Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 20, Thursday, May 27, 2010, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 29, 2010, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act.

We have with us our witnesses today, our guests from the CanPak Chamber of Commerce. Shahid Hashmi is the chairman—good evening to you, sir—and Sohabe Hashmi is the administrative director—good evening to you, sir.

Thank you very much for coming to the committee via Toronto. We're going to give you up to 10 minutes to make a presentation to us. Then some of the committee members will have some questions for you. You can start right now. Thank you again.

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi, Chairman, CanPak Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you for inviting us. It is my pleasure to be here on behalf of the CanPak Chamber of Commerce. My name is Shahid Hashmi and I'm the chairman of the CanPak Chamber of Commerce. Tonight I am accompanied by the administrative director, Sohabe Hashmi. I must start by saying I'm thankful to the committee members for their efforts to ensure that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will be amended for the better.

Throughout my work in the community I have come across many refugee and immigration cases where I have been puzzled about why the system handles them in such a way. Our initial question is why it takes so long to reach decisions about refugee cases. While the decision is being made, it costs taxpayers an enormous amount of money.

According to the report of the Auditor General, the cost is $100 million a year to the federal government and $100 million a year to the provinces, for social assistance for refugees. With the current backlog, I suspect it to be much higher now.

The general answer I hear is that there is a backlog of cases and the system is unable to handle all the refugee cases. I would argue that the backlog is costing Canadian taxpayers more money than hiring qualified people to handle that backlog. This would create jobs for unemployed Canadians versus giving away unnecessary money to people who may not become assets to Canada or may be abusing the system.

I would also like to question why there are so many different decisions being made in the process. These decisions seem erratic and based on the officials' whims rather than following the system. The level of qualifications and management by the authorities does not meet the requirements of this field, which has the responsibilities of a court judge and court system. Can you imagine if the Canada Revenue Agency or the courts made decisions in the ways mentioned in the Auditor General's report? It indicates the following:

Immigration officers rule on the eligibility of a claim without having obtained the required information. Moreover, the information gathered when the claim is received does not serve adequately at other stages in the process.

I feel this is an ongoing trend in the system, causing processing difficulties. It is costing a vast amount of money, denying people who need help, and letting people slip through the cracks. It is my educated guess that the processing of refugees is relying too much on opinion-based decision-making. If files are not looked at for months and even years, at the time when the information is being passed on to other authorities, the stages and processes will not be done efficiently. If information is reviewed after such a long period of time, it takes a lot of time to re-familiarize with particular cases. If the system of information exchange is not efficient, we create duplicate work, possibly different outcomes for the refugees, and unnecessary increases in processing times.

I would like to share with the committee a case on which Hameed Ahmed and Javed Zaheer worked closely with me. We're puzzled to this day. Although the outcome was good for the refugees, it was an example of the lack of good first decision-making in our system. Farouqe Rashida and Noorunissa Begum applied for refugee status in 2001 on the basis of the threatening domestic violence they faced in India. Their hearing was—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sir, I'm sorry, but can I interrupt you? What you're saying is being translated into French. We're having trouble because you're speaking kind of fast. Could I ask you to slow down just a little bit?

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

Okay. Do I go back, or should I continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No. You don't need to start again; just go a little slower.

Thank you, sir.

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

Okay.

Farouqe Rashida and Noorunissa Begum applied for refugee status in 2001 on the basis of threatening domestic violence they faced in India. Their hearing was scheduled to be done on September 30, 2002. Their claim was rejected on November 11, 2002. They were to appeal within 30 days of the decision, but because of the delay of arranging evidence and documentation, they appealed on the 31st day. Therefore, the appeal was denied because of the late date. At this point, their refugee case was closed, and they were distressed about returning back to India because of their safety.

In February 2003 they applied on a humanitarian basis. Two years later, in 2005, they were asked for updated information on their particulars. At this point, no decision was made. All of a sudden, two years later, in 2007, they received a letter from the pre-risk removal authority, PRRA, requesting an appointment. When they came to the appointment, they were told that their case was rejected and they were to leave Canada and return to India. They were told they could appeal the decision and they were given an application.

In the meantime, Hameed Ahmed contacted the CIC Scarborough office to find out about the application to remain on a humanitarian basis, but received no response from the CIC.

They then submitted the PRRA application, and later they received a letter from the same officer who previously denied their claim, saying he would be making the decision on the PRRA application and the humanitarian application. He rejected the application for both Rashida and Noorunissa. He decided there was no life risk. How could he consider that by himself?

Soon after the rejection they were issued a deportation order for August 14, 2007, along with a flight with the Russian airline. PRRA sent their Indian passports to the Indian embassy to be renewed, as they had expired. During this time, with the help of their brother and uncle, Hameed Ahmed, they appealed the PRRA decision to the Federal Court, but since they could not afford legal counsel, their case was weak and the judge rejected their appeal. They also separately applied for the humanitarian application that was initially rejected.

Several years later in this process, near the end, after many rejections and difficulties, they were granted legal aid and managed to find a good lawyer named Jack Martin. Hameed Ahmed had to supplement the legal aid with $1,000 from his pocket, in addition to various other costs.

While all this was happening, they were to be deported, but they remained in the system only because of the delay from the Indian embassy to renew their Indian passports. This mishap in the system allowed them adequate time and legal counsel to appeal the rejections on humanitarian grounds. This time the legal aid allowed Jack Martin, Hameed Ahmed, Javed Zaheer, and myself to help Rashida and Noorunissa. With their help in this matter, Rashida and Noorunissa received a letter from the Federal Court stating that if they withdrew their humanitarian appeal, their application would be reconsidered. As a result, they withdrew the appeal and the deportation was cancelled. A couple of months after receiving a letter of reconsideration, and with the work of Jack Martin, Rashida and Noorunissa were granted immigration.

If you notice the erratic nature of this case...we are very curious about the inner workings and on what basis the administrative decisions were made throughout this case. Why is it that in a few months a clear decision could be made, but not in the years before? One thing for sure is that unqualified people helping claimants and refugees need access to legal counsel. With the help of legal counsel, many cases can be sped up.

[Sohabe Hashmi, Administrative Director, CanPak Chamber of Commerce]

Good evening. My name is Sohabe Hashmi. I would like to describe a case that relates to the importance of providing claimants with appropriate legal counsel. I would like to bring to this committee's attention an extract from a report from the Canadian Council for Refugees:

Marie arrived in Canada with little formal education, unable to speak English or French. At her refugee hearing, she was confused by the questions and gave unsatisfactory answers. She was found not credible and her claim was denied. The full story only came out after the hearing. Marie had been gang-raped for three days in police detention in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The experience left her traumatized and terrified of people in authority. Her feelings of shame made her reluctant to discuss her experience of sexual violence. Marie was able to talk freely only after her lawyer had spent many hours gaining her trust. She had also by then begun counselling and had the support of a friend. Marie has applied for humanitarian and compassionate consideration and is waiting for a decision.

I would like to move to the subject that I'm bothered about in Bill C-11, which is the idea of the so-called safe country and unsafe country. By denying failed refugee claimants the ability for pre-removal risk assessment or humanitarian relief, we would be subjecting many refugees to potential danger, death, and other risks. Sweeping a problem under the rug for convenience is not the Canadian way. As Canadians we should never look for the easy way out. If Rashida or Noorunissa were sent back to India, they would have been subjected to possibly deadly violence, but definitely violence.

A so-called safe country may be safe indeed for the average Joe or Jane, but for the refugee claimant it isn't safe at all. Otherwise, they would not be applying as a refugee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

If you could conclude, we would appreciate it.

[Sohabe Hashmi]

Thank you. I'll try.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do your best.

[Sohabe Hashmi]

A safe country is safe for some people but not for others. A young woman by the name of Grise came from Mexico, which might be considered a democratic and safe country. But when she was denied and returned, she was shot in the head and kidnapped by the people she was fleeing. So I don't agree with the safe country aspect of Bill C-11.

I'll conclude with this. I would like to ask the committee if they have considered the many audits related to the refugee claimant process. They will help uncover inadequacies; mismanagement; failure and success; the academic information on this subject, particularly the recommendations of Professor Peter Showler; the valuable information and criticism from refugee councils and NGOs; and the failures of the U.K. refugee system, on which it seems you're trying to base the concept of safe and unsafe countries.

I conclude with that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Coderre is going to ask some questions now.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, gentlemen.

I'm trying to understand. You spoke about some personal or specific cases. You said that, like me, you don't believe in designated countries, because every case is specific. I'd like to know about your Chamber of Commerce. What's your mission? Are you providing legal advice? Are you helping? What's your role?

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

We don't do the legal advice, but we do the community help. When people come in and they don't have any information, we try to help them, to lead them to the legal help.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

There are many things in the bill. There is an appeal process in place. Like you, we believe that we should accelerate some of the process. It can cause social problems, collateral damage. I hear you well when you speak about efficiencies. But what do you think of the principles in Bill C-11? What about the appeal process, the time allotted to prepare a case? Can I have your point of view on that?

[Sohabe Hashmi]

I believe the bill should focus more on a good first decision. The right to appeal should not be taken from people who are deemed to be from a safe country. I don't have answers on the entire bill, but I was really distraught about that. I can elaborate if you want.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes, please go on.

[Sohabe Hashmi]

Where it seems to me we're basing this on the U.K. system, there is a problem. I have a lot of information.

One thing I found appalling in Bill C-11 was that there would be no opportunity to consider the best interests of refugee claimant children, which is required by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. There was a case where the IRB found three Mexican children who were orphaned because their parents were killed, and under the definition of refugee they were denied. If they were not given humanitarian or compassionate application or appeal, they would be returned to the scene of their parents.

It's very important to allow a better appeal process, with people who have good knowledge, qualified people, so we don't have to go through numerous appeals. In the case we described right now, they went through several appeals. Why not have a good decision in the beginning?

There are lots of criticisms.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So the bottom line is that you want the process to be accelerated. You believe in appeal, but the fact is, because it's not in our own interest and it's not a Canadian value to say that by providing a designated safe country, we will put aside the fact that every case should be specific.... Do I hear you well?

[Sohabe Hashmi]

I agree, but speeding it up has to be on a case-by-case basis. If we do things more efficiently and if we make better first decisions, we can reduce quite a bit of time. Seven years to due process that case...if they made a decision in three or four months at the end, why couldn't that decision have been made at the beginning?

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

It's not speeding it up. Sometimes I have a case where they need time because a country won't issue a divorce certificate and the lady was supposed to go back. It's country to country and document to document, and each person has an unusual case. It's not just speeding it up; it's being more efficient and trying to handle their case in a more systematic and efficient way.

If we start dealing the way we're dealing with refugee cases at the board, most likely a lot of people will be t in jail and they will be given the wrong decision. That is the problem here. I have known many cases where we find that; it is very unfair. I know of another case going on right now where the person was a refugee, but he got married. After getting married and having a kid...why is he waiting for three years to get immigration?

The problem is the process and efficiency. Sometimes you might need more time because refugees need more time to get their documents.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You talked about opinions and the need to be efficient. What do you mean by being more efficient? Do you feel there are not enough skills? Is there a lack of competence?

[Dr. Shahid Hashmi]

Lack of confidence.... I mentioned in my report that one officer made a bold decision on a humanitarian basis and the refugee was declined. That officer may not have had enough knowledge or qualifications. I think in those cases that decision comes from the judge. That's what I've seen in the last 35 years. Lots of decisions are made....

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Hashmi, let's say you have the first instance on the front line, and the person will say whether you are a refugee in good standing or not. If it's not, you go through the IRB. The IRB will be the appeal board, but after that, that's it.

You want to make sure that the people we are picking to be those individuals to deal with those cases will provide the proper knowledge. Do you feel we don't have that right now?

[Sohabe Hashmi]

I feel that way, and I have some audits that I can provide at a later date. The people who are handling these cases need to be trained and qualified. These are like court cases, akin to a murder charge or something very serious. One audit I have—I don't have it handy—shows that people are not properly trained or qualified, and there's a high turnover of officials.