Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

As usual, I regret interjecting.

[Rob Bray]

At least you made the playoffs.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow is going to ask all of you some questions.

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

First, I want to thank Gift, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Kamara for coming to tell us about their experiences. Thank you so much. After all, our discussion here is really about refugees, their lives, and what would happen if they were deported to their home countries.

I also want to take the time to thank Mary Jo Leddy, who I've actually admired for many years, for her work.

To Mr. Thibault, who I don't know very well, I've certainly heard of the good work of the mission.

Mr. Bray, I've heard of your work in Calgary.

From your submissions, I take it that it's pretty clear the three of you think it's grossly unfair to designate safe countries and to have people from countries such as Mexico or Nigeria be denied a right to appeal. Am I correct in that assumption? Is that the element? Is it section 109 that you want removed? Am I correct in that assumption? I assume I'm correct.

As you can tell, in this committee I think there is some consensus on how long it takes to get the information, that it should not be rushed too much, and that humanitarian and compassionate grounds are important.

I want to stress this element of safe countries, because it is about life and death. I think it's critically important. I'm very encouraged. I've heard at least three members of the Liberal Party say they may not want to support the safe countries. However, the critic has said that he would. I also heard Mr. Ignatieff say:

There are a number of countries in the world in which we cannot accept a bona fide refugee claim because you don’t have cause, you don’t have just cause coming from those countries. It’s rough and ready but otherwise we'll have refugee fraud and nobody wants that.

This quote is from the Saint John Board of Trade on August 13 of last year.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Stop the clock.

You have a point of order, Monsieur Coderre.

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

I'm only reading a quote.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, after 14 years as a member, it was my understanding that the rules of the House of Commons also applied to the committees. It is unacceptable for my colleague, Ms. Chow, to say things when the critic is not here, for her to talk about someone when they are not here.

What is more, our three groups of witnesses need to know that we have not stopped speaking out against the issue of designated countries. So I would like some clarification about this: are we allowed to talk about someone when they are not here?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow, it's a valid point of order. Please refrain from doing that again.

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

Oh, so I should not talk about it. I'm reading a quote, and the quote refers to coming from a country that claims to be safe.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow, the point of order is that you can't refer to a member of Parliament who is not here.

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

Oh, I didn't say he was not here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I heard you say that.

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

All right. Never mind. I won't claim that.

I actually heard comments on Tuesday. I have quotes. That is what is causing me a lot of worry.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I couldn't hear the quote because there were two conversations going on.

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

I'm not trying to be unreasonable. I am worried about this, because it said fairly clearly that if you're from a certain country, you shouldn't even be heard, and it's “rough and ready”. If you are from those countries and you don't have just cause, you shouldn't even be heard.

I don't agree with that. What I want to see is that they should at least be heard and there should be an appeal.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow....

Turn the clock off.

Ms. Chow, I did say to Mr. Dykstra that there is a fair amount of leniency. You could talk the entire seven minutes and not ask one question, but I think the problem is now you're starting to get into debate. The purpose of these hearings is to ask questions of these witnesses. You can do it by simply making comments and asking them to respond. But you're getting into debate, and I don't think this is the time to get into debate.

Start the clock again.

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

I won't get into debate. I will ask Ms. Leddy this. If the people you've worked with lose the chance to get a hearing, or if they get a hearing but lose the chance to have an appeal, what could happen to them, for example?

[Mary Jo Leddy]

Are you asking me?

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

Yes. Why is “safe country” a real problem?

[Mary Jo Leddy]

I think “safe country” for us is a very real problem because of the number of Mexicans we have in our houses. It's also a question of principle, because this year it's Mexico, but another year it will be another country and then another country. What we've seen over this year is that the key issue is who defines a country as safe. At this point, in the specific case of Mexico, the minister has publicly declared, with immense impact, that refugees from Mexico are bogus. That has resulted in cookie-cutter decisions at the refugee board. That's what I mean. If the designated list is decided by politics, as we saw in spades today in Calderon's visit, then the determination of this list will be completely politicized and human rights will take second place to trade and tourism.

It is immensely problematic, and I think the only way to solve it is to say that the designation of countries, whether safe or unsafe, has to be done by a completely independent body, independent of the government. I think one of the other speakers said, and I believe it completely, that you will have a political nightmare on your hands if the government starts saying some countries are safe and some are not safe. It's just going to be a quagmire.

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

Please.

[Rob Bray]

I have a comment on this. I can tell you a very simple story that illustrates what the problem is. Some years ago we had a Nicaraguan couple here in Canada. There was a lot of domestic violence. He had been convicted of assault. As often happens in domestic violence cases, they had reconciled. Then the Sandinistas were out—there had actually been an election—and they went back to Nicaragua.

About two years later she showed up back in Canada. She had been gone for more than six months, so she had lost her status in Canada. She tried to file a claim, her refugee claim again, and they turned her down because the country was a democracy and there was rule of law so she could go to the police. She pointed out that the problem was that her husband was the deputy commander of the national police force. The odds were very high that if she stayed there, she would be dead. She was able to make an H and C application and was successful, and she's in Canada and doing quite well.

If Nicaragua, as a democracy with a rule of law, had been put on a safe country list, that would not have been possible and she would be dead now. That's a real good, clear, concrete explanation as to why the limitations on appeal are just going to cause people to die.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, sir.

It's Dr. Wong's turn, from the Conservative Party.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen for coming to the committee. We really appreciate your time and your expertise.

I just want to make a few remarks first to clarify some of the points before we move on. First of all, Mr. Bray mentioned there should be extra funding. Yes, in this bill there will be extra funding regarding two areas. First of all, there is the hiring of what they call IRB officers; they are government servants, but not necessarily from among the present government servants. Obviously you are not happy with the system right now because you are worried about the quality of the people. We were assured by the board chair the other day--and he is coming back again--that they will make sure that the people they hire will go beyond existing government servants, and there will be vigorous training to make sure they know the culture, to make sure they know the techniques in the first and second levels of hearing.

The director general of refugee affairs of the immigration department also came earlier in the afternoon and he gave us some clarification about the first interview, that it's data collecting. Also, some of your suggestions are already in their recommendations, saying that the interview will be recorded and also that there will be a written report, and both of them will be given to the applicant as well as to their counsel if they do have one.

In terms of funding, I mentioned earlier that, yes, there will be extra funding and hiring of people to do the processing at the beginning, otherwise there will be another backlog. Also, there will be money for deportation, because very often when we have false claimants, we cannot get them out and they end up staying.

My question is for all of you. Do you think the present system actually is preferable to the reforms?

[Rob Bray]

As I said, in some ways yes and in some ways no. The proposed reforms are bringing in the refugee appeal division, which is desperately needed. If we had a refugee appeal division, we wouldn't have the H and Cs and the PRRAs so clogged and delayed, and with poor outcomes from them.

On the other hand, I find the personal interview problematic and I find the safe third country problematic. So some things are good and some things aren't so good.