Evidence of meeting #38 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
Remember that, because you had seven and three-quarter minutes and eight minutes, which is beyond what you're allowed. From now on, I'll cut you off at seven minutes, sharp. We'll play by the rules.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I raised a point of order and I really resent the belligerent and aggressive tone the chair is taking in addressing my point of order. Mine is basically based on the facts of what I observed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm sorry if you find me belligerent. You're challenging me on the time and I'm saying that I will play by the time from now on, as long as you respect that when I cut you off at seven minutes sharp.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, I have five minutes and I do want to try to get across a couple of points.
First and foremost, I think it's very important that we emphasize that mandatory detention is indeed, from my and the Liberal Party's perspective, unconstitutional and will be challenged.
Not only does Bill C-31 raise concerns regarding challenges to our Constitution, I would ultimately argue that it also tarnishes Canada's reputation to be a world leader in dealing with refugees and whole issue of refugees more broadly, where we have 10 million plus people around the world who are in need of some sort of asylum or are in refugee camps and so forth. Our potential to be able to influence that is being tarnished by Bill C-31.
I want to go to the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady. The Sun Sea carried 492 people and the Ocean Lady 76 people. There are six people who are still in detention. The current system allows us to keep in custody those individuals who are a high risk to Canadian society. They remain in detention. That's an important point that needs to be made.
Ms. Nakache, you made reference to detention. I appreciate your words and that they are based on finances and the fact that it violates the Constitution. Those are excellent points that I concur with wholeheartedly.
The question I have for you is this. There are other aspects to Bill C-31, such that if you are deemed a refugee and your circumstances change abroad, you could lose your status as a refugee or your ability to sponsor a family member, even if you have been deemed to be a refugee for years.
I'm wondering if you can provide a quick comment on that.
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
First of all, I fully agree with you, and I'm sorry if I was misinterpreted on that fact.
Once again, international law does not forbid immigration detention per se, but it states, among other things, that immigration detention has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Mandatory detention per se is unconstitutional and illegal to me, according to international law. I certainly see where you are coming from and I support this view too.
I would be more than happy to provide the committee with some reports that have been written specifically on alternatives to detention. I think these are very good reports that could certainly provide you with an insight on what the possibilities are here, and there are concrete possibilities.
In relation to other aspects of C-31, I think that many of them are problematic. The one that you mentioned, the fact that we can send someone back if the situation has changed in their country of origin, needs to be considered with caution. Why is that? Because if people in the country of destination here in Canada have—I will say that in French—
They have taken root and have really developed considerable ties to the country of destination. In that case, I see it as very problematic—if only from a human standpoint—to send those people back to their country of origin.
Bill C-31 contains many provisions I consider to be problematic. Those provisions violate the fundamental principles of refugee law.
I prefer to let other people testify and talk at more length about those very important issues, as you said.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'm going to share my time with Mr. Dykstra, and he is going to lead off.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Mr. Opitz.
I want to pursue the issue of detention. If looks as if you've based your argument pretty much on your view that detention is unconstitutional and therefore problematic with respect to the bill. Whether they are determined to be a refugee prior to coming to Canada or they come to Canada and are able to prove themselves to be refugees, somewhere between 98% and 99% of them are not held in detention because we're able to determine who they are, what their backgrounds are, and therefore we are able to quickly determine whether they pose a threat to Canadians.
The half a percent of all refugees who come to Canada that you're speaking about are those who are filing to become refugees and are held in detention for a period of time until their documents prove who they are and that they are not a risk to society.
I'm not quite sure how you argue that if the individuals are unknown to the Canadian government or authorities or to the Canadian public, why it's unconstitutional to hold those individuals until we determine who they are. I don't know of any constitutional or charter challenge that has worked against the identification of an individual, saying that it is unconstitutional.
Delphine Nakache
Thank you for that comment.
I would like to make two clarifications, and I think it's very important to do so.
Of course, this is the kind of talk surrounding the issue of asylum seekers and refugees. We often hear people say that refugees should be protected and that asylum seekers are provided with less protection. You know as well as I do that the Geneva Convention was adopted in 1951 in a context where, at the time, the terminology issue was irrelevant. Refugees would arrive and automatically be granted refugee status. At the time, the context was very different. Over the years, a distinction has been made between asylum seekers and refugees because destination countries increasingly had to deal with asylum situations and, finally, when people would arrive on their soil, they were refugee status claimants. The fact is that the Geneva Convention only mentions refugees, but that is because, at the time, no distinction had been made between the two terms. It was a post-WWII context, and people were automatically considered as refugees under the convention. The distinction between asylum seekers and refugees was made over time, and determining refugee status has now become a long process.
Unless I am mistaken, you asked why it is illegal or unconstitutional in terms of international law to detain people in cases where information on their identity is lacking, and in other similar situations. You know very well, as do I, that immigration law comes under administrative law and that it's basically a law that allows procedures. Finally, the principle of administrative law is based on considerable discretion being exercised by decision-makers. Why was the system developed like that? Because those in charge thought immigration officers should have the authority to determine the merits of a claim, a situation, on a case-by-case basis. In fact, immigration law has so far been designed to allow immigration officers to make an assessment on a case-by-case basis when an individual comes before them. As a result, everyone is put in the same basket in that context, and that's where things become problematic.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Your position now has changed from your original statement, so I would just make it clear that you also have issues with understanding the direction that the government needs to take when you're unsure of the identity of an individual. You've spent a great deal of time now, not directly responding to the question but alluding to the fact that officials have a responsibility. Essentially, what you said is officials have a responsibility based on the fact that in 1951, when the determination was made, it didn't take into account asylum seekers but only refugees.
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That is not what I'm saying.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
You have referred to the 1951 convention six or seven times as the basis of your fundamental argument on detention. You have made it very clear now that what wasn't taken into account in 1951 was an individual seeking asylum. What the 1951 convention takes into account is a refugee who has already been determined to be a refugee. So I don't think we have any argument with you on that issue.
The issue that we continue to harp on, for the less than 0.5% of those who seek refugee status here in Canada, is that if we do not know who the individual is, how can it be unconstitutional to hold that individual in detention until we've determined they are not a threat to Canadian society?
I don't need another long explanation, because both of us have used up Mr. Opitz's time, but what I'd like—
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I would just like to emphasize that you did not understand correctly what I was saying, and again I will be pleased to provide clarification in writing if needed.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
You're right, I don't understand. It seems to be in conflict.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Bissett, in the one minute I have, you said that this bill doesn't go far enough. What would your recommendations be to make it go the distance?
As an Individual
The minister has the power, I gather, in the new bill to designate countries that are safe for refugees, but even these people under the bill have the right of a hearing, and also the right to seek leave to the Federal Court. My prediction is that's going to jam up the system, which makes me feel that the new system isn't going to be much of an improvement over the old one. We're still going to get literally thousands of asylum seekers every year, most of whom are not genuine and are coming from perfectly safe countries. The front end of the system will not be able to clear them quickly enough to make a difference, so that we can give proper attention to those people who come directly from their country of persecution to Canada and get a full hearing.
So my recommendation is to give the minister the power to designate countries that are safe for refugees—all of the western European countries, the United States, and several others—and prevent people from applying for refugee status. There's no reason for them to apply. If they're sent back, they are protected by the country they've come from.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Bissett and Professor Nakache, unfortunately our time has expired. I thank you for your presentations to the committee.
We will suspend for a few moments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, we will reconvene.
We have a little larger group of witnesses this morning because members may have to leave the committee to go and vote. We're not sure when, if indeed at all, but there's a good possibility we will. That's why it's a little unusual and have a larger group.
We have three witnesses on the panel. The first panel is from the Canadian Council of Refugees. We have Loly Rico, vice-president, and Chantal Tie, the working group chair of inland protection. From the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, we have Donald Galloway, co-chair of the legal research committee, and Lesley Stalker, a member at large. Finally, from the Centre de santé et de services sociaux de la Montagne, we have with us today Marc Sougavinski, director general, and Marian Shermarke, clinical advisor.
Good morning to all of you. Unfortunately, each group normally has 10 minutes, but this time you will only have 8 minutes.
Ms. Tie, are you the spokesperson?
Chantal Tie Working Group Chair, Inland Protection, Canadian Council for Refugees
Ms. Rico and I will be sharing the presentation, so we'll be moving back and forth a little bit.