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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 37, on Wednesday, May 2, 2012.
This committee hearing is televised and is pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 23, 2012: Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and a number of other acts.
The first panel is individuals. They are lawyers.
Carole Dahan, good afternoon.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm glad you came again.
From the embassy of Hungry, we have Imre Helyes, who is the first counsellor and head of the consular section.
Good afternoon to you, sir.
Imre Helyes First Counsellor, Head of Consular Section, Embassy of the Republic of Hungary
It's a pleasure.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you for coming.
Normally, the practice is that each group—it would be the two of you and Mr. Helyes is by himself—has up to 10 minutes to make a presentation. You don't have to, but if you wish, you can. The two of you, Ms. Dahan, would have to split ten minutes.
Mr. Helyes, if you wish, you could say a few words. I understand you don't have a prepared text. You could tell us a joke if you wish.
Ms. Dahan, you have the floor.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Thank you. Thank you for inviting us to present before you.
My name is Carole Dahan, and I'm the director of the refugee law office at Legal Aid Ontario. This is my colleague, Andrew Brouwer, a staff lawyer at the RLO.
As I said, we're a staff office of Legal Aid Ontario, and we're a very small office; there are five lawyers and five support staff. About 50% of the work we do involves persons in detention. I have visited the immigration holding centre, the IHC, that was spoken about this morning on numerous occasions, and I concur with Janet Cleveland's assessment of it as a jail, and certainly not, as Minister Kenney has characterized it, as a hotel.
I'm not going to spend my precious minutes talking about the IHC, but if any members have further questions about the IHC or about the provincial jails where detainees are also held, we have lots of experience with those facilities and I would be happy to address that later.
In the work that our office does with detainees, we're often the last resource, the last chance for representation of the most vulnerable clients. Many of our clients have, for one reason or another, been unsuccessful in their refugee claims and are facing imminent removal. Because we are a very busy and very small office, we only take cases where there is evidence that the person is at real risk of persecution.
For example, one gentleman who found us while at the IHC had come to Canada from war-torn Chechnya and had made a refugee claim right at the airport. He was one of the lucky ones who had the presence of mind to bring a number of documents establishing his identity when he was fleeing. They were submitted to the IRB, and they in turn submitted them for what's called forensic testing, because of the prevalence of forged documents coming from that area of the world. The IRB lost the documents before they were ever forensically tested. While they accepted his Russian citizenship, they found that he was not a convention refugee because he had failed to establish his identity as a Chechnyan.
Shortly after that, he began the process of trying to get a new document, a new birth certificate. He contacted his sister, but because we were dealing with a war-torn nation at the time—his house had been bombed and been burned down—his sister had to travel to another city, to the registrar of births, to obtain a new birth certificate. In the meantime, he was served with what's called the pre-removal risk assessment, his PRRA, which he completed himself, but without this new evidence, it, too, was rejected.
The new evidence arrived 17 days after his PRRA was rejected. It was at that moment that he found us, while detained, and we were able to assist him in submitting a new, second PRRA, with the new birth certificate that conclusively proved that he was, indeed, Chechnyan. With that evidence he was found to be a convention refugee and at long last given the protection that he was seeking all along.
Why am I telling you this story? I'm telling you this story because it illustrates several issues with respect to Bill C-31.
Number one, it shows that human errors do occur.
Number two, it demonstrates that the very tight time lines, the 15 days for the basis of claim form and the 30 days and 60 days for the hearing are simply not enough time to obtain proper and supportive documentation from back home, let alone psychological assessments, which Cécile Rousseau and Janet Cleveland spoke about this morning, or even just physical medical examinations to support a claim.
Third, it demonstrates the need for a safeguard. Even when there has been a recent negative decision, when there is new and persuasive evidence that goes to the heart of the person's claim of persecution, there must be a mechanism by which evidence can be examined and evaluated. Without it we run the risk of refoulement.
Bill C-31 would have barred my client from submitting a new PRRA for one year from the date he had received his IRB decision, and he would have been sent home to face persecution.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that everyone be given a further PRRA after the IRB has made a decision, but when there are exceptional circumstances and when there is new evidence, then the bar should not exist. There must be a mechanism to review this new evidence before the person is sent back.
I'm very conscious of the time, so I would also add that in the circumstances there would be no automatic stay of removal. My colleague is going to talk about that in a different context. Just as now, we would have to convince either a removal officer to defer the removal, pending the new PRRA, or we would have to convince a Federal Court judge to defer the removal pending a new PRRA. So we're not adding another layer to the process, but we are asking that the one-year bar be reconsidered.
I have some other recommendations that I'm happy to share with you later.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. Perhaps you can do that during questions.
You have about four minutes.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Thank you.
A mistake in the refugee determination system can cost a life or expose a fellow human being to torture, persecution, arbitrary detention, or even death, hence the absolute necessity of an effective safety net. Under Bill C-31, some refugees will have a safety net by way of an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division and an administrative stay while they seek leave for judicial review in the Federal Court. But some won't.
While there are clearly issues with how the RAD will work and the impact of unworkable time lines combined with increased detention, the fact that there is at least a mechanism for an appeal is absolutely central, and it's what we need in Canada under the obligations we have under international law and the charter.
An effective appeal on the merits of the claim is a fundamental requirement under international law. It's something that's been recommended repeatedly by UNHCR, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and many others. Bill C-31, while it maintains the RAD, will, however, deprive some groups of refugees of access to the RAD, namely nationals of countries that have been designated as safe by the minister, anyone the minister has designated as an irregular arrival, people who are admitted to Canada under an exception to the safe third country agreement, and those whose claims have been designated as manifestly unfounded by the refugee board. Not only that, but these same refugee claimants will be denied real access to the Federal Court for judicial review. That is, while they still nominally have the right to seek leave for judicial review of the Federal Court, they won't benefit from an administrative stay while the court considers whether or not to look at their case, as they do under the current system.
In most cases, if the minister is successful in speeding up the process, as he intends to, refugees who fail at the refugee board will be deported long before any Federal Court judge lays eyes on a leave application. Further, the jurisprudence of the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal is clear that once a person has been deported, a Federal Court judicial review application in respect of the risk assessment is moot. There's no point in looking at it because the person has already been deported.
This is crucial—this bit of information and this relationship between access to the RAD and access to the Federal Court—because it shows you that contrary to information that the minister has provided, and I apologize for being political, the fact is that in reality there are certain groups of refugees who will have no access to any review of the first-stage decision on their refugee claim.
With the one-year bar on the PRRA and the bar on access to H and C consideration, the reality is that there will be no effective mechanism whatsoever at law to remedy mistakes that have been made by the first decision-maker at the refugee board. That, in my submission, is contrary to fundamental international human rights law. It's also unconscionable. I think that as Canadians, all of us agree that we don't want mistakes made when it comes to refugee determination. We need to make the decision right.
Just to be clear, how much time do I have, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Just one moment.
Mr. Helyes, do you have a presentation to make? I understood you did not.
First Counsellor, Head of Consular Section, Embassy of the Republic of Hungary
Mr. Chair, if the witness would like to use part of my time, I would be very glad to share the time.
Conservative
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Thank you.
The House of Commons was confronted last summer with the reality of what happens when a mistake is made.
It's important to understand exactly how deportations happen in Canada. Those who are deported from Canada, particularly if they were detained prior to their removal, cannot simply slip back quietly into their country of origin and try to find a different safe place to go. To the contrary, in many cases they will be handed over directly into the hands of the authorities in their government of origin. In those cases where the government is the very agent of persecution that they've tried to flee, the consequences are obvious.
As I was starting to say, the Commons was confronted with this reality last summer, when the case of Adel Benhmuda was brought to the attention of the minister in the House. Mr. Benhmuda and his family had fled from Libya to Canada. They made a refugee claim, which was unsuccessful; did a pre-removal risk assessment, which was unsuccessful; had some kids; and then the whole family was deported back to Libya. This was before the recent regime change in Libya.
When they were put on the plane, their passports were handed over to the flight crew. This is standard procedure for Canada. I don't know about other countries. So their passports were handed over and they were deported to Tripoli. On arrival in Tripoli, their passports, in an envelope, were handed over to the security service of Libya.
Understandably, and entirely predictably, the family was detained. The spouse and kids were freed, but Adel was detained and tortured and interrogated for months, simply because he had been deported from Canada and it was presumed that he must have made an asylum claim here. It was presumed that he was therefore an opponent to the regime. His story has been verified by UNHCR after extensive interviews.
He's not the only one. A number of years ago, some members of this committee may remember there was the case of Kevin Yourdkhani and his family. They were Iranians. They too had come from Iran to make a refugee claim. They failed, they were deported, and their documents were handed over, again, to the flight crew.
On arrival in Tehran, Iran, their documents were given to the authorities there. Both Majid and Mosomeh, husband and wife, were detained and tortured and abused for months—again, interrogated because they had made an asylum claim in Canada.
The issues we're talking about here...and I'm sure the House knows this, but I think it's important to have some real-life examples in front of you of just what the implications are of a mistake.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Okay.
We can't afford to make mistakes. When it comes to refugee status determination, we have to make sure that we have at least one solid mechanism to make sure there's a remedy for that mistake. Bill C-31, as it stands, does not provide that for many categories of refugees.
Thank you very much.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, sir.
Ms. Dahan, if you have more comments to make, perhaps that can be done when questions are asked of you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Helyes, thank you for coming. It's an honour that you would come to tell us a little bit about what you know—maybe you know a lot—about Hungarian immigration and perhaps EU immigration.
I don't know whether you have any preliminary comments or whether you just want to open it up for questions, but the floor is yours.
Thank you for coming.
First Counsellor, Head of Consular Section, Embassy of the Republic of Hungary
Thank you very much.
First of all, I would like to apologize because I have not had enough time to prepare for a proper presentation as such. Our office was closed yesterday, so we basically received the invitation today. It was a very short notice.
Nevertheless, our embassy considers this invitation an honour, on one hand. On the other hand, it's an obligation and a responsibility to attend a meeting to which we've been invited, the same way as our government and our embassy in Ottawa have had such a responsible approach to the question and to the situation that had been bothering the bilateral relations between our two countries, Canada and Hungary.
Bothering, why? Because it seems that the high number of refugee claimants coming from Hungary to Canada is kind of a weird situation, on the one hand. On the other hand, there is no doubt that such a situation creates tension in relation to immigration questions and all kinds of situations that are definitely not facilitating the kind of smooth relationship we would like to have, based on shared values and objectives, so that our citizens would have had the mutual freedom of getting in contact with each other, knowing each other better, and so facilitating the better development of the overall relationship between our two countries and transatlantic society.
From that point of view, it has been the consideration of the Hungarian government to take responsibility for such a situation, on two sides—on the one hand, at home, which is the major task and the major responsibility, but on the other hand, also to cooperate, to provide help, or to provide assistance to the Canadian government in order to ease situations and tensions that might arise along the way.
It is that common responsibility in the face of such a situation that has brought me as a representative of the embassy of Hungary to the floor, and it puts me at your disposal. When you have questions, I will try to do my best to answer those questions.
Thank you very much.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, sir.
I know there's a large Hungarian population in this country, and we do appreciate your coming. I'm sure there will be some questions of you from the committee.
Please go ahead, Mr. Dykstra.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
In fact, Mr. Chair, I think I'll do just that and turn to Mr. Helyes to ask him some questions.
I appreciate the fact that we've been at this into our third day now. There's certainly some repetition in terms of the concerns folks have. It's helpful when we get specific recommendations in terms of how to improve the bill. Not nearly as helpful is when the only recommendation we receive is to withdraw the bill. Nonetheless, we will continue to meet and move forward, and try to put forward a bill that makes sense to all Canadians and to those coming to this country to become Canadians.
Mr. Helyes, one of the issues we face is a significant number of Hungarians coming to Canada to claim refugee status for a period of time. Between 95% and 98% of their claims are either withdrawn or abandoned even before they have a chance to sit down at the IRB.
I appreciate your being here today. I just want to ask some fairly direct questions about how you believe your country is trying to resolve this issue in terms of your relationship with Canada.
First Counsellor, Head of Consular Section, Embassy of the Republic of Hungary
Thank you very much for the question. It's going to be very difficult to give a very short answer on resolving this issue. The issue is very complex, and it requires a complex approach to consider it and then to provide some kind of solution to it.
First of all, as I stated in my very brief remarks, possibly there are two considerations to take into account. One is why this phenomenon is coming from Hungary, on the one hand. On the other hand, if it is coming, why is it coming to Canada?
So there are push and pull factors. What are the push factors and what are the pull factors? On one hand, concerning the push factors, it's interesting in general that you will not see this phenomenon in relation to any other country. It is just in relation to Canada. There might be some push factors, there is no doubt about it. It's the socio-economic situation. There are a considerable number of Hungarians who are in difficult economic situations as a result of not just the latest hardships inflicted by the international financial and economic crisis, but as a prolonged consequence of the economic changes that took place after the political changes in the 1990s.
All these have combined to produce a difficult situation for many. Some of them, there is no doubt, are trying to find a better way of life, and I think that's an absolutely acceptable aspiration for anybody to have. As in Canada, in Hungary everyone has the freedom to leave the country for any reason. It's private. There is no need to explain it, and if someone wants to establish a better life and find a better life somewhere else, no problem, he can do it.
I think when it comes to aspirations to establish better conditions for life, it is an acceptable and appreciated way of improving one's life and one's family's life. From that point of view, there are several persons who wanted to leave Hungary and they did it the right way. By “the right way”, I mean immigrating to Canada, staying in line, applying for the necessary visa or application, and coming here to establish a new life. It seems to us—by “us” I mean the embassy—on the basis of those proofs and facts that the embassy has encountered over the last three or four years, as we have had contacts and have been contacted by many persons, that the great majority of those people who are coming here as refugees seem to have aspirations to improve their lives and life possibilities for the future.