Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 13th, 2010

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

Annie?

[Annie Kouamy]

In fact, the person arriving here needs time to gather her thoughts, to gain a better understanding of the processes she will be faced with and to go about seeking a lawyer with whom she will have certain affinities and who will take the time to understand the dynamics of her native country. Psychological support can, it too, take time. Clearly, eight days is not enough. However, a timeframe that would extend...

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

Give me a time.

[Annie Kouamy]

I am of the same opinion as my colleague in this regard.

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

Chair, I'd like to share the rest of my time with my colleague, Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Welcome to the immigration committee, Mr. Dhaliwal.

You may proceed.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson.

My question is to Mr. Kurland. I look at my office. As Mr. Young said, as the last resort people who have had their applications denied come to us. We don't like to see that. We would like to see a fair and efficient and fast system. We'd all like to see some changes.

Could you summarize what the changes are that you personally feel we should bring into the legislation so that we don't have to deal with it and it is a fair, open, transparent, and efficient process for refugees to be accepted in?

[Richard Kurland]

The eight days is a good tool. With due respect, I don't buy into the vulnerable, ignorant, scared claimant who needs to be hand-held. I agree, what we need to do is to provide training on the intake side. We need eight and sixty. If, for operational reasons, the financial consideration to make eight and sixty happen is not there, we have to then push back in time the eight and sixty.

The other design is to make the information the tribunal will be using as transparent as possible. One of the defects in the early days of Canada's refugee determination system was the opaqueness. Behind the scenes, the refugee judges—board members—were using information not available to counsel. Parliamentary inquiry led by Professor Hathaway back in 1993 exposed this. That is a guard.

At the back end, we need consistent application of transparent guidelines for what will happen to the individual post-refusal. We also are missing something very important. Deny access to the provincial immigration intake system. What's missing is wording to the effect that you are not eligible to be a provincial nominee when you are a refused refugee. It has to be done in the statute; otherwise, you're still baiting the path with state candy, as I call it.

Those are the fundamentals, and overall you have to resource CBSA properly to provide a fast removal system at the back end of the process. All else fails if you continue to reward overstays when the failed refugee is lingering.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you very much.

I am going to follow up with you, Mr. Kurland.

During your presentation, you talked about the concept of the European Union. Indeed, we know that people can move about from one region to another. You rightly said that the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees was drafted at a time when this union did not even exist and that the territorial principle contained in the Convention is that of the borders of a country. You would like to see that changed. I am all for it, but Canada is a signatory to that Convention. If I understand your proposals correctly, Canada should go ahead even before any amendments are made to the Convention. Should we not, in the end, respect the Convention?

[Richard Kurland]

Yes, absolutely, because, in concrete terms, it is possible for a person to enjoy freedom of mobility and of travel between countries such as France, Germany, etc. It is not necessary to amend the Convention. All that has to be done is to amend our legislation and eligibility for our rescission system.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

But in the Convention and in the international criteria, it is set out that one of the conditions to be recognized as a refugee is to not be able to find refuge elsewhere in an economic or territorial zone. Included in what you are proposing there is an amendment to the Convention.

[Richard Kurland]

Ideally, yes. You have your thumb directly on point. It's exactly the situation. We have to bring that convention forward in time half a century, or whatever the magic number is, to reflect today's reality. Back then, there were customs and borders between each of these countries, and that's not the case today.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I hear what you say, but I want to be sure I understand. What you are telling us is that, in the meantime, we should bypass the Convention and go ahead in spite of it.

[Richard Kurland]

No. I would, with respect, part company there. We have two principles in that convention: safe third country and internal flight alternative. We're just recognizing that other parts of safe Europe present an internal flight alternative. They're holding EEC passports, so it's the EEC.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Very well.

I would now like to come back to our representatives from the Centre des femmes de Verdun. In Bill C-11, there is a provision prohibiting a person who originally applied for refugee status from withdrawing, at some point, this application and to instead apply under humanitarian and compassionate considerations. As soon as you have filed a claim for refugee status, it is final, and it is no longer possible to make an application under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. We are in a context in which the government is claiming that there are organized groups that use people and encourage them to come to Canada to file bogus refugee claims. Do you not however find it somewhat counterproductive to tell someone who has applied for refugee protection that it is not the proper route and that he or she should rather apply for admission for humanitarian and compassionate grounds? Is it not rather counterproductive to prevent the individual from doing so and to tell him or her that the only path allowable is to go all the way with the refugee claim, even if it is not the right path?

[Annie Kouamy]

No. I would say that we, at the Centre des femmes de Verdun, had, for example, the case of a woman who filed a claim for refugee status that did not succeed. Her only route was to apply for a temporary resident permit for humanitarian considerations. I do not believe that this option is in place in Canada. The need is there because it is important. It would fill the gaps that are not taken into account under the other process and would allow for their consideration in the context of an application for residency on humanitarian grounds. We therefore believe that there is a need to maintain the application for humanitarian and compassionate considerations process. We must not prevent people who have applied for refugee status and whose claims have been refused, or who have resorted to another process, from using this option to stay in Canada.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Monsieur Kurland....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. I'm sorry, sir, but you're way over.

We'll go to Ms. Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

My question is for the ladies.

Ladies, do you think the current system is acceptable? Do you think it's fair that genuine claimants have to wait almost two years to get a decision and the protection they need?

[Annie Kouamy]

A two-year process is a lengthy one. For most of the people who come to Canada, outside of the refugee status claim process, there are other things that are important. For example, they must find a job or have access to employment assistance agencies or organizations. It is very difficult for a person to just stay in limbo and to not have access to such services, because he or she does not have permanent residency or Canadian citizenship. The individual cannot make ends meet financially, and it is a very difficult situation to find oneself in.

Some immigrants who come to Canada are skilled workers. They could quickly integrate the job market. It is a loss for Canada to leave these people on the sidelines for two years, to then ask them outright to retrain so as to be able to be full-fledged partners within the system. Two years is a rather long time to leave someone on the sidelines.

That is just one example. It is difficult for a person who is barely surviving financially to fit into Canadian society.

[Alein Ortégon]

Furthermore, psychologically speaking, having to wait two years to know if one must go back home or find some other solution is too much. If the person arrives here already suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, two years is a little bit much.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'll pass the rest of my time to Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you.

You just said we shouldn't be making claimants wait more than two years because of the difficulties that presents to them, yet you want to move a system that now works under 28 days from initial contact to six months. So you want to make the system longer and make it worse for applicants.

I'm having a very difficult time understanding how on the one hand you think we should have our system move much quicker, but on the other hand you want to add five months to the decision-making process.

[Alein Ortégon]

If the system were it too improved, during this six-month timeframe, the lawyers and decision-makers would become better informed. During the course of these six months, everyone would become more and more comfortable and would thus be able to quickly come to a decision.