Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 9th, 2010

[Peter MacDougall]

Sorry, could you repeat that, sir?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'm in favour of speeding things up. The important thing in this act, in my opinion, is for everyone to have the right to appeal and for everyone to be entitled to something that is fair. If we get the impression that the process isn't fair, people may be pleased that the act is passed, but, in five years, we'll be dealing with the problem created by the interpretation of what a designated country is and what a safe country is.

If Bill C-11 isn't adopted, will an immigration minister or government have the opportunity to designate a country?

[Peter MacDougall]

No.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Consequently, this is a new feature, isn't it?

What proves to me that a person, even if that person has a right of appeal—that's what I understand. You're saying that we now have safe countries or designated countries and that everyone has a right to appeal.

What's the point in granting a right of appeal for everyone if there are designated countries?

[Peter MacDougall]

As I said, there will be accelerated processing. There is still a consequence, if you like, of being from a designated country, a safe country.

In the first instance you will have a faster refugee protection hearing; we'll be processing you faster at the front end. With the safe country of origin you'll be getting a Refugee Appeal Division hearing 30 days after your notice of appeal, compared to 120 days for someone who is not from a designated country of origin. It's accelerated processing for safe countries of origin, the same access to an appeal as everyone else.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Let's the take the case of a homosexual who comes from a safe country. He is a homosexual, but since he comes from a safe country, that person's file will be handled more quickly than if he came from another country. Is that what this means?

[Peter MacDougall]

Will his case be heard more quickly if he's from a safe country?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Well, that's what you're saying. You would expedite it because--

[Peter MacDougall]

Yes, we expedite it because he's from a safe country; however, there is also a provision in clause 12 to designate groups of people as unsafe.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'm not moved by editorials. It doesn't bother me when an editorialist tries to define the national interest. As a legislator, I want to make sure that we'll ultimately have the best possible act and that it can protect every individual. This is a principle or a value: We have to protect every individual. That's fundamental.

People will have their press scrum afterwards. As a former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and as a Canadian and Quebecker, I want to make sure that we implement the principle that every individual is entitled to a chance and a hearing, and that it isn't because a person comes from a particular country that he or she will be "screwed"—pardon that expression; I don't know how it will be translated.

This is important for me; it's fundamental. Personally, I'm ready to give everything, and that's no problem for me. We can deal with the time and all that; the regulation can completely change. Ultimately, we have to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and sleep well at night. We all talked to the representatives of the Canadian Council for Refugees, and we all talked to everyone. I want to be sure that when Ms. X comes to Canada, she'll be treated fairly.

As of now, will we be completely changing the situation, intrinsically? As of now, every case will no longer be individual because we've said that certain individuals were coming from a country. I'm asking you to reassure me; that's all I'm asking.

If a woman who doesn't want to be sexually mutilated is from a country that is suppose to be safe, will she have as much of an opportunity as if she was from another country that does not appear on the list? What about a battered woman? What about a homosexual who wants to come to Canada because it's a tolerant country and a free country and whose only crime—because it's a crime in 72 countries—is to love someone of his own gender? Will that person get the same chance if we interpret the act?

[Peter MacDougall]

I don't know how you could come to the conclusion that each case is not individually assessed. It is--

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'm just asking a question, Peter. I just want to know.

[Peter MacDougall]

Yes, and I'll answer.

It is currently, it will be, and if BQ-5.1 is adopted everyone will get access to an appeal on an individual basis.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

In your view, even if there are designated countries, since every person has a right to an appeal, every case will be handled as an individual case.

[Peter MacDougall]

At the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So that's what that means. That's good.

In that case, if everyone has a right to an appeal, do we really need designated countries? All we need would be regulations to expedite the processing of cases based on situations rather than countries.

[Peter MacDougall]

With BQ 5.01 and BQ 5.1 we'll have two tools to accelerate processing. One is based on a country of origin accelerated processing. The other is done on an individual basis: as the case is found to be manifestly unfounded, that's another way to accelerate it.

So we will have two complementary tools to accelerate processing.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Further debate?

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Coderre has asked some very relevant questions, and this concerns my amendment, I feel the need to respond.

First of all, with regard to the designation of countries, I relied on the work that was done by the Liberal critic, Mr. Bevilacqua, to ensure that there were a number of signposts to prevent the government from putting too many countries on the list.

I also would have preferred the term "designated countries" over "safe countries" because it's a more neutral term, with fewer implications of a diplomatic or international political nature, since a country would probably want to have that recognition.

With regard to the acceleration mechanism, you know I have often put questions about this to various stakeholders. Most people agree that it would be highly acceptable to have acceleration mechanisms for dubious cases or for which we would like to have a quicker decision. That moreover is the formal position of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which says it is in favour of a list of designated countries if it's for procedural purposes, not to strip people of rights.

I believe that, taken together, these two amendments will help achieve all objectives, and I hope I have the committee's support.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, as you know, the lack of an appeal is the area that caused me the most grief. For a long time the New Democrats thought that every applicant should have the right to appeal. I'm glad we see the Refugee Appeal Division will be created in this bill. Until this amendment, the last few words of the clause said they may not have the power to appeal.

The motion in front of us removes that, which means that every individual, no matter which country they are from, will have a full-fledged hearing, and they will not be treated differently from anybody else. They will also have a complete appeal to officers who are trained to hear their cases. That gives me comfort that these claimants, whether they are gay or lesbian in so-called safe countries or people leaving honour killings, etc., will have the full protection as a refugee claimant under the law. The only difference is they will have the Refugee Appeal Division hearing a bit faster than those who are not, and that doesn't trouble me that much. If they fail on these two grounds, I can't see any reason why they should have.... If they then apply to the Federal Court, I can't see why we should stop the deportation during the application. So I'm okay with that, because they have full hearings and full appeals.

There is a series of motions I might as well talk about that I had already introduced--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'd rather you waited until later on.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Okay, I'll wait. I was trying to save some time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Coderre.