Evidence of meeting #33 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was refugees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Well, we agree on that point. The minister says he's open to ideas.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Okay. That's one.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
We'll find out whether or not he's actually open to amendments, because the Canada Border Services Agency is the group that said it has actually been working.
There are the irregular arrivals and then there's the safe country list. These are two new initiatives in which the minister himself wants to make those determinations. These are outside the safe country list that we passed just a couple years ago, where there was a consensus that there be an advisory group, and that this advisory group be the one that would recommend which countries would be put on the safe country list.
I'm wondering if you can provide a comment as to why it's important that decision-making not be left with the minister but with professionals, such as an advisory committee.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
In our view, I think we have always taken the position that it's dangerous to politicize too much this safe country list. An impartial advisory group that makes recommendations is a good idea. Why prevent the minister from getting good advice prior to making a decision?
It seems to me that it's reassuring to Canadians to know that indeed it's not because some country is putting pressure for commercial or other interests to be on or off the list. It really should be because there is independent advice that says indeed this is or isn't a safe country.
I think there are some dangers in having safe countries. We should not presume that all countries never persecute somebody. We are certainly happy that there could be some distinctions, but we have to remember that we cannot say that no country will ever persecute its own residents in the future. Indeed, one of the ideas internationally is that you are entitled to an individual assessment of whether or not your claim is valid. Again, that's very compatible with what Canada is all about, which is to have an individual assessment of someone's claim.
My point, just to clarify this, is why not have an independent assessment? It seems to me that it would certainly at least remove the likelihood that somebody may worry. It's enough to worry about the legitimacy of the decision.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
That's another good amendment that could likely come forward.
The other issue is the irregular arrival. Is there anything that you would like to recommend to the committee that could put some sort of a check in place to deal with the concerns in regard to this whole labelling of irregular arrivals, or is it just a bad idea?
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
It seems to me the irregular arrivals make no sense in the long run. If you look at what the bill says, it says two things about irregular arrivals. First is that they are going to be detained mandatorily. I have said several times that I think that's wrong for many reasons. Second is that it creates a different category of refugee, even after they have obtained their refugee status.
Once you have obtained your refugee status, I think Canada, on its part, deserves your being given the full chance to contribute right away to its economy. Therefore, you should be able to apply for permanent residency the same way as any other refugee. To me, this categorization in itself is not sustainable.
Those are my suggestions.
Conservative
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today.
Ms. Taub, I confess, I was deeply touched by your personal story. Thank you for sharing that with us. It is a testament to the great country in which we live, in that we have before us the offspring, if you will, of a Holocaust survivor, and the good work that you are doing. It's wonderful that you have dedicated your life to making Canada a better place to live as well. Thank you for being here with us.
On Radio Canada International you said:
I’m an immigration and refugee lawyer in Ottawa, and a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I can tell you from theory and practice that the current refugee system is very flawed, and cumbersome, and definitely needs an overhaul. It takes up to two years to have a claimant have his hearing. And there are far too many bogus claims that clog up the system, and use very expensive resources at a cost to Canadian taxpayers.
I have a number of questions for you. Obviously, the ministry, the minister, and the government have a different opinion as to the bill's compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'd like to hear your opinion. Do you agree with Madame Des Rosiers' view that the bill is not charter compliant?
Immigration and Refugee Lawyer, As an Individual
Regarding the mandatory detentions and designated groups, I think there was confusion created, because people coming from designated countries are not the same as people coming through irregular arrival, that is, through smuggling. So if someone didn't know the bill in detail they'd be confused and think that if somebody came from the United States, they would be subject to detention. That is not the case.
Mandatory detention has absolutely nothing to do with people coming from designated countries of origin. Mandatory detention refers to people who have been smuggled in. It's completely different. I just want to clarify that so there's no confusion that if somebody comes from Hungary, France, New Zealand, Australia, or Norway, they will be subject to mandatory detention. Those are designated safe countries or designated countries of origin.
As for mandatory detention for one year, I don't see how that could even happen. He says he's going to accelerate the cases and they're supposed to be finished within a maximum of 216 days. So there won't even be a mandatory detention of 365 days. Unless I'm completely wrong, I don't believe what's in the bill means that every single person is going to be stuck in jail for one year. I think they'll probably be looking mostly at the smugglers themselves. If people do not destroy their documents upon arriving or en route, it will be easy for the board to determine whom the smugglers are and who are genuinely seeking claims. It doesn't help when everybody destroys their documents. I think that detention is perhaps necessary at that point, when you come without documents. How else are you going to find out who has arrived at your borders?
What is constitutional and what is not constitutional? I'm not a constitutional lawyer. However, at some point Canada has to determine who's running the country: appointed judges who are not elected and not responsible to people, or Parliament? I'm afraid that we have shifted away from a true democracy, where our laws are created by Parliament but determined by the a supreme court or federal court whether these should work or not. Those people are not elected. They're appointed and can remain in their judicial capacity until the age of 75, and are answerable and responsible to no one.
Sorry, did you ask me another question that I missed?
Conservative
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
With the new measures in Bill C-31, the time to finalize a refugee claim would drop from the current 1,038 days to 45 days for claimants from designated countries of origin, or 216 days for all other claimants. Surely that is a big advantage for the folks who actually need that assistance from us.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Can you give us some theoretical and practical examples of how and why the current system is flawed?
Immigration and Refugee Lawyer, As an Individual
I had a women from Djibouti whose claim was from the fall of 2009. We just had her claim heard in February and she was accepted. But she called me regularly and I kept sending requests to Montreal to please schedule her claim from 2009. I kept assuring her, “No one will deport you and kick you out of the country. You're a refugee claimant. You are safe and your children are safe”. But she was literally on the verge of a nervous breakdown until she had her hearing and was accepted.
It shouldn't be like that. Everybody can agree that there are clearly refugee-producing countries. People from those countries shouldn't have to wait two or three years to have their claims heard. So I'm very happy that they're going to accelerate the processing, but I'm not happy that they're cutting back CBSA positions. They are the people who help get the paperwork and do the research and background checks on the claimants. So it doesn't make sense to me.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
You made a valid point when you used the European Union example of 27 countries that people can go to. Why do you think that people seek Canada for asylum rather than going to a country closer to them?
Immigration and Refugee Lawyer, As an Individual
Well, I don't know.
I know that if they want to go and live and work in another EU country, that's exactly what they have to do—live and work. They are not entitled to welfare when they arrive in one of the 26 other countries, whereas when they arrive in Canada they are not obliged to live and work. They can work. They can get a work permit within two months.
I'd say that 95% of my clients have always gotten their work permits, have been working until the time of their hearing, and have fully adjusted to Canadian life.
I suspect that might be one of the reasons, because people can come here, live and not work—
Immigration and Refugee Lawyer, As an Individual
—and get subsidized housing and social assistance.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Ms. Taub, Madame Des Rosiers, and Ms. Mendelsohn Aviv. Thank you all three of you for coming and making your presentations to us today. It's been helpful to the committee.
We will suspend for a few moments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We'll call the meeting to order.
This meeting will conclude at 6:15, when it's expected that bells will ring to summon us to the House of Commons to vote.
We have with us two witnesses from the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants: Debbie Douglas, executive director, and Francisco Rico-Martinez, regional director for Toronto.
Good afternoon to you. One of you will have up to 10 minutes, or however you want to split that.
We have, from the Ministry of Attorney General of Ontario, Toni Skarica, crown attorney. He used to be from Hamilton.
Are you still from Hamilton?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Skarica, I might as well tell my colleagues that we have something in common. We used to be members of the provincial parliament in Toronto when we were much younger.
Welcome to the committee, Toni.