Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2012

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Would you agree that if we had a method where we could quickly establish their identity and therefore be able to deport them, it would save us some of these costs? What I'm saying is that if there were a method for biometric determination of identity or some other form of establishing identity in a more expeditious way, then that cost could be significantly lower.

[Derek Fildebrandt]

This is one of those cases where you'll actually find our advocating, perhaps, for a further concentration of government resources and funding, because the quicker we can process claimants the quicker we can get legitimate refugees integrated into Canadian society and the quicker we can get bogus refugees deported to their place of origin.

I think there are further costs that could be provided in regard to the bill, in terms of the resources that could be provided for speeding up the process. But we do know that the quicker we can process people, the quicker we can get them into society and the quicker we can get bogus refugees out of the system to where they came from, and not take up the resources of Canadian taxpayers.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

As parliamentarians we sometimes have a dual role, one being to safeguard the taxpayers' money and protect our borders, and the other as Canadians to be compassionate and humanitarian.

Given that set of lenses, perhaps you can indicate to us how you would see the right balance being struck between those two ideals.

[Derek Fildebrandt]

As was noted, I nodded in agreement with some of the statements of Ezat earlier, because I strongly believe, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation strongly believes, that Canada's refugee system needs to be open, compassionate and welcoming to those who face persecution. But I don't believe this bill makes the system less compassionate. In fact, I believe it makes it more compassionate, because it means that it cannot be abused by those who are not legitimate refugees, or at least that it will be less likely to be abused, and it expedites the process for legitimate refugees. I believe it makes our system more compassionate.

My grandparents fled communist East Germany as refugees into the west, and eventually were welcomed as immigrants into Canada. My family has direct experience with fleeing from tyranny, fleeing from oppression, and of experiencing the generosity of Canada opening its borders to people who want to become Canadians and contribute to society. I believe passionately that we need to welcome legitimate refugees with open arms. I believe this bill actually strengthens that compassion. I don't believe it diminishes it at all.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Therefore, you agree that by discouraging people from simply walking into this country and saying they're claiming asylum, it will actually be a fairer system for them to go through the proper channels under Bill C-31 when coming to Canada?

[Derek Fildebrandt]

Yes. Absolutely.

When I talk to people about immigration and refugee reform, I find the strongest support among first and second generation Canadians, not people who have been here for many generations. People who came through the process legitimately, people who waited in line, who queued up who did so legally, I find are the most supportive of these kinds of reforms.

I think this is absolutely necessary. It's not just good news for taxpayers, whom I'm here representing, but it's actually good policy for refugees overall.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have 30 seconds, if you want to say goodbye.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Okay, that's fine. I'll say goodbye.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you very much.

I have just a request, Derek. Right at the beginning I know you used a lot of figures today, which you've thrown out at us, as to the cost and the savings. I was wondering if you could supply the data you based all of your numbers on to the clerk to the committee.

[Derek Fildebrandt]

Absolutely, I'd be happy to.

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

I appreciated hearing your comments on the compassionate nature of Canada and how historically we have taken in people from all around the world who've come here as refugees.

I want to move on to you, Ezat, with a question.

As you were talking, I could feel the pain that you still live with from your own personal experiences. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like for a group of people who are escaping that fire you described. There's a fire burning all around them and they're trying to escape that fire. That's the situation, whether it's in a refugee camp or a place where the refugees' lives are in danger and they have to escape. They get on a boat and they arrive on the shores of Canada. What kind of a psychological impact will there be on those people when the first thing they face is detention in a jail?

We're not talking about five-star hotels here—even the detention centres. What we are talking about, even today from the regular numbers that were given to us by officials from government, is that these people on a daily basis still have to be put in provincial jails because there aren't enough immigration detention centres.

I would like you to describe for us what you feel would be the impact on people being imprisoned upon arriving after fleeing from a burning fire.

[Ezat Mossallanejad]

We call this process re-traumatization. When you have gone through multiple trauma and you come here seeking open arms but are put into a jail, your whole experience of torture comes back. The impact never goes away for your life; there will be paranoia and so many disorders.

When you speak about the taxpayers, let's not forget that the final losers will be the Canadian people and Canadian society. Keeping people in detention is costly. The removal process is costly. If we deny welfare to people, the alternative is to let them beg. Sometimes they commit crimes. These are all costly. If we want to save some money for taxpayers, we have to pay more. The impact is horrible.

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

One of the other elements of this bill, and Minister Kenney has been very clear on this, is that parents will have a choice. Let's say people arrive on the shores of Canada. If they have children under the age of 16, they've got two choices. For parents escaping from a fire and arriving in Canada, I want to know how much of a choice there is. They can either keep their children with them in detention, in prison, in jail, or they can hand their children over to the authorities of the province in which they are being located. What kind of a psychological impact would this have not only on the parents but also on the children, remembering that the children are escaping from that same fire?

[Ezat Mossallanejad]

Every year we serve almost 300 children who are survivors of torture and war. Unfortunately, any horrible event, such as separation from family, incarceration, maltreatment, will have a durable impact on the psychology of children. The result will be a very bad life in their adulthood. It never goes away.

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

And the costs to Canadians would be higher.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ezat.

Mr. Weston.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Leung, welcome.

And thank you both for being here this morning.

I think this is an extraordinary hour that we have with you, because we see two sides of what I would call a false dichotomy. It's so easy for people to say that you either have compassion or conserve on costs. That's not what anybody in this room is about. Every person in this room cares about human rights. I'm sure that even someone who's gone through the horrific history that you've described to us, Mr. Mossallanejad, also has concerns for conserving the taxpayer's money. You referred to that. It seems to me that we must avoid the false dichotomy. In fact, if we don't preserve the taxpayer base, we will erode the ability to accommodate the refugees and lose the democratic will that allows us, as a government, to do what we do. I thought you said it so beautifully in your final sentence, Mr. Mossallanejad, when you said, please link human rights to immigration.

I remind everybody in the room that our minister is one of the world's top advocates for human rights. Wherever he goes, he pleads unapologetically for human rights around the world, in Iran, in China, and in other places. So I think there's more that unifies us in this room than divides us.

Section 91 of our BNA Act, better known as our Constitution Act, talks about “Peace, Order, and good Government”. So I would disagree with my colleague, Ms. Sitsabaiesan, who says there's no queue. In fact, if we allow chaos at our borders, we will not be able to have an immigration or a refugee program. We mustn't forget, either, the security of Canadians. Detention is not prison; detention is at least comparative safety for some people, and it's an ability for Canadians and refugees to come together.

So with the goal of finalizing a refugee claim in 45 days instead of 1,038 days, may I ask, does that have a ring of compassion to you, who have undergone the things you've undergone, Mr. Mossallanejad?

[Ezat Mossallanejad]

First, I agree with you about false dichotomy, but I also beg you for a balance in any kind of legislation.

Secondly, about detention, detention should be conceded as the last resort, not as a shortcut.

About the timeline, I think the main issue is due process. So we need a timeline that will allow us as a service organization to be able to provide all necessary documentation. Also, a shorter timeline looks like a summary trial, and that should be avoided.

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

Mr. Fildebrandt, we heard similarly from three prominent lawyers yesterday, and as a lawyer myself I believe in due process. Clearly, when you're in the position of government and you have to make decisions, you can't do everything for everybody all the time. In order to have a sustainable refugee program, how do we manage to balance due process and these other things? What would you say?

[Derek Fildebrandt]

Again, I would echo what Ezat said and support what you're saying, that we're often presented with the false dichotomy of saving money or being compassionate. I don't believe it's an either/or. Governments have to make tough decisions, and I think this bill is actually an example of making proper tough decisions.

Your question was how we can preserve due process but also ensure that we're getting value for money for taxpayers. I think this bill does that with the designated country provisions for countries that we know are not gross human violators. We know that countries within the EU are not in the same category as Cameroon. Any statement to the contrary would be pure political posturing. We don't need endless appeal processes for people coming from advanced western democracies. So I think that's one of the most important parts of the bill.

We will continue to have appeal processes for people coming from Cameroon, as an example, but it's a different category from the EU.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I want to thank both of you for joining us today.

Mr. Mossallanejad, I thank you for sharing your personal story and I can appreciate that you went through some very difficult times.

Mr. Fildebrandt, I'm curious to find out what you're hearing about the government's recent announcement to ensure that refugees don't receive more generous benefits than Canadian taxpayers. We hear this a lot from our constituents.

[Derek Fildebrandt]

If nothing else, this will strengthen support for an open and generous refugee system, because Canadians will no longer believe that the system is unfair. An important part of this is maintaining the support of the broad Canadian electorate for an open immigration system, an open refugee system, and a part of that is ensuring that people know that they're not being treated unfairly relative to those who come here. So if nothing else, it will strengthen public support for our refugee system.