Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 13th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 16, Thursday, May 13, 2010. The orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 29, 2010: Bill C-11, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act.

For the first hour today we have, from the Centre des femmes de Verdun, Annie Kouamy, community advocate, and Alein Ortégon, community advocate. All the way from Vancouver we have Richard Kurland, who is an attorney.

Good afternoon.

Centre des femmes de Verdun, you have up to ten minutes between the two of you. You may begin.

Welcome to the committee.

[Annie Kouamy, Community Advocate, Centre des femmes de Verdun]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The bill concerns us for several reasons. First, the establishment of a list of safe third countries creates two categories of refugees. Such a list discriminates against women, because it does not take into account their status as women. Furthermore, this would impede access to a fair and independent hearing and would not take into account the enforcement of laws in these host third countries considered to be safe where attitudes do not change as quickly as legislation.

The short timeframe before the holding of a hearing would not allow women enough time to gather the evidence they need to have a fair hearing, especially since some of them speak neither French nor English. Furthermore, some women arrive here in an absolutely disastrous psychological state and require psychological follow-up in order to undertake a de-victimization process. This short timeframe would therefore exert additional pressure on them.

In our view, the bill would promote a dehuminization of the refugee protection process and would render Canada an accomplice of sorts of countries where unfair treatment is inflicted upon women, and lesbians in particular. These countries have adopted certain laws in order to please, to some extent, the international community.

I will now give the floor to my colleague, who will talk to you about the changes that the women's centre would like to see made.

[Alein Ortégon, Community Advocate, Centre des femmes de Verdun]

The Centre des femmes de Verdun is asking that the refugee protection process recognize the rights of women persecuted because they are women, given the problems that are specific to their social group.

We ask for the removal of the exclusion from appeal based on nationality, so as to avoid endangering certain women such as lesbians, those who have been victims of abuse by their spouse or their family or excluded from their religion. Access for asylum-seekers to applications for humanitarian and compassionate considerations must be maintained, because removal of this access could lead to an increase in the number of high risk cases without recourse. We would recommend the establishment of psychological support resources for women and an extension of the lead time before a hearing for women applying for refugee protection.

Thank you.

[Annie Kouamy]

Recently, the Canadian Council for Refugees, or CCR, made a proposal. It suggested that instead of selecting people based on their country of origin, we consider all claimants. In suspicious cases, the immigration officer in charge of the file could carry out an investigation.

We believe that this avenue should be explored by the committee and included in the bill, instead of people being rejected based on their nationality.

That brings us to the end of our presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Richard Kurland, from Vancouver, you have up to ten minutes, sir. Welcome to the committee.

[Richard Kurland, Attorney, As an Individual]

It's my pleasure. Ten minutes is a luxury. I'll try to cut that in half for the committee's benefit.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You can talk for up to ten minutes, sir.

[Richard Kurland]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Essentially, I have two issues today. First, I don't think this bill goes far enough. Allow me to explain. At its heart, our refugee system is designed to extend protection. State protection, if it's adequate, should include an examination of the question of whether the protection is readily available and truly accessible when the country of alleged persecution is a member of a group of states that provides quick and easy mobility to the person concerned.

Here is what I mean. A person within the European Community can travel freely to another member country of the European Community. The practice is that they land at an airport, like Heathrow, and complete a form allowing them to enter the country and work legally. The problem in our law is that for refugee protection, the test is based on citizenship. We need to move beyond that.

In World War II and afterwards, the essence of protection--convention refugee protection--at the time did not include, because it did not exist, the right to quick and easy mobility enjoyed today in parts of Europe.

The same principles that apply in international law for refugee protection, including safe third country and including internal flight alternative, should equally apply to members of European states. Citizens of Hungary or the Czech Republic need not come to Canada to claim fear of persecution when all they need to do is travel a few hundred kilometres down the road to a member county, such as the U.K., France, or Germany.

What we need to do in our laws is to recognize this fact and consider eligibility to the Canadian refugee determination system when there is such easy access to sanctuary and a zone free of persecution. That's the first issue.

Let me talk numbers and money. If implemented, this jigging of the design would stave off, at a minimum, 100 claims a month. When you start to do the math, that's $2.5 million a month based on $25,000 per case, or $25 million, give or take, in a year. So over the five-year period, that's close to $125 million.

If you look at the intake of claims from Hungary in 2010, you're looking at close to double that number. So you're talking close to $200 million a year to $250 million over that time period. These are savings that can be generated. There's no reason the Canadian taxpayer has to foot the bill when claimants from Hungary can travel to Germany, France, and the U.K., where they're allowed to legally and safely work.

This brings me to my second issue. You have heard testimony, I'm sure, about the operational concerns of delivering refugee kits or packages, and being ready to go to a hearing in 60 days. I've been a member of the Quebec Bar long enough that I was participating back in 1989 in the old credible-basis system. The success of a fast-track process lies in appropriate compensation for the invaluable cog, the lawyer.

I confess that I'm a former national chair of the immigration and citizenship section of the Canadian Bar Association, and I have a sword that cuts both ways. The problem I see in the existing framework, in which legal aid is provincially delivered and the money flows from the feds, is that there's, to put it not too mildly, a skimming off, at the provincial end, of federal funds once they enter the provincial legal aid system.

At the end of the day, you'll get a bigger bang for your buck by directly financing lawyers for the refugee determination system, along the same lines as occurred in 1989, than would be the case if the same amount of money were to be channelled in provincially through provincial legal aid systems.

If there's a true intent to deliver on a promise of 60 or 90 days from an oral hearing, omitting compensation to the refugee bar should be carefully considered. The $125 million savings generated by the design adjustment to make ineligible claims, for example, from Hungary is more than enough to offset the direct federal financing to Canada's refugee bar. Administration would be a combination of IRB operational administrators together with the regional interests of the refugee bar in determining a list of available and competent lawyers.

Those essentially were my two issues that I thought I could subsume in the time provided.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir, for your presentation.

Mr. Karygiannis has up to seven minutes to ask questions of our witnesses.

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

Thank you to Mr. Kurland in Vancouver and to the folks who are here.

Mr. Kurland, sir, you're a member of the bar, and I'd like to ask you a couple of logistics questions. Do you think that eight days is enough for the first claim?

[Richard Kurland]

Quite frankly, I think eight days is sufficient for the tombstone data. I think it's sufficient for the person to enter Canada and catch up from jet lag. Is it sufficient to prepare a full legal case? Unless there is a lawyer at the front end during that eight-day period, the person may well be caught by contradictions between the statements provided on day eight and the hearing date, day 60.

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

Mr. Kurland, do you think that someone who comes to Canada to seek refuge has ample time within those eight days to find a member of the bar and a lawyer?

[Richard Kurland]

Speaking from my own experience, absolutely yes. It turns on the operational availability of the lawyers.

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

So then that person coming into Canada should have either a lawyer in mind, or should have to quickly ask members of his community or stakeholders of that community to suggest a lawyer.

[Richard Kurland]

Those are two possibilities, but they are inadequate. The real deal is an instruction sheet provided by CBSA or CIC on entry to Canada included with the kit identifying the duty counsel number for legal representation. That's how it worked in 1989. There's no reason why it can't apply equally in 2010.

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

I'm an individual fleeing from a particular situation. I've got police and army chasing me down the street. I come to this country. I'm shell-shocked, female or male, females especially more shell-shocked than the males, and I want to find my footing. Do you think I'd be able to find my footing, pull myself together, and then present myself in eight days?

[Richard Kurland]

I dealt with Somali refugee claimants from 1988 and 1989 in their first week in Canada. I heard horrific stories. People who saved their lives by reaching our soil have the wherewithal to do it. There will be instances of traumatized individuals when that's going to present a challenge. There's nothing preventing the person from updating or correcting the information prior to the hearing after 60 days, but I share your concern.

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

But eight days. You agree with me that sometimes, in some cases, it might not be enough.

[Richard Kurland]

Absolutely.

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

It is said that people will make representation to the immigration officer, and this will not be in writing, this will be taped. Now, my concern here is that if you're giving something taped, sometimes you might say the wrong thing. It's not professionally transcribed, so a lawyer might have to read hundreds and hundreds of pages of transcript for the 60 days. Shouldn't a PIF do? For my colleagues here, a PIF is a personal information form. Shouldn't that be sufficient versus a taped interview?

[Richard Kurland]

I like the idea of a taped interview. I don't think it will run hundreds of pages because I'm not sure how long the interview is. I like the idea of the tape or the little doohickey that fits into a computer being passed directly to the person concerned. It comes back to preparation. The lawyer or the authorized third party representative has to listen to the tape in its totality to prepare for those eight days.

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

Mr. Kurland, you said preparation. I guess we come back to the same point, that you and I have to agree that eight days is not enough. Is that correct?

[Richard Kurland]

Well, we can agree to disagree, with the greatest of respect that I can muster, and I do. It is enough if there is financial compensation to make the system go. Currently, there's no way, based on existing legal aid compensation in this country to the refugee bar, that eight days and sixty days is going to fly.

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

How many hours do lawyers get from legal aid per case? We hear that here it's something like 16 hours. Is that the same in Vancouver?

[Richard Kurland]

I'm a proud member of the Quebec Bar, and I won't address the Vancouver elements. But I am aware that legal aid in British Columbia is largely inadequate to service the refugee claims. Mind you, only 10% or less of Canada's refugee claims occur out in British Columbia.