Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 11th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 17, on Tuesday, May 25, 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.

We have three witnesses today, three guests. One of them is coming via teleconference from St. John's, and we're having problems hooking that up, but there's no reason we can't start with the other witnesses and hope that it will happen. So I will introduce our witnesses.

I want to welcome you to the immigration committee to study this bill and hear your observations and comments. We have the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, with Stephan Reichhold, who is the director, and Richard Goldman, who is the committee coordinator to aid refugees. As well, we have Action Réfugiés Montréal, Glynis Williams, who is the director, and Maude Côté, who is the program coordinator.

Each group has up to seven minutes to make a presentation. Thank you for coming.

We'll start with you, Mr. Reichhold.

[Stephan Reichhold, Director, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes]

Good afternoon. My name is Stephan Reichhold, and I am the director of the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, which represents 140 Quebec organizations working with refugees, immigrants and also people without status. We have worked very closely with the Canadian Council for Refugees; we worked with them on their brief. Our organization supports all of the principles in the Canadian Council for Refugees' brief. Several aspects of the bill are of concern to us, despite the fact that certain components are positive, as we mentioned in the brief.

I will give the floor to my colleague Mr. Goldman, who is responsible for protection in our organization, at the Table de concertation. He is going to speak to one issue in particular, that is the whole question of the study of humanitarian considerations that would be abolished for asylum seekers under the current bill. This is one component we wish to discuss with you. I will now give the floor to my colleague.

[Richard Goldman, Committee Coordinator to Aid Refugees, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes]

Merci, Stephan.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, thank you for this opportunity to appear before your committee. My name is Richard Goldman. As Stephan mentioned, I'm the refugee protection coordinator for the Table de concertation. I'm also the coordinator for the Committee to Aid Refugees, a small church-funded, non-governmental organization that assists refugee claimants. On a personal level, I've worked with the refugee determination system in various forms since before the creation of the IRB in 1989.

For the purposes of our presentation, we feel that a real-world example always gives the clearest picture of the real-world impact of a law. So we're going to present a real case that is currently running its course. We'll change the name, of course. This case was the subject of an opinion article that Paula Kline of our sister organization, the Montreal City Mission, and I wrote.

I gave it in. I don't know if it has been distributed and translated. It has? That's great.

We believe it illustrates the real-world impact mainly of the question of the humanitarian applications, but also of the short timelines.

Just briefly, the story goes like this. It's the story of Brihan. That's not her real name. It means “light” in her native Amharic. She was given into marriage at age 12 by her parents. She was the eldest of nine children. She was born in a village in northern Ethiopia. She never got to go to school. On the day after her 14th birthday, she gave birth to her first child, a boy. In the next five years she had another son and two daughters.

In 1998, the Ethiopian-Eritrean war broke out. Her husband was called to fight in the war and is presumed to have died in combat. Meanwhile, the Ethiopian authorities began picking up and expelling people of Eritrean origin. Brihan's mother, who is Eritrean, was expelled to Eritrea. Brihan was arrested herself and held for a week in a tiny cell with more than 40 other detainees. She was beaten, tortured, and brutally raped. Aside from the emotional scars, she was left with a serious medical condition.

After that horrific week in prison, she was released and fled to Sudan, where she worked at odd jobs for five years. She was always afraid of being deported to Ethiopia. Of course, she had to leave her four children behind. Finally, in 2004, one of her friends arranged for her to get on a plane and make it to Canada.

She arrived in Montreal with no identity documents and no knowledge of English or French. She was actually illiterate, even in her native tongue. Because she had no identity documents, she was held in immigration detention for three months, which actually had the effect of speeding up her refugee hearing. I'm sure you've heard that many people wait two years or more for their refugee hearing, but because she was in detention, it was sped up a great deal.

As she had had little access to her legal aid lawyer or to interpreters and she had had little time to properly prepare for her case, her refugee claim was refused. However, with the assistance of the Committee to Aid Refugees and the Montreal City Mission, she subsequently presented an application for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds, showing evidence of the medical condition contracted during her assault. This evidence had not been available at the time of her refugee hearing. With that evidence, and also in light of other compelling humanitarian considerations, like the best interests of her children, notably her two daughters, who faced the same risk she had of being given into forced marriage at a young age, the humanitarian application was accepted. If all goes well, she should be reunited with her children very shortly.

As I mentioned, this is a real case, and as a matter of fact, we got the wonderful news last week that the visas for her four children were issued by Nairobi, and therefore her four children should be coming literally in days from now, if all goes well. They will be reunited with their mother after a ten-year separation.

Meanwhile, Brihan has done a very good job of integrating. She has learned to read and write in both of Canada's official languages, and she has already gained some Canadian work experience. If the proposed reforms were in place as they are currently presented under C-11, she would not have been able to file this agency application. She would have been deported to Ethiopia within 12 months, possibly to her detention and death, leaving her children as orphans.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have one minute, sir.

[Richard Goldman]

Okay. I will skip over the short timeline and talk just about the H and C applications.

We feel that Brihan's story represents the finest aspects of Canada's humanitarian tradition. When it comes to immigration, we feel it makes no sense to close off this important avenue. It's the only instance that looks at the best interests of the child in deciding whether or not a child or a family can stay in Canada. It makes even less sense when we consider that humanitarian applications do not suspend removals. Our recommendation, therefore, is to either keep humanitarian applications as they are, possibly with more resources to reduce timelines, or to give jurisdiction to the IRB, whether at the first level or through the RAD, to accept somebody on humanitarian grounds.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, sir.

We now will go to Ms. Côté or Ms. Williams, one or the other, just not both at the same time.

[Glynis Williams, Director, Action Réfugiés Montréal]

We won't do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have up to seven minutes as well, Ms. Williams. Thank you.

[Glynis Williams]

I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our concerns on this bill, and particularly to thank Mr. St-Cyr who sent our request to appear to the committee.

Action Réfugiés was founded in 1994 by the Anglican and Presbyterian churches in Montreal. Our mandate since then has been to assist refugee claimants who are being detained in the Canada Border Services Agency detention centre in Laval. We also match women refugee claimants with volunteers at the beginning of their time in Montreal. And our third program is sponsoring refugees from overseas.

We believe that one of our strengths is that we work with both inland refugee claimants and refugees who are overseas. This is a somewhat unique situation in Canada.

Twenty-two years ago, I started working with refugee claimants who were being detained. As the founding director of this organization, we chose to make the detention program a priority, which you'll hear more about soon.

In 2007, I participated in a very short-term deployment program with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Syria, interviewing Iraqi refugees. Having listened to the stories of more than 350 Iraqi refugees in four months, I really don't have words to describe the enormous suffering and violence that was unleashed in Iraq. Therefore, we welcomed the minister's announcement of the increase in overall resettlement numbers, which I know is not part of this bill. However, it is extremely unfair to make the increased numbers conditional on the passing of this bill. Suggesting that one group merits Canada's protection while the other group is bogus—in other words, pitting inland claimants against refugees overseas—is a strategy unworthy of Canada's humanitarian tradition.

I want to give you a real-life example. A young Iraqi man whom we met—I will call him Yousuf—was kidnapped in Baghdad. A large ransom was demanded and paid by his father. Yousuf had been tortured, and his family sent him to Syria upon his release, but even there he did not feel safe from his captors. Then Yousuf's father was kidnapped and a ransom of $200,000 was demanded; it was paid, and his body was returned. He was killed by the terrorists.

That man's brother is a Canadian citizen, who was deeply disturbed by his own brother's violent death and by the trauma of his nephew, Yousuf. So he assisted Yousuf to travel to Canada. Action Réfugiés met him while he was detained in the Canada Border Services Agency detention centre, having claimed refugee status right at the airport. Yousuf would unquestionably have fallen under the UNHCR referral categories, but was terrified to stay in the region, so he came to Canada. His story illustrates why we must not even imply that refugee claimants are less deserving than those who are refugees overseas.

The designated safe countries of origin emphasizes this idea that some refugees are more deserving than others. The provision is discriminatory and fails to recognize that most countries can be unsafe for some of its citizens at some point—gender claims and victims of sexual orientation are obvious examples.

The fact that refused claims from countries designated as safe will be denied access to the refugee appeal is really worrisome. Refugee claims are by definition based on individual risks of persecution, so safe country designation is a contradictory principle. It seems likely that designating countries as safe will result in increased requests for judicial review for claimants of these countries should they be denied. The Federal Court is likely to grant the review for people who have at least had an appeal at the RAD.

We understand concerns regarding demonstrably weak refugee claims, so why not allow the CBSA to designate a certain number of claims for priority processing at the IRB? This fits much better with the principle of refugee status determination, which is an individualized status.

I will now give the floor to my colleague, Maude Côté.

[Maude Côté, Program Coordinator, Action Réfugiés Montréal]

Thank you. I am the Program Coordinator for Action Réfugiés Montréal. As Ms. Williams mentioned, our organization visits the Immigration Detention Centre every week in order to provide legal information and moral support to the detainees. The centre is one of three immigration detention centres in Canada.

Although some people may be held in custody before facing a removal, one reality that is little-known and is part of our daily experience is that of asylum seekers who are detained on grounds of identity following their arrival. We believe it is critical not to confuse the cases of people in detention because of an imminent removal and those who are there on the grounds of identification, following their claim for refugee status.

We believe that the wait time for an interview during the first week after the claimant's arrival, as well as the holding of a hearing within 60 days, are totally unrealistic for asylum seekers who are detained. We are extremely concerned by the fact that these new proposed measures would be very harmful to them, both because of their right to seek the advice of a lawyer in order to help them to prepare their file, and because of the very great difficulty in obtaining documents or in being able to move their file forward as they are being detained by the authorities.

For example, a Congolese asylum seeker, who is fleeing the conflict and is unable to contact his or her family, because he has lost track of them for these very reasons, can be held in detention for several months, traumatized and unable to provide the identification requested. This situation is unfortunately the reality for several people.

We are also concerned by the fact that an official, during the weekly interview, would “help the claimant fill in the forms properly”. This role actually belongs to an independent lawyer acting as counsel on behalf of the claimant in order to protect his or her rights. This right to counsel is provided under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and should in no way be cut off, particularly in legislation that must protect such vulnerable people.

Since the detention facility conditions do not make the collection of documents easy—detainees must obtain calling cards, have no access to the Internet, the detention centre is far from the city—it is risky to force the holding of hearings too quickly, because this is to the disadvantage of claimants, who will not be ready in time. Moreover, as the refugee appeal section will be limited—both in its form and in its substance—we risk seeing a higher number of applications piling up in this appeal section, with people rejected in their initial appeal and ultimately rejected because of the restriction of presenting only new evidence subsequently. This would seriously affect Canada's reputation as far as the protection of refugees is concerned.

Moreover, because the proposed timeframes are so short, we believe that detention will be favoured, because of the accelerated process that Minister Kenney wishes to have, in order to keep better control of the situation. Because the effects of detention on asylum seekers fleeing persecution—who for the most part have never being detained in the past—are significant, we are concerned about the consequences of an increase in the detention of people seeking refugee protection in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Côté, I wonder if you could wind up soon.

[Maude Côté]

In conclusion, we would like to present the five following recommendations: first, we recommend deleting subsection 100(4) concerning the interviews within a week of the person's arrival in Canada.

Second, we recommend allowing the IRB Refugee Protection Division to set the date of the hearing in consultation with the claimants and their counsel, according to the availability of the documentary evidence and their level of preparation, without obliging them to appear at a hearing within 60 days of the interview.

Third, we recommend amending subsections 110(3) to 110(6) and paragraph 113(a) so that the Refugee Protection Division would systematically hold hearings, while taking into consideration all evidence related to the claim for protection.

The fourth recommendation is to delete clause 12 proposing a new section 109.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for the designation of safe countries of origin.

The last recommendation is to address manifestly unfounded claims by amending the act to give authority to the Minister of Public Safety to identify a limited number of claims that the IRB would be required to hear on a priority basis.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Our final witness, on video conference from St. John's, is Julia Porter with the Association for New Canadians. She is a settlement social worker.

I'd like to welcome you to the immigration committee. I look forward to hearing your comments on this bill.

You have up to seven minutes to make a presentation to us, Ms. Porter.

[Julia Porter, Settlement Social Worker, Association for New Canadians]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the introduction. My name is Julia Porter and I am the settlement social worker with the Association for New Canadians. We're an organization that's community-based, not-for-profit, based out of St. John's, Newfoundland. We offer resettlement assistance programs and immigrant and settlement assistance programs to newcomers in St. John's, Newfoundland. We primarily work with government-assisted refugees and immigrants. We don't often work with refugee claimants.

One of the main things I wanted to speak about with respect to the bill, concerning my own experience, is around the strict timelines. Going from 60 days to 19 months seems like quite a large leap. Working with the clients that I work with, who may come from rural areas or who may have family members scattered over different parts of the world, it's really very difficult to get certain documents or everything in order that they may require. So 60 days before the time of the hearing is pretty strict. As well, for the eight days it would be really important that some practices or approaches be put in place, given the sensitive nature of many claims, and maybe even developing partnerships in the community with respect to having certain lawyers who may have to work with the refugee claimants.

I do think it's fantastic that they are planning on resettling more refugees under the private sponsorship program as well as the government-assisted refugee program, but as some other people have mentioned, it's too bad the refugee claimant process is affected by that.

That's everything I have to say from our perspective. As I said, we work primarily with government-assisted refugees, and I'm very glad I got the opportunity to sit here at this meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're glad you did, too.

We now have some questions from some committee members. There are four caucuses, and each caucus will have up to seven minutes for the first round.

The first questions come from Mr. Karygiannis. You have the floor, sir.

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

I thank everybody here, and to you joining us from St. John's. It's wonderful of you to give us an opportunity to hear what you have to say.

I think the contentious items...there are a few points. There is the eight days, the sixty days, and not being able to go before an agency and use the same information you have submitted at the refugee hearing.

I was wondering if you could give us your view on the eight days. Is that long enough? Right now, if I'm not mistaken, it's supposed to be twenty-eight days. Is there a time at which you think the first hearing should take place? Should it be eight days? Should the people have only an interview? Should they have the right to submit a PIF?

I understand that in St. John's you were saying we should have legal counsel on standby in order to give them advice. Can you give us your feelings on the eight days and sixty days, as well as the agency not being able to use the stuff that you submitted to the refugee hearing?

[Maude Côté]

I work primarily with refugee claimants who are in detention. Often I meet them after eight days. I visit the centre once a week. They haven't found a lawyer. They do not know how to contact a lawyer. We are there to give them the first tools to initiate the refugee claim process. Therefore, I think it's unimaginable for them to have to complete the first primordial step in a refugee claim without that crucial assistance.

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

In your case, these people are in detention. If they don't have the right to legal counsel, how does that sit in the legal system? You know, if you're arrested you're given a duty counsel. Am I to understand that these people are not given any counsel whatsoever, they cannot contact a lawyer, or they don't know how to contact a lawyer?

[Maude Côté]

Actually, there's a distinction to make. Right now, the process is 28 days to fill out the personal information form. That's done with the help of legal counsel. Obviously, people have the right to access a lawyer to do that, but what we're concerned about is the fact that within eight days, and if the form is filled out by an employee of the government, they will not have had the chance to consult a lawyer. That is a basic right that they currently have, and that right should still be maintained under the new legislation.

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

Correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that under the new legislation the first time you sit down will be an interview, so you will not fill out a PIF, a personal information form. It will be an interview. Is this what I understand?

[Maude Côté]

That's our understanding.

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

Who would be able to transcribe this PIF? If you sit down for a hearing, it can last an hour, two hours. If there are no people... If you go for an examination for discovery, if you're bringing a lawsuit there's somebody there who knows how to divide it.

How would that work?

[Maude Côté]

I'm not sure if one of my colleagues wants to answer.

[Richard Goldman]

We really don't know how it would work. I have to say very honestly that many of us in the advocacy community are very baffled by the purpose of this interview.

The practicalities my colleague Maître Côté has spoken to, and I agree completely, eight days is rarely enough for anybody to become the least bit oriented, to get access to legal counsel. As you probably know, many people arrive traumatized, vulnerable. There are special procedures in place at the IRB to deal with vulnerable claimants in terms of how their testimony will be taken and so on. No one could even be identified as vulnerable within eight days. It takes an examination or a meeting with a psychologist and so on.

So all of the practicalities seem totally unrealistic to us, and even the purpose seems very unclear. Will it replace the PIF? Will it not replace the PIF?

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

Should we continue to have the PIF? Is the PIF useful?