busy with the daily demands of serving refugees and immigrants. One of the constraints that your very tight processing times here at the committee create is that many groups are simply not in a position to put together a brief and make a submission to you in this short amount of time.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
But do they know of this bill, have you sent them a note, are they sending responses back to you? If you add up all your member organizations, have you done a quick poll of whether they support it or think there should be some changes, etc.?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
We have been clear in the positions that the CCR has been taking, insofar as we see that there are some positive elements in this bill but there are also some very serious concerns. All the feedback that we have received from our members is that they endorse the position of the CCR and share the concerns and are very anxious about the direction the bill is taking Canada in.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
For Amnesty International, how many members do you have, and what are some of their responses?
4:15 p.m.
Chair, Anglophone Section, Amnesty International
There are 75,000 members in Canada—that's including both branches of Amnesty. I think we would say something similar to what the CCR has said, which is that there are some good aspects of this bill.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
And do they know—have you communicated with them like the CCR—and are you getting response back that they have trouble with this bill and that there are amendments they want to make?
4:15 p.m.
Chair, Anglophone Section, Amnesty International
I think that as time goes on.... When people first heard that this bill had come down, I think people's expectations were that it was going to be worse than it is.
The more time that we have spent examining this bill, and looking at this bill, and considering the implications of this bill, the more concerned our members are.
4:15 p.m.
Coordinator, Refugees, Canadian Francophone Section, Amnesty International
Let me just add that in Montreal, Amnesty is involved with a number of NGOs, and next week there will be a public meeting that I believe the CCR will be attending. People are very concerned.
We have been mobilizing people not only in Amnesty but in the other NGOs that are dealing with refugee issues, at least since Bill C-281, or is it Bill C-291—the one on the RAD—for about two years. People are very aware, and yes, they think the process as it exists is much too long, but they're very concerned about some of the changes.