Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Abraham Abraham]

There are many countries in the world where the first-instance decision is undertaken by civil servants. For us, what is important is that the decision-making body is independent and is not put under any kind of pressure, or brought under any kind of influence, but is able to make decisions based on objective criteria. That's what's important to us—not whether there's anything wrong with them being civil servants or not. We like the independence that should be exercised by the determining body.

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

There certainly have been concerns raised over the designation of safe countries of origin where there are certain vulnerable populations. I appreciate how direct and open you've been on this. Do you think this concern is answered by the proposal in Bill C-11 that allows the minister to make designations specific to a population within a country so that they can be exempt from the designation? You gave a very good example of something for which we would certainly hope to seek exemption, in terms of a specific population in a country.

[Abraham Abraham]

You're referring to part of a country. There is a presumption here that there is an internal flight alternative, which may not necessarily be the case. Again, we come back to the main issue: Are we dealing with the protection of the individual or are we dealing with a system that differentiates one or a group of people from another?

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

I think what's important on this aspect is that you can come at it from two different perspectives. Some folks who have witnessed have chosen to come at it from the perspective that there's a perception there's going to be a blanket safe country of origin. Therefore an individual, regardless of his individual background or what may have happened to this person.... There is some sort of understanding that that's how this legislation would be enacted with respect to safe country.

The other way to come at this--and I think this is what you three are suggesting and what the government supports--is yes, safe countries of origin, with rigorous assessment tools and criteria to be able to define them, but having a subset that actually allows for parts of a country, or individuals, or groups within that country, to be exempt, so to speak, from that country of safe origin. Your example in Mali would to me be an obvious recommendation or suggestion that we would move into this.

What I'm trying to do is open up the understanding of exactly what safe country of origin is going to mean here. I would ask that you give your perspective on how, from a regulatory perspective, this would be enacted.

[Abraham Abraham]

If I could ask my colleague to answer that, I will step in later. Thank you.

[Hy Shelow]

I'd be happy to answer that question.

I think we're talking, to a certain extent, to cross-purposes. You're currently talking about classes of people and a positive bias in favour of human rights protections for certain groups of people. Our concern is more on geographic territory, taking a part of a country and suggesting that part of that country would be safe. For us that would be problematic because it would require the individual to move within a country that nonetheless may or not be able to provide them with state-based protection.

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

One of the other components of this is the issue--and it's been stated--that there's a separation between the additional 2,500 refugees we would like to add to our numbers. In fact, part of moving forward on this is to get at those additional 2,500 refugees per year. I'd like to get your comments on that, because there's a perception on the one hand that yes, it's a very good thing to do, but you seem to be tying it to the bill, so why not do it anyway?

Is this really a wrong time to introduce a change that would actually see an additional 2,500 refugees come to this country each and every year?

[Abraham Abraham]

Let me say that resettlement is not an obligation. There's no obligation on the part of any country to actually resettle people; it is an act of goodwill. We must remember that today, when we are talking about over 36 million refugees and persons of concern worldwide, where we have carried out reviews of the people who are in need of resettlement we have found that there are some 700,000 people who need to be resettled immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Bevilacqua and Ms. Mendes.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Actually, Mr. Chairman, I will give my entire time to Ms. Mendes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're so kind, Mr. Bevilacqua.

Ms. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, thank you very much for your testimony. I would like to pick up on the last comment you made, about resettlement not being an obligation. I would presume to extend that statement to refugee protection is an obligation for countries that have signed the Geneva Convention. Is that the logical reasoning of what you were stating?

[Abraham Abraham]

Resettlement, as far as we try to take it forward, is where we think that resettlement has to be used as a tool for protection and where we think that resettlement is the only solution that could be applied in the case of a particular individual.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I'll go back to my years as a worker in a settlement agency for immigrants and refugees. The big difference between settling refugees who had already been chosen by the Canadian government abroad, and very specifically, the Afghan refugees—or the Kosovo refugees when we had the Kosovo crisis in 1990—is that when those persons arrived in Canada, or very specifically in Quebec, these government agreements were already in place. The programs were there, the whole system was there to sustain and support this resettlement. When we're dealing with refugee claimants, we don't have that, but we do have the statutory obligation to hear these people and to help them.

I think one of the big fears Canadians have is with regard to the economic refugees, the ones who seem to be coming to our borders as a way to find a better life for themselves and their families, but also to avoid the regular immigration system by applying and waiting the five, seven, or ten years, or whatever time it takes to go through the whole immigration system.

How do you propose that a country like Canada, which has very generous and welcoming settlement policies, would address that fear?

[Abraham Abraham]

I will say very quickly that we do not talk about economic refugees and we do not talk about climate refugees because the term “refugee”, by definition, is contained in the 1951 convention and means people are fleeing persecution in fear of their lives.

Having said that, let me defer this particular question on resettlement to my resettlement expert, Michael Casasola.

[Michael Casasola, Resettlement Officer, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]

The only thing I could add to what Abraham was building up to in the previous question is how critical we are in terms of the resettlement need. While it is not an international obligation, it is generosity on the part of the states. We're at a position right now where we're only able to find solutions for about one in ten of those 700,000 Abraham referred to earlier. So there's this tremendous gap.

We've been fortunate that Canada's been one of the most generous resettlement countries. It's one of the big three, along with the United States and Australia. In many ways, it's been a leader internationally in developing a lot of initiatives. You gave the example of the Kosovars and the Afghan movements. Canada has a very non-discriminatory approach, so UNHCR works with Canada around the world.

When we talk about the obligation, UNHCR deeply values the contribution Canada makes on resettlement and continues to count on Canada to play such a leadership role internationally as we try to expand the availability of resettlement.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

But again, that doesn't address the fact that.... When I'm speaking about economic refugees, it's not my definition; it's how Canadians perceive it. That's what I would like to ask for help in, because we do have to face the fact that our fellow citizens have this fear that a lot of people who claim to be refugees are using the system to contravene normal immigration processes.

The determination of a refugee as someone fleeing their country for fear of persecution is a very difficult thing to prove. If you're fleeing Mexico, for example, which is supposed to be a democracy, how do you prove that to a Canadian who goes to Mexico on vacation?

[Hy Shelow]

I think that part of the answer to your question is contained in the question itself. There is certainly an issue with regard to migration to Canada. Perhaps some of the systems that Canada has produced relating to those issues would help to address some of the concerns of the Canadian public. Certainly when you talk about these issues, the way we would discuss them is in terms of asylum space or preserving asylum space. We understand that legislators--

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

But I'm not discounting the fact that someone fleeing Mexico may have very legitimate reasons for fleeing Mexico. That's what I'm trying to see, where we could find--

[Hy Shelow]

Certainly. If you look at the IRB, they agree with you, because approximately 11% of Mexicans were recognized last year--

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

As refugees, yes.

[Hy Shelow]

So clearly there are some issues in relation to drug gangs, or maras.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur St.-Cyr has the floor. Thank you.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Oh, my, he's abrupt.

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

I would like to come back to the concept of designated countries, because that is really at the heart of our discussion. I know that it isn't easy for you to talk about that because you do not want to interfere in Canadian policy-making; that is a legitimate concern. However, we need to be better informed.

There are two things here: there is the idea of creating a list of countries that we believe are less likely to pose a risk, and then there is the way that list is used.

With regard to the creation of a list per se, i.e., its concept, you do not appear to find that problematic. Mr. Shelow has even explained that such a list might facilitate the processing and analysis of a claimant's file, by considering from the outset what distinguishes a claimant from his or her fellow citizens.

Nevertheless, concerning a specific aspect of this bill, i.e., taking away the right of appeal from these people, are you in favour of the fact that the claimants who come from those countries will lose their right of appeal?