Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2012

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

Can we make it to the vote on time, if we extend it?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to have a bus waiting outside with the motor running. It's up to you.

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

It's okay, as long as we can make the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Oh, no. This is a decision of the committee.

Do we have unanimous consent?

All right.

Continue, Mr. Dykstra. You have a minute and a half.

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

I'm truly trying to get at the problem here. I didn't ever suggest, and I'm sorry to say that you think that I thought the individuals who—

[Donald Galloway]

I wasn't insinuating anything, Mr. Dykstra. I just wanted to be clear that it is why I would not use that language.

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

So you don't think the system is broken. Okay, fine.

I think the system is under massive need of repair.

[Donald Galloway]

I think I agree, and I think Parliament agreed with you when the Balanced Refugee Reform Act was passed. That was the act that—

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

I agree. I was there. As you know, I'm parliamentary secretary; I sat through every single minute of those negotiations and discussions, and am very proud of the work I did on Bill C-11. That's why 75% to 80% of Bill C-11 is still included in this bill and will always remain a part of Bill C-31.

[Donald Galloway]

In that regard, we're on the same page, Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you.

But I understand that the problem with Hungary, the issue we have, will not be resolved under Bill C-11. That is the very purpose for which we're here.

The government and I—which may come as some surprise to Ms. Tie—are actually interested in helping true refugees. I'm interested in getting more refugees here to Canada. That's why we increased the number by 2,500, which remains part of our strategy to control the numbers.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry. That's your time.

Madame Groguhé.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I have only five minutes, I will proceed as follows. I will ask each group a question, and I don't care who takes the floor, as long as I obtain an answer.

I will begin.

Regarding the time frames set out in Bill C-31, in your note, you identify the issues associated with reducing those time frames. Could you describe those issues in more detail by relying on your experience with asylum seekers?

[Chantal Tie]

I think we can both answer that.

I've been practising immigration and refugee law for 33 years. I cannot imagine being able to prepare a case in 45 days. The first thing we do is obtain documentation to verify what the person is saying. It is not possible to obtain that in 45 days, even if I met the person the day they arrived, which is impossible. All of the legal aid societies have joined together in saying that the timelines proposed are impossible to meet. So people will not get counsel.

If some people think that preparing refugee claims is simple, they are dreaming. It is not simple: It takes a long time to establish trust with somebody and to actually find out what really happened.

[Loly Rico]

One of the things we believe is that the timelines will affect the most vulnerable communities. That's why I'm inviting the committee to see Bill C-31 with a gender analysis. If we see it with that, we will see that the timelines are affecting women, as it doesn't have that gender analysis.

I can bring you the example of a woman who has been in a domestic violence situation. She comes with her husband, the abuser. All the interviews are with the abuser. Later on, she'll learn what her rights are here in Canada. With the timelines we have, she won't be able to go and explain her story and be protected, because she could even be deported back with the abuser.

The other thing is with the eligible community. Sometimes they come so traumatized that for them it is more difficult to express and say all that has happened to them. That's when we have the problem with the timelines.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I will now address the CSSS and PRAIDA representatives.

According to you, once the reasons for seeking asylum no longer apply, the loss of permanent residence status negates the importance of refugees taking root, as suggested in the Geneva Convention regarding naturalization. One of the witnesses pointed that out.

Could you quickly elaborate further on that? You have a minute and a half.

[Marian Shermarke]

The loss of permanent residency because of a change in circumstances in the country of origin is a major concern for us. We don't understand why someone who has lived their life and had children here should lose that residency. The measures added to this bill make no sense. We have a hard time understanding why someone who has been traumatized, who has settled here, someone who feels safe and contributes to the host society should lose their permanent residence status.

Thank you.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I am addressing the third group.

How are the Bill C-31 provisions on the detention of designated foreign nationals different from the detention provisions included in the current legislation? Why are those differences significant from the legal standpoint?

[Donald Galloway]

Sorry, I may have missed something, but as I understand the question, you're asking me about the differences between the law now and the law that is being proposed.

I emphasize two things. One is the language of the Supreme Court: “prompt and independent review”. “Prompt”—2 days, 7 days, 30 days. “Independent”—a branch of the immigration division of the IRB. Proposed? A minimum of a year—in some cases—final determination of refugee claims, a process that is lengthy is problematic in that it doesn't lead to quick ends—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. Unfortunately, we all have to go to vote, so we're cutting short this meeting. I apologize for that, but those are the rules of this place.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of you for coming today and making your presentations and participating with the committee. Thank you for your assistance.

Members of the committee, there is a bus waiting for us. Do not dawdle.

The meeting is adjourned.