Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 27th, 2010

[Dogan Dogan]

Thank you.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I'd like to ask a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Wait a minute now. You just said you were going to give him your time.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I have a point of order, a point of personal privilege. Would Mrs. Wong explain why she said “not surprisingly” when I said “about Turkey”? Can she please explain that?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Karygiannis, I didn't hear what she said. Are you going to let these people continue or not?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I think the member would like to—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I didn't hear what she said, so it's not a valid point of order.

Mr. Dogan, continue with your presentation.

Mr. Young, we're going to finish.

Mr. Dogan, you go right ahead and finish your presentation.

[Dogan Dogan]

Thank you, sir.

To continue with my appeal here about the safe country of origin, we believe the objective should be to prevent the problem of unfounded refugee claims before they are filed, by developing a pre-screening procedure. Safe country designation is simply not a solution. We believe that each applicant should be given equal right to access the law and be treated equally, regardless of the country of origin.

On the refugee appeal division, if an asylum claim is denied, most clients will be eligible to appeal the decision to the new refugee appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Appeals will be decided by the governing council appointees at the Immigration and Refugee Board. This appeal will review the original decision and in certain cases any new evidence. Since the time to prepare for the information-gathering interview and for the hearing is so short, the refugee appeal division must review all documentation from the original hearing and must hear any new evidence the applicant has to present. It must not be just for certain cases but for all cases.

We agree that the new measures that will amend the existing system must be fast and cost-effective. However, they must be fair. Pre-removal risk assessments may be crucial and very important for some applicants whose cases are rejected, but this clause may overwhelm the current system and cost more for taxpayers. That is not a well-designed solution.

Thank you, sir. I especially appreciate your giving us extra time.

Thank you, committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Pinarbasi, did you want to say something?

[Huseyin Pinarbasi]

[Witness speaks in Turkish]

[Dogan Dogan]

Mr. Pinarbasi would like to answer any questions you have, but he is not going to say anything right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

You have a little less than five minutes, Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Can you please describe for us and give us some examples of how traumatized the people you've been working with are?

Would the eight days that my colleagues are boasting so much about be enough time for people to gather information? Would they be able to collect the information from your country of origin, Turkey, and be able to bring it in front of an individual in order to have their first hearing and to give their first evidence? Would eight days be enough?

Do you have trouble getting information from a country that's aspiring to join the EU?

[Dogan Dogan]

Mr. Karygiannis, I appreciate the question. I certainly believe that eight days is not enough for any person who left the country I have described and fled to Canada, a safe haven, where they would find a peaceful place to live.

I want to give an example to illustrate this again. Consider a person who doesn't know how to swim in the ocean but tries to reach the shores. They are rescued by somebody, so they reach the shores. Is it fair then to ask this person within seconds of their being rescued to explain their ordeal? This example shows the same thing. You are asking someone fleeing a country, where there is extreme oppression and no normal human rights conditions are being recognized, to prepare everything they have been through within eight days. I believe this is simply not possible with the examples that we face.

I've seen a gentleman who arrived a few days ago. He doesn't trust anybody enough to say anything. He wouldn't even tell me what work he had done. I was surprised. How would this person be able to explain what he has been through within eight days? This is simply not justifiable.

Thank you.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

I was wondering if I could ask Ms. Jordan the following couple of questions. There are different countries that people of the lesbian and/or homosexual preference are coming from, and in Europe there are countries that could be designated as safe countries of origin. Do you know of any countries in the European Union where people have been bashed, called names, or feared for their lives? We've been hearing from current and previous officials that people within Europe move from country to country. Are there any concerns that your organization has?

[Sharalyn Jordan]

Certainly. We have a claimant now from Poland who was hospitalized after being assaulted. Police were present at the time he was being assaulted and stood by and watched. This continues to go on in countries that are members of the EU. We don't see a lot of claimants from these countries, because they can seek refuge in EU countries, but the notion of a designated safe country is highly problematic for LGBT people. It simply does not exist. The experience of each person, with regard to their vulnerability or safety in a country, is different.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

When a previous official today was asked how many countries are using this safe country or origin designation, he said there are about 15.

Travelling through Europe, if you arrive in Heathrow, there's a sign that says, “If you're going to claim refugee status, you must do it immediately.” We're almost moving in that direction. You have to do it within eight days.

I'm wondering if you can share with us some of the experiences of the people who have come from Europe, or from other countries, and the difficulties they face in coming up and saying, “You know what? I am a homosexual, I am a lesbian.” It's the shame they feel.

[Sharalyn Jordan]

Absolutely.

It's important to recognize the impacts of persecution and the impacts of being told that your identity makes you mentally ill or evil or a sinner. Those are profoundly silencing and shaming.

It's also important to recognize that people tend to experience homophobic and transphobic persecution in their most intimate relationships--in their families and their schools--and then also with officials. So the shame and the fear are deeply entrenched.

I have seen people take months to be able to work up the nerve to say “I am gay” or “I am lesbian” out loud, let alone out loud to an official in a government building.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Jordan.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

I would add that not that long ago, schools in Quebec were running campaigns to encourage young people to say if they were gay or a lesbian. In our nation's schools, still today, some people are reluctant to say it and can feel rejected if they do. I would imagine that the situation is worse in other countries.

I have to say that your presentation was very thorough. It is not easy to come up with questions, as you covered nearly every aspect of the bill. Nevertheless, I would like to hear your thoughts on something in particular, first you and then Mr. Dogan. What happens when the process is over and the person has lost? Certain things can happen after the person's case is rejected and before they are removed from Canada. The current process includes a pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA, which is designed to deal with that kind of situation.

Almost everyone agrees, however, that this mechanism does not work very well, that it is not very effective. A number of groups, including the CCR, have told the committee that the measure could be abandoned if there were another mechanism to allow claimants whose case had been rejected to apply to the Refugee Appeal Division to have their case reopened when the situation changed in their home country. The case would not be reopened automatically; it would happen only in rare cases. The person would have to prove that the situation had changed significantly in their home country, so much so that it could conceivably result in a different decision.

Would you agree with putting a mechanism of that sort in place? If not, what would your solution be?

[Sharalyn Jordan]

I think this mechanism is an important one for members of our community for precisely the reason you mentioned. Situations on the ground with regard to homophobic and transphobic persecution are changing. We are seeing a backlash such that as groups organize and ask for rights, the level of violence is increasing. Countries that may be moving towards greater rights and safety for LGBT persons could change, so it is very important that there be the option for them to reopen a case in those circumstances.

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

Mr. Dogan?

[Dogan Dogan]

Laws in Canada allow any refugee claimant, after their case has been rejected, to choose other avenues of appeal to the system, and perhaps some of them use this time to stay longer. However, it is justifiable that some of these cases are incorrectly concluded and well-deserving cases may be rejected as well. So these individuals go through a lengthy process.

We understand that reforming and producing new tools to decrease this time is legitimate. However, I suggest that a pre-screening system is produced first to eliminate bogus claimants arriving here. After individuals--

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

I will stop you there, Mr. Dogan, since my question was not really about the appeal itself.

People may lose their appeal, because they are not considered a refugee at the time the decision is made. But after that decision is made and before the person is removed from the country, the situation in their home country may change. The individual could, from that point on, be considered a refugee.

The current bill does not include any mechanism to allow those people to request that their case be reopened. Would you be in favour of the committee seeking an amendment to the bill to include such a mechanism? The mechanism would be used in rare cases where the situation in the claimant's home country had changed so much that it would be reasonable to think that a different decision would be made.

[Dogan Dogan]

I certainly agree with that, sir. Is it fair to allow a human being who believed that his case has not been proven due to the fact that maybe he was unable to gather enough support...? So if changing the country of origin to allow these persons' cases to be more valid...that system should allow that person to re-open his case and live in this country without fear of persecution. Otherwise, if these people are being sent back home, their lives are not safe in any way.