Evidence of meeting #20 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was appeal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:15 p.m.
Rainbow Refugee Committee
The ministers argue that the safe list is needed to deal with sudden surges in unfounded claims. An alternative mechanism to deal with this issue would be to allow Canadian border services to designate a percentage of claims for expedited processing by the refugee board. This solution is in keeping with the position of the UNHCR, unlike denying access to an appeal.
As you undertake the important work of reforming the refugee system, I urge you to hold in your minds that in every refugee decision someone's life and safety are at stake. Lesbian, gay, bi, trans, and queer people have worked hard for their human rights in Canada. We value these deeply and we are keenly aware of the need to protect those whose safety and lives are at risk because of the most heinous versions of homophobia and transphobia. I hope you'll give weight to the perspectives of those of us who work closely with these refugees and create legislation that improves the system while protecting safety and lives.
8:15 p.m.
Research Analyst, Kurdish Community and Information Centre
I will start and if Mr. Pinarbasi would like to continue, he will take the next step.
Honourable members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, my name is Dogan Dogan. I am a Canadian citizen of Kurdish descent, a resident of Toronto, Ontario. I am currently working at the Kurdish Community and Information Centre, advising the president and the board of directors on issues concerning Kurds and their community. I hold a Masters of Science degree in International Economics and Finance from Brandeis University in Waltham, U.S.A., and an MBA degree from Suffolk University in Boston.
On behalf of the Toronto Kurdish Community and Information Centre, I am here with Mr. Huseyin Pinarbasi to speak about the Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act.
Canada is a member of the G-8. Its per capita GDP, living standards, health care system, educational system, not to mention—
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Dogan, I'm sorry to interrupt you. This is being translated into French and we need you to slow down a little bit.
8:15 p.m.
Research Analyst, Kurdish Community and Information Centre
Certainly. So rephrasing from the third paragraph, Canada is a member of the G-8. Its per capita GDP, living standards, health care system, educational system, not to mention its generous package for asylum seekers, and its human rights standing are highly regarded around the world. Consequently, it is a popular destination for asylum seekers, as well as being targeted by human smugglers and traffickers.
To live up to its moral obligation, as any other developed nation, Canada provides a safe home for refugee claimant applicants based on the UN convention on refugees under which those fleeing from persecution are accepted. Canada decides claims on the basis of the Geneva Convention of 1951, which defines a refugee as someone with “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion....”
It is fair to expect that some of the asylum and refugee claimant cases that arrive in Canada may be bogus and fabricated by transnational organized criminal elements. For this very reason, the government's objectives to fix the dysfunctional refugee determination system in order to discourage smugglers, human traffickers, and false asylum seekers who choose Canada as a country of destination may be reasonable and well regarded. However, as a non-profit organization that knows many refugees and asylum seekers, understands the issues facing many of them, and as well as tries to help some of them integrate into Canadian society during and after their cases are completed, we find it difficult to accept some of the solutions offered with proposed reforms.
On faster decisions, with the proposed reforms, individuals who are determined to be eligible to make an asylum claim would meet with a public servant at the Immigration and Refugee Board within eight days of being referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. The question will be then asked, is it fair to ask someone who is fleeing for their life, probably coming from a country where government officials are not trusted by the general population and often expect payments for a favourable decision, is probably not fluent in English or French, and does not understand the Canadian legal system, to be able, on their own, to meet with the public servant at an information-gathering interview within eight days of their arrival in Canada? Also, during this information-gathering interview the proposed reform requests that information on the claim will be collected properly and completed at a hearing scheduled before another public servant at the Immigration and Refugee Board within 60 days. The question will then be asked, is it fair to ask someone to prepare all documentation that the system expects and requires for a hearing within 60 days? Without a fair and strong pre-screening system to determine the validity of each case, we believe that this is simply not justifiable. These time limits must be extended in order to be fair to all refugees. Furthermore, it must comply with international human rights obligations.
On safe country of origin, while the comprehensive, long-term solution will be overhauling Canada's refugee system, the designation of a safe country solution may be morally disturbing. In order to share some of the cost for each refugee claimant or asylum seeker, Canada may enact necessary legislation that enables the government to unilaterally degrade certain countries as safe. And it may be true that these may discourage some of the racketeers who are flooding the Canadian shores with bogus refugees significantly.
However, all one has to do is listen to the nightly news to know that many countries, which have constitutions that ensure freedom of religion and other rights that Canadians take for granted, either ignore those rights or allow members of their societies to persecute individuals who are different. Therefore, we believe each case must be considered on its own merits. A safe country of origin for one person may not be a safe country of origin for another.
I want to give you an example to illustrate why the safe country of origin designation is questionable.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Dogan, I have a feeling you're going on for a long time. We have a time problem here. Do you expect to be much longer?
8:20 p.m.
Research Analyst, Kurdish Community and Information Centre
I will take the time for Mr. Huseyin Pinarbasi for this. Is that fair enough?
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I have a feeling the committee is prepared to let you go on a bit longer. Go ahead.
8:20 p.m.
Research Analyst, Kurdish Community and Information Centre
I appreciate that. You have slowed me down.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I know. I'm doing everything wrong. I'm going to try to improve my ways.
8:20 p.m.
Research Analyst, Kurdish Community and Information Centre
I will make this point and then conclude.
8:20 p.m.
Research Analyst, Kurdish Community and Information Centre
I want to give you an example to illustrate why the safe country of origin destination is questionable.
8:20 p.m.
Research Analyst, Kurdish Community and Information Centre
Consider the Republic of Turkey.
8:20 p.m.
Research Analyst, Kurdish Community and Information Centre
I am giving an example of the Republic of Turkey. Turkey wants to join the EU. It's part of the G-20, it wants to shape the world, it attempts to mediate between Israel and Syria, and it collaborates with Brazil to stop the world from confronting Iran for its ill-fated nuclear ambitions.
So the committee may consider Turkey a safe country. But this is a country where in the past quarter of a century almost all churches and temples of different faiths have been destroyed. Over 4,000 Kurdish villages have been destroyed. More than 17,000 extra-judicial killings have taken place. Over 2,500 politicians, elected representatives, mayors, and human rights activists have been jailed without due diligence. More than 400 Kurdish children have been killed by military police, one of them yesterday.
Approximately 3,000 Kurdish children ages 7 to 16 are currently in jail just because they have been in the demonstrations. So Turkey may be designated a safe country, but this standing does not make it safe. To consider it safe, this commission has to ignore reality and government must turn a blind eye to the facts.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I would like the witness to continue with the statement, and he can take my time. I'm especially interested in hearing what he has to say about Turkey. The western powers were trying to push Turkey—
8:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Karygiannis is giving you another seven minutes. Go right ahead and finish your presentation.