Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2012

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

One of the main goals of Bill C-31 is to identify people who want to come into the country through illegal means, which would be unfair to people like Mr. Mossallanejad and many others who came here to seek asylum from persecution and possibly death and torture in their countries of origin. These people today can wait as long as 1038 days. That's almost three years from the time their application goes in. They fall behind bogus applicants, behind people from the European Union. The European Union is a union of 27 countries. So if someone feels unsafe in one of those 27 countries, all of which have democratically elected governments, they have 26 other choices they can go to.

Mr. Mossallanejad didn't have the choice of going to 26 countries where he would be safe. So folks like him need to get priority. There's the compassion in Bill C-31—to service people who need it faster and allow them to come into the country faster and not fall behind these bogus applications, many of which are being abandoned, creating a cost problem and clogging the system.

Once somebody claims refugee status, we need to go through the process of assessing the application on its merits regardless of where they are in the world. Bill C-31 addresses that issue and focuses attention on the people who need it most. I think it's important to bring that up.

Do you think Bill C-31 would reduce human smuggling into Canada by eliminating the ability to take advantage of our generous immigration system and social services? They're using it as a fast track to get in, blocking people who legitimately need it.

[Derek Fildebrandt]

According to basic economics, if you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want it less of something, tax it; if you want none of something, nationalize it. If you want to reduce bogus refugee claimants, lessening the incentives is one of the first places to go. If you come here, you're not going to get free rein of the country. The bill deals with that. Also, you're not going to be roaming around for over a thousand days using Canada's health care and welfare systems.

By reducing those incentives, we should significantly reduce the number of people attempting to scam the system. This is good for both ends of the system: it's good value for Canadian taxpayers not getting ripped off and it's even better for legitimate refugees not having to sit around for 19 months, wallowing away, wondering what their status is going to be before they can get accepted into Canadian society.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Sims, you have three to four minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

There seems to be a generalization here that unless you come here with documents, you're somehow not a refugee. Yet, Ezat, if you had arrived here on a boat with five or ten other people, you would have been subject to being thrown into a prison under this bill for a year, and then for five years you could not get your PR and you would not be able to apply for your family members—which could actually then take about ten years before you could be reunited. At the same time we're hearing a lot about Canadian compassion.

What would have been the impact of that on you personally? The “fire” that you left behind, the torturous situation, would have been the same had you arrived in a group by boat or had you arrived on a plane without documentation. Can you please expand on that a little bit for me?

[Ezat Mossallanejad]

We have served clients who have come from countries suffering from collective trauma, from war, generalized violence, and genocide. There is no option in some cases other than to escape together. I think they should not be subjected to discrimination. The impact of jail, imprisonment, and being kept in limbo forever is horrible. They cannot recover for the rest of their lives.

I have clients who have become paranoid because of that. One client went through the same experience, in being maltreated by an immigration officer. That came as a shock to him. For the last 17 years he has been under psychiatric care, with very costly medication. He has never been himself again.

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

So this two-tiered way of looking at arrivals in Canada, asylum seekers, depending on the mode of transportation, could actually end up proving to be far more costly to Canadians in terms of health care costs than the current system we have. Would you say that?

[Ezat Mossallanejad]

I do agree with you, and I am just working with clients who have come upon the same problem in a milder way. I don't know what will happen with this legislation if it gets royal assent and is implemented. I think there is a need for amendment, radical amendment and revision.

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

Also this legislation has built into it the idea of people being sent back when the conditions in the home country improve. In other words, you could be here for 10 years and suddenly the situation in your home country improves, and you could then be sent back. What kind of an impact would that have on asylum seekers whom we've accepted as refugees and are now living in Canada and have had children in Canada?

[Ezat Mossallanejad]

I can tell you that if they sent me back today, I'm not afraid of execution because death is once and for all, an end of your life. I'm afraid of torture. Canada is committed to the convention against torture. I'm very happy that this legislation mentions protection against torture, but I'm frustrated that there is no attention in this legislation to survivors of torture, war, genocide, and collective trauma.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Ezat, and Mr. Fildebrandt for excellent presentations. The committee appreciates those. Thank you very much.

We will suspend for a few moments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will reconvene.

We have one further witness. Apparently the second witness cancelled late yesterday afternoon, so we just have the one witness today. There are three representatives of the Barreau du Québec. We have Nicolas Plourde, president of the bar association. It's an honour to have you here, sir.

We have Mitchell Goldberg, who is a lawyer and a member of the committee on immigration and citizenship. Good morning to you.

[Mitchell Goldberg, Lawyer, Member of the Committee on Immigration and Citizenship, Barreau du Québec]

Good morning to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We also have Carla Chamass, who is a lawyer and a researcher. So we have three lawyers here today.

You have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation, sir.

[Nicolas Plourde, President of the Bar, Barreau du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, as the elected President of the Barreau du Québec, I want to thank you for inviting us today to discuss such an important issue for Canadians—the security and effectiveness of our immigration system.

I would like to begin by emphasizing the importance the Barreau du Québec attaches to the improvement of the security and effectiveness of the Canadian immigration system. I invite you to read about the Barreau du Québec's previous involvement in the area of immigration, especially the letters regarding bills C-49 and C-11.

As you probably know, the Barreau du Québec is a professional order with a membership of 24,000 Quebec lawyers. The Barreau is proud of its worldwide involvement in the implementation of democratic governance and institutions founded on the rule of law. Its primary purpose is protecting the public. In that work, it strives to carry out its social responsibility by standing up for the democratic values of our society, including human rights.

The Barreau du Québec has reviewed Bill C-31, which reintroduces Bill C-11 and amends the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. The Barreau du Québec fears that the changes the bill makes to the classification process will result in discriminatory and differential treatment of claims, which may undermine claimants' confidence in the legality and legitimacy of the decisions made regarding their refugee protection claims.

That being said, the Barreau du Québec believes that protecting the Canadian immigration system is indeed an important issue and that the Canadian government is right to try to deter illegal immigration. That may make it necessary to circumscribe certain rights in the public interest. However, the bill contains harsh measures, including the automatic detention of designated foreign nationals for a period of up to a year. My colleague Mr. Goldberg will tell you more about the negative effects we fear regarding this measure.

The Barreau du Québec is also opposed to the restriction of the right to appeal a decision on its merits to the Refugee Appeal Division. The Barreau believes that an applicant's confidence in the state calls for the promotion and maintenance of a judicial structure of accessible and independent tribunals, as well as just and effective representation.

Before I yield the floor to my colleague, Mr. Goldberg, for a more thorough account of the Barreau du Québec's position, allow me to quickly introduce him. Mr. Goldberg has been a lawyer and a member of the Barreau du Québec since 1989. He is a member of the Barreau's committee on immigration and citizenship. He has been working in immigration and refugee law since 1990. Therefore, he regularly represents foreign nationals in all sorts of cases involving various immigration applications and refugee protection claims in Canada.

Mr. Goldberg is heavily involved in his area of expertise. He worked as a volunteer for a human rights organization in Guatemala. He is also active within the Canadian Bar Association and its liaison committee with the federal court. He is one of the founding members of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, where he has been the vice-president since 2001.

Mr. Chair, with your permission, I yield the floor to my colleague Mr. Goldberg.

[Mitchell Goldberg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Plourde.

I am speaking to you today not only as a lawyer, but also as the father of two children. I have two daughters: Sabine, 13 years old; and Naomi, 17 years old. My children were the inspiration for the following three scenarios.

In the first scenario, I arrive in Canada with Naomi and Sabine. The minister designates me as an irregular arrival, which means that I must be detained. Naomi, who is 17, is also subject to that system and must be imprisoned for 12 months with me. However, Sabine, who is 13, will have a so-called choice: she can either go to prison with Naomi and me, or be placed in an institution for 12 months and separated from her father and sister. Those are the options provided by Bill C-31. Not only as a lawyer, but also as a Canadian, I am ashamed to think that vulnerable individuals who are seeking protection in Canada may be detained.

In the second scenario, I am a Syrian refugee. I am an opponent of the current regime and have consequently come to Canada to seek protection. Fortunately, the court has recognized me as a refugee; I have been granted refugee status. Unfortunately, according to Bill C-31, as I have been designated as a refugee, I will be able to apply for permanent residency only in five years' time. I am very desperate to bring to Canada my daughters, who are still in Syria. I am afraid that the military members of the Syrian government are actively searching for me. I fear that, if they find my daughters, they will abuse them and ask them where their father is. I am afraid that, when my girls say that they don't know or that their father is abroad, they may be in physical danger. However, there is nothing I can do to bring them to Canada. I will not even be able to begin the process before my five years is up, and that means it may take seven years after I am recognized as a refugee for me to bring them over. That means that Sabine, who is 13 years old, will be 20, and Naomi, who is 17, will be 24, before I can see them.

Here is the third scenario. I arrive in Canada in 2000, from Algeria. I am recognized as a refugee. In 2002, I become a permanent resident of Canada. I marry a Canadian woman. We have two children, who are now four and seven years old. Of course, my children are Canadian, since they were born in Montreal. The minister is now claiming that circumstances in Algeria have changed, as the war has ended. There is still some violence, but the situation is not like it was in 2000. According to the Bill C-31 provisions on cessation and conditional permanent residency, I may have to appear before the board. My only defence will be claiming that the situation has not changed. I have always told the truth, but I may be sent back to Algeria. I could not use the best interest of my Canadian children as an argument. I have no right to an appeal. There is no forum where humanitarian considerations can be invoked.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Goldberg, perhaps you could wind up, sir.

I didn't mean to make you stop. You can just finish.

Are you finished?

[Mitchell Goldberg]

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the three of you being here this morning. I apologize that one of our witnesses had to withdraw. We normally like to have two witnesses per session, versus one. But I certainly appreciate that the three of you are here.

I've read your submission.

First, Mr. Goldberg, I wanted to respond to your three examples and scenarios that you give. I would like to think that if one or both of your two children, whom you spoke so passionately about, were in any way harmed by someone who was on a boat and came to this country and who wasn't identified and was allowed to roam freely into our country, someone who was either a terrorist, a criminal, or a human smuggler, you would be at this committee asking for us to ensure that legislation or a regulation were passed to protect your children. While I understand the arguments that you present by way of a scenario of their being on that boat, I would submit that you should also put yourself and them in the scenario of coming in harm's way because of a flood of individuals coming to this country who may be dangerous—thought not all are. We've documented the last two ships that came here. There weren't many on board who would be considered criminals, war criminals, or those who should not be in this country or would not have received a visa to come into this country. As government representatives we have a dual responsibility to ensure human rights and to protect them. I would submit to you that this is what we are trying to accomplish here with Bill C-31.

I've read your submission. The only thing I found in it in terms of a recommendation or amendment was the withdrawal of Bill C-31. Is that the only amendment you're submitting to the committee today?

[Mitchell Goldberg]

Thank you for your question.

Yes, the Quebec Bar is concerned about protecting the integrity of the immigration system.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I've only got seven minutes. I was making more of a statement than I was—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, you asked him a question.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I did.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

He's trying to answer it.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Okay. Thank you.