Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 27th, 2010

[Alexandra Pierre]

Some of the groups with which we prepared the brief, including RQCALACS and CLES, work with women seeking asylum. As I said earlier, these women often seek asylum for reasons related to gender violence such as rape, spousal abuse and so on. Obviously, when they arrive, it is impossible for them to understand in one week the legal system in which they find themselves. Furthermore, as I said earlier, they can't understand how it works. In a number of countries, there is a gap between the law and the manner in which it is enforced.

A little earlier you talked about a one-week time frame, which corresponds to eight days from the first hearing. Obviously, for us, that's absolutely not enough to create a climate of trust, to gather a certain amount of evidence and especially to manage to have these women open up to us and to talk to us.

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

Even beyond the legal aspect and knowledge of the system, it must be quite difficult, in some cases, to simply arrive and trust another human being enough to tell that person your story. If in addition that other human being is an official associated with the authorities, with the government, and you come from a country where you've been persecuted, that seems to be even more difficult.

The government is putting forward these provisions, the interview and the time period before the interview, among others. Running through this we clearly see the idea that some people lie and that these provisions will leave them less time to make up a story. They're going to be asked to tell their story orally rather than on paper. They'll be able to ask them questions.

Isn't it instead the reverse that could well occur? Those who simply make up stories may perhaps do better in this system, whereas the most traumatized individuals could well have more trouble dealing with it.

[Nathalie Ricard]

There are a number of reasons why it may be difficult to describe these experiences of abuse. You were asking how much time it could take, and it's very random.

Yesterday I had a meeting with representatives of the Mouvement contre le viol et l'inceste, and they said that, taking into account all the meeting time frames, it took at least three interviews, and that's in the case of a woman who meets another woman in an organization specialized in specific sexual violence cases. So if you consider the matter in a broader context regarding other issues, as I do, and I work in community health, it can take more than a month, even six months.

Sometimes the person won't reveal the situation because she has suffered incest at the hands of her father or because these people are very close or perhaps because they are linked to a political class in their country. Consequently, talking about sexual violence will also hurt the people who have stayed behind in their country.

It must be understood that this isn't about giving false testimony. It's about understanding that rape is unacceptable here, that it's criminal, that you can talk about it and that there are rights. It can take a little time for people to simply get that information into their cultural frame of reference, to think that it's possible that there might be justice in these matters. Then they can assert themselves and say they need this safety because, if they go back to their country, they will lose too much, it will be terrible and they will die. There are a lot of decisions to make, deadlines that must be met and ethical issues that must be considered.

So it's not about lying and circumventing the system, but rather about establishing your own cultural frame of reference and also fitting it to theirs.

Often, when a woman does not speak to us or look us in the eye, one may believe she is trying to conceal facts. However, it may be an offence for a woman to look a man directly in the eye, all the more so if it's to tell him what has happened to her. You have to be very sensitive to the various situations that people experience.

You're right. Some people who would like to slip through the system will take advantage of the situation, whereas others who are traumatized will be left out.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow.

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

I have a question for Ms. Alexandra Pierre and Ms. Nathalie Ricard. Probably both of you can tell from the questions by the Bloc and the NDP that we are very much opposed to giving a safe country designation to Guyana, for example, although it is on England's safe country list, because it's illegal in Guyana to be gay or lesbian or bisexual.

However, both the Conservative and the Liberal parties, especially the Liberals—which is surprising—seem to have no problem with having this designation. Once designated, anyone from that safe country would not have the right to appeal, which you've said is really a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Stop the clock, please.

Monsieur Coderre has a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Without wanting to offend you, Ms. Chow, I would like you to speak on behalf of your party and not to put words in the mouth of the Liberal Party of Canada.

All day I've asked questions reflecting opposition to designated countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

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

Fine. I'm just repeating what your critic said at the last meeting. I'm using his own words, actually.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I started the clock again, so carry on.

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

I'm not sure that's a point of order.

However, I was just repeating what the immigration critic of the Liberal Party of Canada said last Tuesday, only two days ago, that he had no difficulty with designating safe countries. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what I heard. I've heard it several times since this bill came out.

I know that you're based in Quebec. Have you had conversations with some of the members of Parliament other than Mr. Mulcair or those from the Bloc? Have you had conversations with other MPs that give you comfort that perhaps some of them might change their minds?

Because, you know, next Monday will be the last session for hearings. Then, by Tuesday afternoon, we will be going to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, which is being rushed through. Then, before midnight on Thursday, June 3, this bill will finish at this committee and go to the House of Commons the week after, probably landing in the House by Monday or Tuesday, where there will be final debates and approval or non-approval.

So it is being pushed through. There are many clauses in here and you will notice that because of the rush we have not even had time to put together some amendments, but that seems to be what has been put together, unfortunately. Have you had many conversations with other members of Parliament?

[Alexandra Pierre]

We haven't had the opportunity to have any conversations with members of Parliament. However, the Fédération des femmes du Québec is an association, and a number of its members, groups and individuals, have expressed their concerns to the various local MPs and also to the members who sit on this standing committee.

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

Nathalie, do you have the same response?

[Nathalie Ricard]

Yes, it's the same thing. Our organization hasn't spoken directly to members of Parliament, but it should be recalled that the Fédération des femmes du Québec has more than 175 associated members also including members of Parliament. There are people who are very engaged politically and 600 individual members. It is a very large federation with a lot of members. The message we are getting from everyone is that this idea of designated countries is not welcome.

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

Would the members of the organizations your coalition represents also understand that they perhaps need to quite quickly connect with their local members of Parliament, their députés? Because there really isn't a whole lot of time for minds to be changed, especially on this whole notion of humanitarian and compassionate considerations and safe country designation?

You are nodding. You understand that?

[Alexandra Pierre]

A campaign is underway.

[Nathalie Ricard]

A mobilization campaign is already underway.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. I think that's it, Ms. Chow. I'm sorry.

Mr. Young, you have up to five minutes, sir.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Girard, I want to thank you for being here today. It's great for us to have an opportunity to talk to a former director of the refugee policy division.

Refugee protection in Canada has traditionally reflected our country's humanitarian tradition and compassion for vulnerable people. Do you believe that the Balanced Refugee Reform Act is sufficiently balanced and continues to reflect that compassion?

[Raphael Girard]

My quick reading of it and the following of the debate suggests to me that it is vulnerable. There are some interesting innovations that are good and that we didn't think of when we did the reform from 1985 through 1988, but as I say, it is entirely too open to people who have no protection issue to have adjudicated. We've been overrun by Portuguese. We've been overrun by Czechs. We've been overrun by Hungarians. There are no protection issues in these cases.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

What is your position on the proposed safe country of origin policy? Let me just amplify that a little. Do you consider this an important tool, and a potentially effective tool, for addressing the spikes in the claims from countries where, for the most part, the claims end up being determined to be unfounded?

[Raphael Girard]

The more effective way would simply be to exclude those people from making a claim rather than trying to rush them through the board and limit them on appeal, because their countries are safe. You have a clear argument that those people are already protected; I'm talking in the European Union context.

Going outside Europe becomes very questionable, because I can imagine that the IRB statistics on adjudication of claims from virtually any country are over 50%.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Can you see this being an effective tool? It's not your first choice, but can you see it being effective?

[Raphael Girard]

Well, it's an essential feature to keep the load away from the appeal division.