Evidence of meeting #37 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.
Senior Lawyer, Chantal Desloges Professional Corporation
No, but you're not using the correct definition of refugee. According to the convention, it's to escape any kind of persecution—
Senior Lawyer, Chantal Desloges Professional Corporation
—which can be cumulative as well. But no, running away for economic reasons certainly does not make a person a refugee.
My only comment about the previous speaker is that he kind of lost his credibility with me when he said there's no discrimination against Roma in Hungary. Every single NGO says the exact opposite thing. To me, his testimony was a bit partisan. I'm not saying Hungary is or isn't. I'm just saying that I find his testimony a bit questionable.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, and I thank you for your comments.
Mr. Milner, do you think that someone who simply wants to leave their country for a better way of life or for easy money fits into the definition of what we think of as a refugee? Also, I want to point out that the last speaker, from the embassy of Hungary, actually indicated that it is the wrong way to come to Canada, that there is the proper way to emigrate to Canada, and some actually do choose that route.
Again, would you consider a refugee to be someone who simply wants to get easy money?
Prof. James Milner
I agree with my colleague that the definition of refugee, according to the 1951 convention, is someone outside of their country of origin due to a well-founded fear of persecution for one of five reasons. How we interpret those five reasons is something that has evolved over time.
What I would note, and what I take away from the testimony of the representative of Hungary, is the great importance of engaging countries of origin in any comprehensive solution for refugees. This is not the first time we have faced challenges of individuals moving for blended reasons, be they economic, be they social, be they fear of persecution.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you. I understand. We were just talking about this because he was our speaker in the last hour, but when 95% of the people from the European Union who try to make claims in Canada as refugees abandon their claims, they don't show up for their first hearings, after being able to receive lucrative payments here in Ontario, in my province, where my riding is, do you think that's fair to taxpayers? I'd like a yes or no answer.
I understand your position already, but do you think that's fair to taxpayers? Do you think it's responsible government to allow this to continue?
Prof. James Milner
As an Ontario taxpayer, I think it's responsible government to have a credible and independent process to determine the claims of individuals on their merit.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
In your previous answers you've been talking about refugees having the right to movement. In reference to a mass arrival, again, there aren't many here in Canada. There have been a few hundred refugees coming in through irregular mass arrivals in the last decade. But with regard to movement, we actually don't know they're legitimate refugees when they first arrive. In many cases, they come without proper documentation. They've thrown it overboard. They have false documents. In many cases, the people who are actually involved in the smuggling are arriving as one of the refugees, or are requesting refugee status here in Canada.
Are you saying that until they are determined to be legitimate refugees they should have movement, or they shouldn't have movement?
Prof. James Milner
I would actually defer. As I'm not a lawyer familiar with the Canadian process, I wouldn't claim to have credibility on that or a position.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
It's not necessary to be a lawyer. In your opinion, do you believe that someone...? Anyone can claim refugee status. Many cases are accepted, as they are legitimate refugees, and some are discredited and they're not accepted. But until people are actually determined to be refugees, do you think they should be able to move freely in our country without our being able to identify who they are first?
Prof. James Milner
My understanding is that it's a constitutional right that we have in Canada, so yes.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Okay. In actuality, detaining someone to identify their proper identification exists today, so we are in accordance with all the international laws and the charter and everything else.
Is my time running out?
Conservative
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
In the minute and a half that I have left, then, perhaps I can ask you the same question. From a lawyer's perspective, do you think it's legitimate that someone who comes here with false documents, with no documents, is allowed to just freely move about Canada without our knowing who they are?
We've heard testimony about the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady; 41 of those people who came on those boats were found to be inadmissible for war crimes and other such things.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
And security reasons, thank you.
So I'm a little bit stumped when I hear people say that we should just allow these people—who have claimed to be refugees, but until they're determined to be refugees—to roam freely within our boundaries of Canada. I would not want to have to speak to my constituents and say I would support that. I would not support that.
Senior Lawyer, Chantal Desloges Professional Corporation
I certainly don't agree with allowing people to go free before we know who they are, or if we have security concerns about them. That's 100% for sure. I think almost everyone would agree on that.
The problem is that if there is no basis for a finding that they are a security risk, then I don't see any reason to mandatorily detain them just because of their method of arrival.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
I'd actually like to make reference to Bill C-31, because in actuality, once we determine that they are legitimate refugees, they will be released from detention.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
It's not a mandatory minimum one year for everybody. I just want to clarify that.
Thank you.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
I want to thank both of you for taking the time to come and make a presentation.
We've had a number of our witnesses here talking about the designated country of origin. Both of you have really impressed me with your rational approach to it, saying that there is kind of a space for designation, but it needs to be done by a panel of independent experts.
Actually, when you look at Bill C-11, which was the great Canadian compromise that took place only a few months ago, that's exactly where it was at then.
I just want to get on record, did I hear both of you say that?
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
I've often heard, sitting here at the committee level, that we have to shorten the timelines because somehow that will speed things up. But today you have painted a very, very clear picture that it could actually lead to making things worse. As you get into more litigation because you deny people rights, that could actually lead to higher costs.
Do you have a comment to make on that?
