Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's it. Thank you.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will start with a question for Ms. Zambelli, but before I begin I must say that I am at the very least disappointed that the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association should appear before this committee and deliver a presentation exclusively in English. For a Quebec-based organization, it is rather disappointing, and we are far from the days when the AQAADI was advocating for the rights of its members to proceed in French before the IRB.

My comment being made, I wanted to address the issue of countries—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur St-Cyr, I think you're out of order saying something like that. The witness has every right--

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

That is good timing, as I am done, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I'm going to tell you what I think and you can take that as it may. You and I have the right to speak in French or English, and so do witnesses have the right to speak. You don't have any right to challenge them as to whether they speak one language or another.

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

Absolutely. You are quite right, Mr. Chairman, but I am entitled to say that I am extremely disappointed by this, however. And that is that.

In fact, we are done with this subject, and we may continue our discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, you're not entitled to do that. I think we need to be courteous to witnesses. If a witness wants to speak English or French, they're entitled to do that.

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

So, I will continue. I simply made a comment and I would now like to get back to the subject at hand, the issue of designated countries.

If I understand your presentation correctly, you are against the fact that individuals would be denied the right to appeal for any number of reasons, in the end. During the committee's consultations, again today there were some proposals for a mix, alternatives and various solutions, as esoteric as they may be.

Essentially your position is based on the principle that to appeal is a right and all should have access to this right. Have I understood your position?

[Pia Zambelli]

If I may speak in English, that is essentially the position of AQAADI. You've said it exactly correctly. That is our position.

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

From a legal standpoint—and this is why I would like to know your opinion on this point, as I am not a lawyer myself—it would seem to me that the cases of nationals coming from countries deemed safe are more difficult to deal with. In some ways, the cases of individuals coming from countries where persecution is known to occur is something of a no-brainer.

So, am I right in saying that when it comes to countries that are deemed safe, things should be less black and white?

On the other hand, if this is true, would it not be somewhat ridiculous to withdraw the right of appeal specifically from those whose cases are more contentious and difficult?

[Pia Zambelli]

Yes, exactly. First of all, as I was saying before, it's going to be virtually impossible to get together an advisory group that will be able to agree on which countries are safe. We will never agree that Mexico is safe. We will never agree that Czechoslovakia is safe for all its citizens. Maybe we will say the United States is. Maybe we will say some European countries are, but there are always exceptions. When there are exceptions, it is because the situation is very delicate and extremely nuanced. That is why depriving them of the error correction mechanism--that is, the refugee appeal division--is really entirely the wrong thing to do for those particular countries.

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

There's also been a lot of talk about timelines. The government's concern is that by giving individuals so much time to prepare their cases, they would be able to fabricate a story, evidence, or lie in some way.

Would you not say the opposite would be true? Liars would find it easier to invent a story in eight days. Would you not say that those who have suffered great trauma, have witnessed serial murders or been raped, would have more difficulty producing their story in eight days' time than those who would lie?

[Pia Zambelli]

Yes. The genuine refugees would be more likely to give a statement that wasn't coherent within eight days than would the refugees who were lying, which is why the system that is proposed is rather ironic.

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

Very well.

I have a question for Mr. Berger.

You referred to the proposal to allow the appeals of individuals coming from one of the designated countries on the list, if the credibility and truthfulness of their story is accepted. It can be said that generally, in all legal systems, people do not like to have their decisions challenged, and that is the reason why appeal mechanisms are provided. They ensure that judges and board members make every effort to issue the right decision from the outset so as to avoid any appeals.

That said, under the provision you propose, we would end up in a situation where if an official simply stated, without any grounds, that he or she did not believe a person's version of their story, this person would automatically lose the right to appeal and therefore the option to request a review of the official's decision.

Is that not a little too easy? Will we not end up with officials who say that they simply do not believe the story in order to reject a case? Then, that would be the end of it and there would be no appeal?

[Max Berger]

I oppose the designated list in the first place, but if there's going to be a designated list, I propose a compromise between the government's position and that of most refugee advocates. The compromise is that only those claimants from the list countries whose stories are disbelieved would lose their right to the RAD appeal.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow has the floor.

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

Less than an hour ago Abraham Abraham was here, from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and my Liberal colleagues were pushing in support of the safe countries designation. I hear very clearly from the three witnesses here that they do not support that kind of designation and that this kind of designation would have serious implications for gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered refugee claimants, especially from a lot of the African countries, or Jamaica, etc.

To Egale, and then to the rest of the witnesses, have you been able to communicate that concern to the Liberal Party of Canada? Both the Bloc and the New Democrats are onside in not having safe countries designation, and also in making sure there are humanitarian and compassionate grounds considerations, because these too will be eliminated if Bill C-11 passes.

So Egale first.

[Helen Kennedy]

Yes, we're very concerned about the safe countries designation and the list, and we're more than willing to share our concerns with anybody who will listen to us. I don't think it's practical to develop this list at all, because even within Canada there is discrimination against members of the LGBT community. It's extremely problematic to develop what would be called a “safe list”. It's just not doable in terms of dealing with LGBT claimants.

I think that is one of our primary concerns, and we've communicated that to many members on all sides of the House. We hope the committee will take a serious look and stand on this particular aspect of the bill.

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

The Quebec Immigration Lawyers' Association.

[Pia Zambelli]

Yes, it's interesting, in terms of the claims based on sexual orientation, if you take the case of Jamaica, it would likely be on the list of designated countries, but it is not safe for homosexuals. Conversely, you might have a country such as Nigeria, which I don't think would be on anybody's safe country list, but there are—

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, Ms. Zambelli. On a point of order, Mr. Dykstra.

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

I don't like doing this, but if there's misinformation being put forward.... I understand you may not have all the information, but putting information forward.... We do not have regulations in place yet to deal with the issue you're speaking about.

My point of order is that it's fair to ask but not fair to say that what's in place is what's going to happen. That's very misleading and it's very unfair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's a point, but I don't think it's a point of order.

Ms. Zambelli, you may continue.

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

Good try.