Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2012

[Mitchell Goldberg]

I'd just comment, and again as a Jew, and not only as a member of the Quebec Bar, that Canada has apologized for detaining Japanese Canadians. Canada has apologized for the S.S. St. Louis. In fact, we now have a commemoration of that. There's a saying that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I want to see my country remember the past, not just by making memorials to the past but also by applying the lessons to refugees coming from around the world who need our protection today.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

Currently, refugees who arrive here do get some access to travel documents. What is the current law relating to the provision of travel documents to refugees? How does the section that denies travel documents to refugees violate our international obligations?

[Mitchell Goldberg]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, refugees who are designated not only cannot apply for permanent residence for five years, but they also cannot apply for travel documents for five years, in violation of the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees. In my practice I see many refugees who are desperate to see their family members, who might be in refugee camps in other countries, for example, and I think it's inhumane to deprive them of this simple basic right to have a travel document, to have a right that we take for granted—to be able to travel. I don't think there's any justification for.... Again, we're talking about people who are recognized refugees.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

In one way, it's a form of detention even after you've left the detention centre after a year, because now you just can't go anywhere, even to meet up with some of your relatives and form some family connections.

Is the mandatory detention of designated foreign nationals contrary to international laws?

[Mitchell Goldberg]

Absolutely. As I mentioned, it's contrary to the Canadian charter and it's clearly contrary to international law, to the Geneva convention. The fact that you would treat people differently because of their mode of arrival, that in itself is contrary to international law.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, again, to our guests for being here.

I am a member of three bars, but not the Quebec one. It is really difficult.

When we consider rights and responsibilities, there is always a question of balance. It is always our challenge as lawmakers to think of everything we should think of.

Clearly, you have pointed us to aspects that we have to take into account. In your remarks you have emphasized the area of due process.

Again, I think we face the peril of the false dichotomy. We face the peril of saying there are those who only care about efficiency and cost control and those who only care about human rights. I think that's probably a distortion of what we actually see in this committee, because each member cares about both.

There is a right to appeal. Certainly, you continue to have a right to the Federal Court in Bill C-31, and there is another right to review that. Again, you may deem that to be less robust, Mr. Goldberg, than what you would like, but let us not forget those who are in line. They are people who no one would dispute as being real refugees, people who have come, as the minister said in his testimony, with the scars on their backs, who would otherwise have to wait 21 months on average. Those people now receive an expedited hearing. So we have a program that will process more quickly the people that everybody knows should be processed, without eliminating the others who may not have a claim but at least still have some process in a country that doesn't owe them a legal duty but the moral responsibility that we all care about as Canadians.

I simply want you to look at this from the perspective of preserving the integrity of a system that is under stress, of preserving the democratic support for a refugee program that we cannot afford to lose, of preserving the fiscal ability to support this, which we all care about. As lawyers we tend to look at the due process thing and focus on it to the exclusion of other things.

Mr. Goldberg, as someone who has the benefit of historical analysis, as we both do given our respective heritages, can I ask you to do that and to make sure that you're treating this with the balance that we need to hear to see you and all our other witnesses as credible?

[Mitchell Goldberg]

I appreciate the question. It's a fair question. I think you're right that we have to balance several competing interests. You're right that refugees and the Canadian public have the right to expect a fast process, not one that takes two years. That is why all the political parties, including your own, supported the Balanced Refugee Reform Act that would create a system that was fast and fair. The Balanced Refugee Reform Act has very tight deadlines for when a hearing has to be held. There would be an appeal, but a very quick appeal; then if they're refused, they're out. There's a strong consensus, whether you're on the left or on the right, to have a fast and fair system.

You referred to judicial recourses. As mentioned, there are none. There is no appeal on the merits if you're from a list of.... There are seven reasons in subclause 36(2) why there would not be an appeal on the merits.

You mentioned the Federal Court. Unfortunately, there is no stay of removal, no administrative stay of removal for somebody who has been denied by the refugee protection division and goes before the Federal Court. How meaningful, then, is it to have access to a court where you could be booted out of the country before you even get your hearing? That's what I want to say.

I think the Balanced Refugee Reform Act got it right and I think taxpayers would appreciate.... I don't think taxpayers are going to appreciate mandatory one-year detention. I think that's incredibly costly. It's costly financially for taxpayers and it's costly in terms of human psychology, that is, in terms of its impact on the mental health of human beings.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

We've discussed the issue of detention—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, but you're out of time.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I don't think you're sorry at all, Mr. Chair. You don't sound sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, that's probably right. I don't care.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Good morning, sir.

As a member of your bar, I am pleased that I can ask you some questions.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, Mr. Opitz. I apologize. You see, I do care.

Mr. Opitz is next.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Chair, I have a point of order. Just for clarification, given that we're debating the contents of the bill with one of our witnesses, I think it's really important for us to clear something up.

We should all know the contents of the legislation we are discussing. This is a point of information, not of argument.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Then it's not a point of order. We're going to move to Mr. Opitz.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Clause 36—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, I don't care.

Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'm going to pass my time to Mr. Menegakis.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Mr. Menegakis. Thank you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Opitz, and thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today.

Mr. Goldberg, from the outset of your presentation to us, you clearly said that you recommended that the bill be withdrawn. You also said that the bill has nothing to do with refugees, if you will, or speeding up the process.

I want to point out a couple of things that I think you perhaps may have missed in making your assessment. With the measures in Bill C-31, the time to finalize a refugee claim for a legitimate refugee would drop from the current 1,038 days to 45 days for claimants from designated countries of origin, and 216 days for all other claimants. Surely you would agree that someone who is fleeing persecution, possible death or torture in their country, would be greatly advantaged by the speeding up of the process for their coming into Canada. I think it points—and we've heard this from other witnesses—to a very compassionate element in the bill.

You mentioned your children. I really thank you for sharing your personal story of your children. I'd like to talk a little bit about some other measures that are in Bill C-31 that will help us to identify a terrorist or a criminal possibly even before they come to our borders. Hopefully, we should be able to identify them. But in the cases where we don't, let's take the two examples of the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady.

On the Sun Sea, five people were denied, four for security reasons and one for war crimes. On the Ocean Lady, 19 were ruled inadmissible for security reasons, and 17 for war crimes. That's a total of 41 people. I'm sure that you and every other Canadian in the country would be appalled at the thought that 41 people who have perpetrated war crimes or have a record of security breaches in their country would be allowed to live in their neighbourhoods, to be around their children and their families.

I'd like to speak a little bit about the issue of biometrics. We heard testimony at this committee from experts, including officials at the highest level, from the RCMP, CSIS, CBSA, law enforcement people, who attested to the fact that biometrics is a 21st-century identification tool. It is a tool designed to assist countries, that is, law enforcement folks, to identify risks or potential risks. Can you elaborate on that? What would your thoughts be on that? It really points to things that are in the bill that very much have to do with refugees and the security of Canadians.

[Mitchell Goldberg]

Thank you for your question. There are three comments that I will make.

First, as I said in my previous answer, yes, I agree that speeding up the process is important. My clients are very frustrated and very sad when it takes so long to have a hearing, and they're thinking about their family overseas, whom they want to bring here. They know they can't start the process until they're accepted as a refugee under the current system. They're often desperate to get a hearing quickly, and that's where I think the Balanced Refugee Reform Act got it right.

You said that BillC-31 is compassionate because it speeds up the process. I think that the Balanced Refugee Reform Act was compassionate. I don't think one year in jail is compassionate to people who aren't even being charged with a crime. The government just doesn't like how they arrived.

To answer the second part of your question—