Evidence of meeting #17 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 claimants.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Program Coordinator, Action Réfugiés Montréal
I think that according to documents that are currently on Citizenship and Immigration Canada's website, including a grid, it replaces it. That is at least what I understand.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
All right. I believe it was clear in all of your presentations that the concept of designated countries should be withdrawn from the legislation. The CCR proposed something that was also suggested by Ms. Williams, I believe, which is to allow the Canada Border Services Agency to identify cases on an individual rather than a national basis, for example those who are more questionable. We propose that these cases be dealt with through an expedited process.
Would the other two witnesses also be favourable to that kind of expedited measure?
4 p.m.
Committee Coordinator to Aid Refugees, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
Yes, that would be the best way to proceed with cases that the agency considers to be unfounded. In my opinion, it is important that the roles remain clear. It is not the IRB's role to identify the cases in advance: it is the agency's. In fact, we are talking about a contradictory role, such as when the agency intervenes regarding exclusions. It is up to them to put forward arguments against the claimants when they believe it is the right thing to do. That is not the role of the IRB or of CIC. At least in that way it is transparent. It is not up to the IRB to decide which cases should be priority cases because of the fact that they are considered to be unfounded, in one way or another.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Ms. Porter, what do you think of this proposal? Did you hear it?
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
4:05 p.m.
Settlement Social Worker, Association for New Canadians
Yes. One of the main concerns of the clients I work with, who are government-assisted and with H and C, is that those applications take a very long time. So if the processing could be quicker, that would be ideal.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
The New Democrats, and I believe the Bloc, have said from the outset that we do not support the safe countries designation. We believe all refugees should be treated equally. No matter which country they come from, they must be examined as individuals.
At this point, the Liberal Party has not said they would or would not support the safe countries designation. Some MPs have said they would; others have said they wouldn't. The critic seems to have said he has no trouble with it, but I don't want to speak on their behalf. That's why I want to focus on this. There had been discussion on the eight days, etc., but I think the safe countries one is really...given that about 10% of the refugee claimants come from so-called “safe countries”, given the experience in other countries that we've seen...
So perhaps starting with Ms. Côté, how are you trying to explain to some of the members of Parliament, whether they're Liberals or Conservatives, why this safe countries designation is a serious problem? I would like to invite each of the witnesses to comment on this. And perhaps you could also comment on how you are notifying the people you serve, whether it's your organization or your members, that this element is not acceptable as part of this package.
4:05 p.m.
Program Coordinator, Action Réfugiés Montréal
I'll let my colleague, Ms. Williams, answer this question.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Action Réfugiés Montréal
For those who have worked in immigration for a very long time—and it's a very long time—we once had a credible basis, a minimum de fondement. The idea at the time seemed to be almost identical to what we're doing, what is being proposed in the law right now.
Designating safe countries is an effort or an attempt to minimize, to reduce, the number of claims. That seems to be one of the driving forces for this new legislation. But it really is at odds with individual status determination. The whole convention relating to the status of refugees is that an individual needs to prove why they have been persecuted or had a threat to their life, and we're taking that away when we designate entire countries. As we mentioned before—you could even possibly suggest the case that Richard presented earlier—gender cases, cases of sexual orientation... You may be from a country that has minimum human rights standards. But there are always people who will be targeted.
Look at what Malawi is doing in cases of sexual orientation, Zimbabwe, others, etc., in Africa. It will be a nightmare, I think, to designate those countries. And it doesn't need to be. It really is a contradiction in the law. But at the same time, we understand—I think most people are quite realistic—that there are some concerns about claims that are weaker, as we describe them, that do not seem to have the same level.... Why not prioritize those claims? The process of accelerating, of giving a chance for them to be heard, for a decision to be rendered and to go to appeal--we hope--if that is the intention of individuals, then why not do that?
What do we do with our own client group? We're a responsible organization. We meet people in detention. We have no agents working overseas helping people or identifying what to say or when to say it. I think it's going to be very hard for people to understand that there are two different streams here--one, if you come from one country or several countries, or, two, from others--and to know how to prepare. Again, it always comes back to documentation. And some of them—
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
That wasn't really my question. The question was, how are you letting your elected representatives know that this is not acceptable?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Action Réfugiés Montréal
Well, we hope today's intervention will have some effect on that. This is a humanitarian program, and it's a complex humanitarian program. Everybody agrees. Immigration is not easy at all.
We're here today. As Action Réfugiés Montréal, we have also written our MPs. The members of our board have all signed this document, suggesting that this is unacceptable and that in fact it will not meet the goals of speed or of fairness. It will not reduce the numbers. The minimum credible basis, le minimum de fondement, in 1989 was a complete and utter failure. It created another whole level of bureaucracy that has to be paid and it didn't serve the purpose. Why repeat that error?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
I feel the same way as Ms. Williams. Watching what has happened in the European countries who have made several attempts... Several countries tried to use the concept of designated countries in order to reduce access or to be able to send people back more quickly, and in every case, it was a disaster. It did not work.
Here is a final example: currently, in Germany, in a case before the Constitutional Court, the fact that Greece is being designated as a safe country is being challenged. The chances are good that the Constitutional Court will accept the fact that Greece is not in fact a safe country for a removal.
Without a decision, it is unmanageable, both regarding the criteria under which a country would be designated, as well as for the diplomatic maze that it could result in.
4:10 p.m.
Committee Coordinator to Aid Refugees, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
If there is a desire to streamline or to accelerate things, we think that access to an appeal is perhaps one of the worst ways. The refugee appeal division would be designed to correct errors, so it seems to make no sense to cut out a step that is there to correct errors and to establish clear jurisprudence.
Using Mexico as an example, Peter Showler, former chair of the IRB, has pointed out that many people are in danger in Mexico. Perhaps some are not. It's those types of decisions, which are often based on credibility, that need the benefit of the study by the appeal board, and the appeal could set down clear jurisprudence that would then make it much easier for the first level to decide cases.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
May 25th, 2010 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your time and your presentations.
I have a few questions, but my questions are very simple. I want to ask you if you think the grant system is vulnerable to abuse.
4:10 p.m.
Committee Coordinator to Aid Refugees, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
Yes, it is definitely vulnerable to abuse. We agree totally. We're not starting from the Garden of Eden here. The system does have problems, and they need to be addressed.
One of them, as the government has pointed out, is the extremely long wait for refugee claims. The longer a person waits, the more injustice there is to genuine refugees, but the more of a pull factor there is for fraudulent refugee claimants. That absolutely has to be addressed.
There are certain things about the nomination procedures for members of the board. There have been great improvements over the years, but it's still not a completely depoliticized system. We believe that it should be based entirely on merit and that the nominations should be by the Immigration and Refugee Board itself, based entirely on merit. That's maybe getting off the abuse question.
There are improvements that need to be made, but it is inherently a very strong system and a model for countries around the world. We believe it's a very sound concept to have the first-level decision made by a professional independent tribunal; if you get the best possible decision the first time out, then you have the least worries about correcting errors and the least chance of having people abuse the system.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Would anyone else like to answer as well? That's fine, then.
How are these reforms good for claimants?
4:10 p.m.
Committee Coordinator to Aid Refugees, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
Do you mean the present reforms?
4:10 p.m.
Committee Coordinator to Aid Refugees, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
Well, there are some positive things. Since 2001, when IRPA was passed, we and many others have been saying that there should be a refugee appeal division. We congratulate the government for finally introducing that.
In terms of the delays, we think eight days and 60 days are really fantasy, unfortunately, based on working with the system for 20 years or more. These unrealistic delays go by the wayside very quickly, but the idea of having a hearing and a decision, whether in two months, four months, or six months, would be an enormous improvement for genuine refugees.
