Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Gentlemen, Monsieur St-Cyr from the Bloc Québécois is going to ask you some questions now.

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

Good evening, gentlemen.

You talked about the importance of having good decision-makers making good decisions from the beginning. Obviously, that goes without saying. That is what everyone would like, regardless of political stripe. No one disputes the fact that good decision-makers are needed.

The question I have for you is the following. As parliamentarians, it is our job to study bills. What specific measures do you recommend we adopt to ensure that the right people are making the right decisions at the first level?

[Sohabe Hashmi]

I have some recommendations from the Canadian Council for Refugees. I'm not affiliated with them, but they have very good recommendations. I'm not sure if the committee has heard them, but I'll bring them forward.

The recommendations are: having IRB members appointed through a merit-based selection system that is not restricted to civil servants; eliminating the designation of safe countries of origin; allowing claimants more time to prepare for the hearing; and eliminating the bar on claimants making humanitarian and compassionate applications.

Here are some recommendations that I like: accept that refugee determination is difficult, as it is rarely obvious who is a refugee; assess each case on an individual merit basis; invest in high-quality initial decisions and get it right the first time; keep it non-political and have an independent body make all the decisions; keep things simple; put the necessary resources in place to avoid backlogs; and remember that human lives are at stake.

We're on show to the world. We're always leaders on these things. I don't want to be made fun of, for lack of a better word.

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

You echoed the recommendation of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which is to allow members and officers to be hired from outside the traditional public service and from the general public. The example that is often cited is that of the chief electoral officer, who can look both inside and outside the public service to hire returning officers.

Do you think that would be a good model for the committee? Should it follow that model for the appointment of first-level civil servants?

[Sohabe Hashmi]

Sorry, which case is that?

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

You gave us an example for the appointment of first-level civil servants, in other words, the first level before the appeal. Some groups have suggested to the committee that we follow the model of the chief electoral officer, whereby he can hire staff from both within and outside the public service.

Do you think the committee should look to that model?

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

It could be either way. It doesn't really matter. As long as you're hiring or recruiting qualified people, that's the whole key, whether it's within a public service office or from the outside.

[Sohabe Hashmi]

People who are recruited should be qualified. They should be appropriately compensated so that they don't leave their positions. When they're working there, even if they've been appointed by government officials, they should definitely keep in mind that it's on a non-partisan basis. If they have certain beliefs because of their political values, they have to be set aside.

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

The whole thing is that you should put the political party on the side when you're making a decision for the immigrant and for the refugee.

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

You also talked about giving people the opportunity to adequately gather evidence before the hearing. The committee has also had a lot of discussions around the issue of time frames. Some people worry that by trying to move things along, it would create situations where, at the end of the day, meetings have to be adjourned, owing to a lack of evidence or documents, or even that it would have the opposite effect, that is, making the process slower and more cumbersome.

Are you one of those people who think that having an initial time frame that is too short could have the opposite effect?

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

The time period depends on each individual case. You really can't determine for all the cases at the same time. Some countries may provide you with the documentation fast and some countries take a long time. In one case I even had to get help from the MP to get a divorce certificate from Pakistan. It was really hell to get that divorce certificate, and they were going to deport. It was thanks to the MP. I don't know if I'm supposed to give the name or not, because I don't want to bring politics over here. I'm really thankful for that, but it took almost two and a half years to get that divorce certificate.

I can be more open over there. If those called maulvis--those priests or those religious people--were not bribed, she was not going to get that certificate. It depends, country to country, whether I can release anything in time.

[Sohabe Hashmi]

In the beginning there should be adequate time, depending upon their circumstances and what documents are required. That should be considered, but a qualified person should be making that consideration. It took them an extra day to get some of their documents. On the 31st day Rashida and Noorunissa were denied because they were late by one day. Special consideration could have been given there, and maybe this process would have been shortened by two years.

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

They were granted immigration in the end, so sometimes we really don't understand the system.

[Sohabe Hashmi]

I wish I could give you more policy-sound recommendations. I'm not a policy-maker. I'm not a politician or a lawyer or an immigration specialist. I'm just speaking as a Canadian who has a little bit of experience.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're doing a fine job, sir. Thank you very much.

Ms. Olivia Chow from the New Democratic Party is going to ask you some questions.

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

As you may know, both the New Democrats and the Bloc are very much against the destination of safe countries. Can you imagine the trauma of that young woman from Congo, if she comes from a “safe” country? Perhaps Mexico could be declared a safe country. Any number of countries could be so declared. Ghana is on a safe country list in England. After what she experienced, she may have been so traumatized that she messed up her hearings.

In this case, with this Bill C-11, a safe country means that she will not have a chance to make an appeal. That would be grossly unfair, to my mind.

Have you talked to some of your members of Parliament in Vancouver? I believe that is where you are from.

[Sohabe Hashmi]

I'm from Toronto.

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

You are from Toronto. There are lots of members of Parliament from Toronto who are Liberals. Perhaps you can persuade some of them that this is not a good direction to go and that having a safe country destination is not the right direction, because next Tuesday we are going to start doing clause-by-clause recommendations. By Thursday night we'll be finished, and the week after that we'll be back in front of the House of Commons with Bill C-11.

Have you any comments on this part of the bill?

[Sohabe Hashmi]

Sure. As I said, I'm here on a non-partisan basis. I have no problem with sending out a little package. I'm surprised that these people were not invited. I'm not sure if they were invited in the past. They have much more knowledge on these things. I mean people such as Peter Showler, the counsel.

I have some information that I compiled. I can send it out, along with my write-up.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sir, they've already been here.

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

Peter Showler, the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, UNHCR, and the Canadian Council for Refugees have all been in front of this committee.

I'm actually not the chair. I shouldn't defend this, but actually every single one of the organizations has said that this safe country destination, especially when it comes to not having an appeal, is the wrong way to go. So I do hope you will do everything you can to perhaps change some minds. That would be really helpful on that front.

Have you had any conversations with other people or with your members? I'm sure you have lots of members in the CanPak Chamber of Commerce. Perhaps some of your members can approach their MPs to help them to understand why this is not a good route to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. Dykstra.

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

I understand that Ms. Chow has her perspectives on the bill, and she has, I'm sure, a number of amendments that she's going to move. I didn't realize, on this point of order I'm making, that MPs would actually give advice to witnesses. I thought we were here to listen to witnesses advise us.

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

I'll refrain from giving advice.

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

I wouldn't say that's advice. I don't think that's advice. I think that's a concern she has. I don't think that's advice; that's a concern, and we have many who have that concern.