Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 27th, 2010

[Sylvain Thibault, Coordinator, Projet Refuge Program, Montreal City Mission]

I am pleased to be making our presentation alongside a representative from Romero House, one of our partners in Toronto.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today representing the Montreal City Mission, which is now celebrating its 100^th year of assisting refugees from all walks of life.

We want to thank you for the opportunity to share with you our opinion on Bill C-11 today. I head the Project Refuge program, a specialized residence for men and unaccompanied minors in need of international protection.

Our mandate is to provide specialized psychosocial services to the most vulnerable asylum seekers. So I see first-hand the immense vulnerability of individuals who have lost all their points of reference after suffering repeated persecution.

The clients we serve often bear deep psychological scars. And those painful scars influence their thoughts and actions, as well as their ability to recollect the events tied to their persecution.

When clients come to us, workers put mechanisms in place to help foster strength and resilience. Those mechanisms will allow the person to recount their situation in a climate of trust, without being afraid of further traumatization. Given our first-hand experience with these clients, we are especially concerned about certain aspects of Bill C-11, more specifically, the information-gathering interview within eight days of the asylum claim being received, an interview which is conducted by an IRB official.

We are very concerned about the ability of our residents to attend the interview under the best psychological and physical conditions possible. You and I both know that any statement made at any level in a refugee claim case can have a dramatic impact. In some cases, someone could be sent back to their country of origin to endure further persecution, torture or even death, if their claim is denied.

It is our belief that vulnerable individuals need more time to regain their strength so as to be able to more clearly articulate what they endured in their home country. For many of them, the persecution has to do with a particular aspect of themselves or even an alleged aspect. That kind of persecution leaves a permanent psychological mark, as you would no doubt agree.

The first few days after arrival are very hard for most individuals. We even see people who are incapable of giving coherent answers to the simplest questions. The goal of organized violence is to put people in a constant state of fear and to destroy their trust in others. And that inevitably leads to a fear of authority figures. Many of them experience mood swings and intense fits of anger as a direct result of the violence they endured. Some even have suicidal thoughts in the first few days or weeks.

Cut off from their social and spiritual networks, and finding themselves in a climate of hostility, where they are forced to recount what they have experienced, some of these individuals will ease their pain by going into denial and disassociating themselves from reality. They are referred for medical care and receive medication, as well as all the side effects that go along with that.

I am here with Kemoko, who agreed to represent our residents. In the past 20 years, more than a thousand people have come through our doors. I asked him if he would have been ready for an information-gathering interview with an immigration official eight days after arriving. I will let Kemoko answer that.

[Kemoko Kamara, Volunteer, Montreal City Mission]

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

I do not have much time, but I will do my best. I am very honoured, as a refugee, to appear before you today to speak to the importance of the motion on the initial interview that seeks to replace the 28-day period with an 8-day period.

Based on my personal experience, I will describe the barriers that would have prevented me from being ready for that interview. I came to Canada with physical and psychological wounds, as you can see, as a result of violence in my home country.

First and foremost, I needed psychological support to learn how to accept things I could not change and be able to speak about my experiences. In that sense, it would have been nearly impossible for me to have been forced to talk about what I experienced immediately after arriving in Canada.

The legitimate legal obligation to recount my story aside, remembering and recounting what I experienced is not something I enjoy doing. These new legal realities are basically a burden. They were for me and only added to the existing burdens of my daily life. I needed to build a certain amount of confidence in myself and others.

Furthermore, Canada was a new land to me, a new place to learn and understand. When I arrived, I experienced intense culture shock, characterized by what I saw, what I heard and what surrounded me. Almost immediately, I wanted to learn how my new neighbours thought and to fit in. That desire become a sort of healing balm in helping me recover from my violent past.

Depriving me of the opportunity to heal my psychological wounds by forcing me to focus on an interview within eight days of arriving would not have helped my recovery.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Kamara, you have one minute left.

[Kemoko Kamara]

Thank you.

Being immersed in a new reality was worrisome enough, without having to worry about something else. In addition, because of how I looked, when I got here, wherever I went, including the hospital, I was told that I needed medication. People thought I had emotional problems. I was given medications that put me in a terrible state. I had to stop taking most of them.

The eight-day time frame would have been a problem for me. Even now, I am not ready. I am in the process of learning how Canada's immigration system works and integrating into society. Maison Haidar provided support to not only me, but also my lawyer.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are many things I could tell you to make you understand that eight days is really not enough. I am just one person, but a lot of refugees will tell you that eight days is not enough for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sir, I expect the members of the committee will ask you some questions. You'll have some more time to speak.

We have a third witness, who is from Calgary, the Calgary Catholic Immigration Society. It says here Antoinette Godbout.

Is that you? You don't look like Antoinette.

[Rob Bray, Manager, Family and Children Services, Special Projects, Calgary Catholic Immigration Society]

No, I'm standing in for her. She had an emergency in her family.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right. She's the refugee sponsorship coordinator. Perhaps, sir, you could identify yourself to the committee.

[Rob Bray]

My name is Rob Bray. I actually appeared before this committee before, a couple of years ago. I'm the manager of family and children services at the Calgary Catholic Immigration Society, which is one of the largest immigrant-serving agencies in Canada. I've been working in the field of immigrant and refugee settlement for 24 years now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. Well, I want to thank you for coming. We're going to give you up to seven minutes to make a presentation to the committee, sir. You don't have to take the full seven minutes.

[Rob Bray]

I'm not going to. I don't really have a lot to say. To be more accurate, I have a great deal to say, but you've already heard it before, because you've had submissions from UNHCR, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and Amnesty International. I pretty much would echo all of that, so I'm not going to go into that in a lot of detail.

I wanted to begin with something that's a little bit off topic, and that's just to say how delighted we are that Immigration has decided to increase the number of both privately sponsored refugees and government-sponsored refugees. Antoinette asked me to pass that particular message on.

In terms of this particular bill, you've heard all the various issues in it. From my point of view, it's a mixed bag. There's some really good stuff in it and there's some stuff I may have some problems with.

In terms of the refugee claimant processing times, those are really good. Considering the situation now, with people having their life on hold for 18 months or longer, it's really nice to see that go through.

I'm a little bit less worried about the eight-day initial interview. I'm more worried about the two months for an IRB hearing. I have cases right now. I have a Tamil guy who needs to get some ID documents, and he doesn't even know if his family is alive, let alone if he can get in contact with them. I have another guy from the Congo in a similar kind of situation. I suspect we may have the situation that the two months keeps getting extended and extended anyway. I don't know if we really need to make it a hard limit. If we do, maybe we need to make it a little bit longer.

The other issue I have is with the speed-up. The problem right now, generally, with all areas of immigration, not just refugee determination but government processing, private processing, and general immigration issues, is that the overall system is under-resourced. If we're going to be able to meet the kinds of goals being set out in this bill, we're going to have spend a lot of money. We're going to have to hire an awful lot more officers and IRB members and clerks and everything else. You can't really set the goals unless you're willing to put the resources into it. To date—and this is nothing new, it's been like this for 20 years—a lot of the problems in the system are not because of structural issues in the system but simply because the system is really under-resourced.

The other major issue I have is with the safe country list. My issue with that is not so much that there are safe countries or there aren't safe countries. The problem I have with a safe country list is that it's going to become politicized and become part of the diplomatic relations Canada has. The act of taking a country off the list or putting a country onto the list is going to involve an awful lot more than just simple refugee realities. I think it's going to be a process we're going to get ourselves into deep trouble with.

One of the really good things about this bill, which I really celebrate, is the introduction of the refugee appeal division, and not just that it's coming in, but that it's coming in strengthened. I think that is a really good move. I think it's really important, and I'm really happy to see that.

The last point I want to make is about the limits being imposed around humanitarian and compassionate appeals and pre-removal risk assessments. I have some problems with those. In any case, I'm not a lawyer, but from what I know of the Singh decision and the case law, I would think the first time those are brought up in court they're not going to be tolerated.

As I said, it's a mixed bag. There's some really good stuff in there. Anything we can do to speed up the system would be really good. I think one of the things we have to remember is that currently 40% to 50% of the people making refugee claims are in fact refugees. These are people who are going to become Canadians, and if we're putting them through this limbo or this hell for 18 months or longer before that happens, we're not exactly getting them off to a good start in Canada. I work in Family and Children Services, and I'm pretty concerned, particularly about some of the children of refugee claimants. Their entitlements are very limited.

Incidentally, I should point out that here in Calgary, for years there were tiny numbers of refugee claims. Starting two years ago, and then especially last year and right now, the numbers have gone way up. My agency is pretty much the only agency that's serving refugee claimants here in Calgary, which is why I'm here.

Anyway, that's really all I have to say. I didn't have a prepared statement because I was asked to come here only this morning.

Do you have any questions?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There may be, sir, but for coming in at the last minute, you've done very well.

[Rob Bray]

Well, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

We're going to have Mr. Coderre from the Liberal Party ask you some questions. They could be to all of you.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

There will be questions for everyone. I am going to share my time with my colleague, Alexandra Mendes.

I would like to say, by the way, that I think the whole issue of designated countries is a growing problem that needs to be addressed. I am on the side of those who believe that every case is unique and that generalizing would give rise to other problems. In any case, we will discuss it when we do the clause-by-clause study.

I want to start by thanking the representatives from the Montreal City Mission. You came here to speak to us about a very specific and important issue. We have to move more quickly, but that does not mean rushing things along so much that we miss the boat. I want to talk in more specific terms. I can appreciate that, in cases such as Mr. Kamara's, a period of eight days is really not long enough, because the claimant needs rehabilitation in order to be able to put the pieces together, adequate support, and proof that they are no longer in danger and will be taken care of. That is why I said each case is unique, and we cannot make generalizations.

We are talking about eight days. Let's suppose we make the period longer, two or three weeks. Without referring to Mr. Kamara's case, do you see that as an acceptable amendment, Mr. Thibault? You prepared the appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Two months is too short. Something needs to be done—I do not know, perhaps it should be 90 days. By the same token, if we want to help the person, we need to welcome them quickly.

What do you think the range should be? If we said 15 days instead of 8, would that be satisfactory?

[Sylvain Thibault]

In my view, with the bill, we are talking about two extremes. The average is currently 18 months, which is incredibly long. I see the toll those 18 months take on the people we follow and who stay in contact with us. The impact is quite dramatic. Some people become deeply depressed because they do not have access to family reunification, among other things. Nor do they have access to the full range of services, and that goes on for 18 months. I know someone who came here at 17 and who is now 21. He was an unaccompanied minor. To this day, he has still not appeared before a board member. In my opinion, that is unacceptable.

I also think holding an initial information-gathering interview within eight days is unacceptable. I work in a specialized residence for vulnerable asylum seekers. Not everyone has access to our services, not everyone is referred to the Project Refuge program. Our clients have been assessed by a local community service centre in Montreal, through PRAIDA, a program which refers them to us because it has been determined that they may be more vulnerable than most asylum seekers.

Establishing an eight-day rule will, in my opinion, hurt the group of people I am in charge of helping.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

It is in the regulations, not the act. That means there is some room for flexibility. Therefore, we could say that we are going to increase the average in all cases, but since you deal with a specific reality, we could make a specific regulation. For example, we could determine that a doctor or professional could tell us when a person's case is important and nothing can really be done. We need to establish some parameters and a certain degree of flexibility. That approach would respect the fact that every case is unique. It would give the refugee a chance instead of telling them that if they do not show up, they are out of luck.

Would that be acceptable, do you think?

[Sylvain Thibault]

I would like to say something before I come back to the question about the eight days. You mentioned the possibility of making an amendment that sets out a time frame of 15 days. You even said 20 days. Right now, people have to submit the Personal Information Form, or PIF, within 28 days. I think that works well for all refugee claimants. It worked well for Kemoko and all those in our residence. I am talking about those in the Project Refuge program, but the same goes for Romero House and another shelter for women in Montreal. I think that is reasonable because it is also a matter of identification documents and so forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Bray keeps waving his hand.

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

Yes, and I actually was going to ask questions of Mr. Bray.

[Rob Bray]

Can I speak to this?

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

Yes. I was going to complete, but okay, go ahead, Mr. Bray.

[Rob Bray]

The time limit is one thing. The more important thing is access to counsel or advice of some kind. I know from drawing up those personal information forms that refugee claimants doing them on their own very frequently get into trouble. If we have eight days, if there can be competent counsel—a paralegal, even—to work with the claimant to have them understand what they should put in, what they're going to be asked, what the required information is, basically a cultural context of what's going to happen...I don't know if you can do that within eight days. I mean, there are weekends, long weekends, and things like that, so I think the eight days is not reasonable. Sixteen would be better, 21 would be better yet, because you really have to have time to understand the process you're going to be going through.

The other thing is, I don't know enough yet about the nature of this interview, what kinds of things they're going to be asked, what the admissibility of whatever is said actually amounts to. We need a lot more information before we can really pass judgment on it.

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

Mr. Bray, I don't want to interrupt you unduly, but I do want to ask some other questions, and I'm limited. I have one question to ask. I was going to ask you about the humanitarian and compassionate clause that is being disputed in this bill, or actually reviewed, I think, in a negative way. How would you advise us to proceed with the humanitarian and compassionate considerations?

[Rob Bray]

That's a bit beyond my competence.

The humanitarian and compassionate grounds feature is an extremely important safety feature in the system. The definition of a refugee is very narrow, and you get people from situations who really have very good grounds to fear for their lives but don't necessarily meet the definition. We should keep the H and C. If we do, fear needs to be included in it, because we do need to be able to save people. We don't need another Mexican woman getting shot after being turned down for a claim, even though there was fairly good evidence that she was in danger if she was returned. And then limiting access to it for people from safe countries, which I believe is in the bill, makes no sense at all because it's precisely the people coming from these presumably safe countries—

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

Thank you for your answer.

I just want to confirm in French—I'll be two seconds.