Evidence of meeting #21 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 process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you very much.
There are now going to be questions from some of the committee members to all of you. The first person is Monsieur Coderre.
Monsieur Coderre, you have the floor.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for coming here today.
It is true that this bill is extremely important because, first of all, we are talking about individuals and, secondly, the decisions we make today will have an impact on the next five to six years, even though the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has regulatory power to do things.
I would like to thank the Centre justice et foi for its wonderful proposals.
I would like to put things into perspective. I am in favour of setting up an appeal process. I have no objection to public servants being on the frontline, providing they are well trained and claimants are entitled to make a solid appeal if they are turned down.
What is problematic is this list of designated countries. This is not the Agreement on Safe Third Countries. I have already negotiated such an agreement, that is an entirely different matter. That pertains to geographic location, and it is tied to the American reality post-September 11.
You have met many victims and refugees, and therefore I would like you to talk about how these people feel. For example, how would people feel if they were singled out because they came from one country rather than another?
We hear that in Mexico the situation is good because this should be a safe country given that 90% of the claims are turned down. And yet, this country has problems with narcotraffickers, violence against women, same-sex couples, homosexuals, who are persecuted.
I would like you to tell us briefly how these people would feel, and what their frame of mind would be like. Would they feel that they were refugees or second-class refugee claimants?
Go ahead, Ms. Garant or Ms. Dionne.
6:30 p.m.
Director, Centre justice et foi
I will give you a quick response. I think that you have put your finger on one of the fundamental elements of the bill and the problems it may raise. With its list of designated countries, this bill might close the door to the most vulnerable people from a wide range of countries. That is why we are recommending that there be no designated country.
The Mexican example is a particularly good one. I believe that a number of you met with Luis Arriaga a few weeks ago. He is the director of the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Centre, and he spoke about how various groups of people could not receive protection in many regions of Mexico, and that it is wrong to say that if they were to move from one place to another...
For example, if we were to tell women or same-sex couples that their applications would be turned down at the first level and that they would not be eligible for a second hearing, then that would fundamentally alter the process by which claims can be made and processed on an individual basis. We must respect the international convention, which calls on countries to process individual applications, and not base decisions on a group, category or country of origin, which would fundamentally alter the process.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I will not disagree with you on that. That is fine.
Mr. Mooney, if I am right, you were working for the CIC once. Have you been working with Citizenship and Immigration Canada before?
6:30 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
No, I was never with Citizenship and Immigration.
6:30 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
My colleague was.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
6:30 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
Immigration is based on an application by an individual. So every single case, whether it is for refugee status, work permits, has to be considered on its individual right. I know of no process in Immigration where there are group immigration documents issued.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Do we believe, then, that the best way to control the flow of eventual bogus refugee seekers would be to apply a policy like we're doing, and like I was doing in the past, a visa, instead of having a country that you designate as, “By the way, don't worry, it's safe there”?
6:35 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
Our opinion of safe country is that you may designate a safe country but it shouldn't be an absolute designation, that within any country there could be reasons and there could be populations at risk. The designation of safe country should be an indicator to a reviewing officer that a political claim for asylum by someone from the United Kingdom, for example, would simply be spurious, whereas a claim by an individual from the United Kingdom who might be the spouse of a police officer and who claims to be battered wouldn't be spurious.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
My point is that why bother putting a label on a country if every case is specific? We could put more resources into the RAD, the refugee appeal division. I believe in the RAD, though we didn't apply it for all the reasons mentioned, but I think they have been doing a good job there. So I would accept appeals to the RAD, but why bother saying this or that country is safe when we know there might be some cases that are truly specific? Why shouldn't we focus on putting more emphasis on an appeal board, on the humanitarian level versus the refugee level?
I believe in having an extension, like you. Eight days is way too short. Maybe it should not be 30 days, but maybe 15 days. I don't mind. But at least we need a timeframe that's suitable, because every case is specific and we all know about the psychological trauma and many issues there.
So if we want to be more efficient, don't you think that instead of putting a label on a country, it would be more efficient to go through the process with resources?
6:35 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
What our experience tells us is that many of the bogus refugee claims that are filed are literally carbon copies of each other. These types of claims usually involve some form of political persecution in countries where there is no political persecution.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Yes, but you and I agree that the victims are not those vultures, the so-called immigration consultants, for example, or lawyers, if you want, for the sake of your speech.
But we have to consider people in a respectful way and not say they are bogus. It may be that they didn't have any choices. If we have the proper process and go after the consultant instead of the so-called bogus refugees, maybe we'll have a better way.
6:35 p.m.
Past President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
My point is that in the system currently, a huge amount of time and energy are wasted by processing every application on an individual basis, when the basis for each application is the same as a hundred other refused applications. In other words, they're not real refugee claims.
So if you want to call this “safe country” or “better processing”, I suppose it's a question of linguistics.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
May 31st, 2010 / 6:35 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you for your presence.
Concerning the Centre justice et foi, I have gathered that you are opposed, as we are, to the principle of designated countries. In fact, the vast majority of witnesses who appeared before this committee have said that the principle was fundamentally unacceptable, that it was unacceptable that the rights of people would differ depending on their countries of origin. They said that that was particularly unacceptable.
However, a number of witnesses as well as some members around this table are trying to remedy that by putting forward specific criteria, consultations with expert panels and various terms and conditions. Do you believe that the issue of designated countries is a matter of process, or that this undermines a fundamental principle, and that regardless of how all this will be packaged, the issue will remain fundamentally unacceptable?
6:35 p.m.
Centre justice et foi
As we were saying earlier, it is a matter of discrimination, that is to say the factors that are used to decide that refugee claims would not be admissible because the individuals are from a given country, region or territory. The Geneva Convention has even been used to rule on the matters in Europe. We believe it would also be more difficult for women, for example, in cases of spousal abuse, to assert that they have been victims of repression if their country of origin has been designated.
Diplomacy will also come into play with those countries that would want to be included on the list because, if they were to be excluded, that would mean that Canada considers them to be problematic. Therefore, there would also be interference.
6:40 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
If an appeal division or process is established, there is an assumption that errors could be committed, which could lead to serious consequences. The government's proposal excludes from the appeal process countries in which the circumstances are not exactly clear and where, in most cases, people do not appear to be persecuted. However, I find that slightly paradoxical.
For example, take the case of a gay or lesbian from Iran. Everyone could quickly arrive at the conclusion that there is an actual risk that the person is a victim of persecution. If he or she were from Poland, things would not be as clear.
Finally, the government is withdrawing the right of appeal in situations where things are less clear and where, in my view, the risk of error is greater. Do you share that analysis, i.e., that it is rather paradoxical to withdraw the right of appeal from people whose cases will be the most difficult to ascertain?
6:40 p.m.
Centre justice et foi
Yes, we totally agree with that. We share your point of view.
6:40 p.m.
Director, Centre justice et foi
I must stress that each refugee claim must be given an in-depth review. It is inherent in the refugee process that the specific facts of each individual case be reviewed.
As it stands, the bill denies people's fundamental right to apply for refugee status. In the IRPA, there are provisions to establish an appeal division, which has often been criticized because it did not allow for a fair and balanced determination process. And now we have a bill that basically does not resolve anything.
A great number of countries, and therefore some of the most vulnerable people, will be deprived of the fundamental right to appeal decisions, which will have been made by a single person. I cannot tell you how many times we have analyzed and denounced the fact that decisions made by a single person are far riskier when they cannot be reviewed. If we exclude a great number of countries, and therefore claimants, as part of the reform of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, then we are effecting a fundamental change.
6:40 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
There have also been many discussions concerning the timeframes. In its original bill, for example, the government had provided for a maximum of eight days for the interview. A number of witnesses who appeared before the committee said that the 28-day period was quite appropriate. Why not keep that period for the initial interview? Others have talked about 15 or 20 days.
Should we at least ensure that the current 28-day period is maintained? Would it be feasible to shorten that timeframe? What are your thoughts on that?
6:40 p.m.
Centre justice et foi
In my view, we must always give people a chance. We have to allow refugee claimants to get their bearings, if you will. We tend to forget that these are often people who have experienced traumatic events. We have to allow them to gather the documents they need to build their case, meet with their consultants and get a good understanding of Canada's refugee system. That all takes time. People can come from different cultures, different political systems and different societies. All that takes more than eight days. That is impossible, even in the best of cases. People need more time to properly understand the process they are moving through.
6:40 p.m.
Director, Centre justice et foi
In the case previously mentioned, i.e., in the United Kingdom, the all-too-brief timeframes have been challenged before the courts, since they did not allow for the proper scrutiny of claims. Why should we adopt processes here that did not work elsewhere, in other countries?
It is simply impossible to think that people can gather the required documents within eight days. They must be given the time to collect and process the information. In any event, cases will have to be postponed. Let us be clear. This proposal of the bill rests on a mistaken assumption.
Why is there such a significant backlog? It is because there are not enough people to process claims, and not because the timeframes are too long. There have not been enough board members to adequately process claims. Let us not shift the source of the problem and create new ones.