Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Alein Ortégon]

I am in complete agreement with my colleague.

There is a lack of information. It sometimes happens that we are not aware of the true situation in the country of an asylum seeker. Furthermore, even if the country is being governed according to democratic principles, the reality on the ground does not always correspond to that which is written into law. This is why it is important to understand where the individual comes from.

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

Ghana offers an example, where being gay or lesbian is illegal. Yet it's on England's list of being a safe country.

I want to come back to Mr. Kurland.

In October last year a report came out. It's actually an audit done by the Public Service Commission. They found that half of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada appointments were not made based on merit or guiding principles of fairness, transparency, access, and representativeness; that 61%, they discovered, were made based on partisan considerations, and that “preferential treatment” was given—these are not my words, but are from the audit—which is a serious problem.

If this bill passes, we are looking at hiring 100-plus officers. These are officers who will be hired, I assume, by the Public Service Commission through the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I assume that would be the case; I'm not 100% sure. If it is the case, how do we make sure that hiring these people is done in a way that is fair, transparent, open, completely based on merit, and not on who you may know?

[Richard Kurland]

I think I'm already on record back in 1993 for answering this kind of question the following way.

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

Say it again.

[Richard Kurland]

I think competence is at the core. As long as a decision-maker is competent, I don't think it should make a difference whether the person is a member of one political party or the other. This brings up the larger situation of how our Canadian political machine is energized; it is periodically, in a small number of cases, through the appointment of friends of the government. As long as those friends are competent and diligent in their work, their political affiliation should not make a difference. Mind you, a minority government context to me signals four potential pools of new applicants for the positions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you to all our presenters for being here today.

I want to ask Mr. Kurland a couple of questions. Mr. Kurland, how many years have you been practising in this field?

[Richard Kurland]

Goodness, I took my oath, I believe, in October 1988, so it's a while.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Okay, thank you.

How many people have presented themselves before you as refugees, or people trying to get into Canada who might be refugees, whom you have assisted?

[Richard Kurland]

My goodness. The bulk of my refugee work was done from 1988 through 1994. At that point, I couldn't take the stories of pain and suffering any more. Even today, I don't want to recall those oaths. It's too high a personal price, frankly. I dwindled it down. I decided to help extremely large numbers by taking problems to media and correcting what I perceived as problems with our Canadian refugee determination system, to aid people that way rather than as individuals. There was more bang for the buck, so to speak, and I could continue the good work at a different level.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I'll tell you why I ask. I was interested in your comments on Hungary and the savings available. Some of the presenters who have been here and people who have heard those stories—we've all heard them in our offices as well, from people who come to us, actually, as a last resort.... They seem to feel that Canada is the only country that accepts refugees or in fact is the only option, rather than, if you're in Hungary, going to another European country, etc.

We should get back to really what our initial problem is. It's a problem that the editorial board of every major newspaper in Canada has recognized and that even the leader of the official opposition has recognized. Last year, over 20,000 claims were rejected, even in what is probably the most generous refugee determination system in the world.

Here is a broad question. We need to hear your view on it. Do you think false claimants take advantage of our asylum system, and to what extent?

[Richard Kurland]

A distinction has to be drawn between a bogus claimant—someone who intends to abuse Canadian generosity—and someone who just misses the mark. You can have good-faith claimants who simply fail the test of persecution because of their personal circumstances. However, when there is a rather large influx of claims from certain countries in which the ground events tend not to establish the fundamentals of individualized persecution, the alarm bells ring, and when I see a couple of hundred claims a month flowing in from a member country of the EEC, I wonder.

In my case, I went downstairs. Our office is on the ninth floor in a certain building in Vancouver. On the eighth floor is the British Consulate. I asked them what their statistics of refusal were for people from Hungary or the Czech Republic who come to England and who fill out a form that enables them to work freely in the United Kingdom. What, I asked, is your refusal rate? She said they have to fill out those forms to pay taxes, and yes, they can remain in the U.K. That's the group I'm focusing on. Overall, no matter what system we have—medicare, refugee—you are going to have a certain level of abuse, but when do you throw out the entire barrel of apples? We're not at that point generally, but I think, looking at the Hungarian situation, that we have a problem.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I want to clarify. I think you said we could save over $200 million, maybe as much as $250 million over five years, just out of one country, Hungary, without endangering the claimants. Is that correct?

[Richard Kurland]

Yes, as long as those claimants can get off the plane in Paris, Heathrow, and Frankfurt in safety, I don't see what the problem is.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Will the changes that we have proposed in this bill improve Canada's asylum system, and how?

[Richard Kurland]

For the first time in Lord knows how long, I actually had a tingle of optimism trickle down my spine. I apologize if some members disagree; I don't mean about the entire bill. There is room for negotiation and change, but fundamentally the policy-makers within CIC clearly fixed most of the concerns. I don't think this is partisan from the standpoint of the policy-makers who put this together. One should carefully tender the kind words of Mr. Matas and Mr. Waldman in coming to answer that particular question, but overall, I was surprised if not shocked to see Canada be placed in the forefront of the design of the new refugee determination system. We've really done a spectacular job, frankly.

I can bring it down to details, but we don't have as much time as I'd like.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

That was helpful; thank you.

Given the new refugee appeal division and continued access to the Federal Court, is it reasonable to limit access to additional avenues of recourse to allow a brief window to remove a failed claimant?

[Richard Kurland]

Yes, I think everyone is on the same page. I've spoken with failed claimants, and their anguish is in the delay—the delay in getting a decision, the delay in knowing whether they're in or they're out. They have to plan their lives.

The timeline is critical in this process, and you must deny access to certain post-refusal systems in order to justify, even within the refused refugee's family, a Canadian departure. If you continue to place candy on the road of delay, people will be inclined to try every avenue. If the candy is not there, they want to do the right thing as well, and they can come back to Canada in the fullness of time. But their refugee claim has failed. They need to get on with their lives outside of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

That's it, Mr. Young. I'm sorry.

That's the conclusion of the first round. We're now into five-minute rounds.

Mr. Karygiannis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to ask a couple of questions of the folks who are here with us, if I may.

Thank you again for coming.

I want to go back to the original eight days that are in place. Do you believe that eight days is enough for somebody who comes over, fleeing from whatever situation? Do they have enough time to put their facts together? Should they be given something like 30 days for the original application? If they don't have their paperwork, should they be given additional time to get that paperwork? Do you think that 60 days is enough for a second hearing, or should they be given four months? What is your feeling on this?

[Alein Ortégon]

I could not say if a four-month period is sufficient, but I am absolutely convinced that eight days is not. As we said a little earlier, it takes time to sort out one's thoughts and to find a sensitive lawyer with whom it is possible to develop a trust relationship. Certainly, one cannot decide about one's life in a mere eight days.

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

Could you give me a time?

[Alein Ortégon]

I think a minimum of six months should be provided. That is really the minimum. Furthermore, it is very important that these individuals receive psychological care at the same time. This could help them open up more quickly, allowing them to also improve how they relate their story.

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

So the person should have six months before they're able to make their first application?

[Alein Ortégon]

I would say that that would be the minimum.