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.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I want to go back to Bill C-11 just briefly. Bill C-11 allows us, as the government, to hold people until identification happens. They are screened to see if anybody is a terrorist or has done other things in their previous lives. In light of that, it seems that this excessive aspect of this legislation is not necessary, that we could just go back to Bill C-11 and Canadians would get that same level of protection from it, whereas up to a year in prison does not seem to benefit anybody, although it costs the taxpayers even more money.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I have a quick question before Mr. Lamoureux.
You're not the only one who has suggested that detention is inappropriate or may be unconstitutional. Given the possibility of our receiving applicants who may be terrorists—there may be some facts put forward that certain individuals are terrorists, but not conclusive, or there may be some facts put forward that certain individuals may have been involved in criminal activity, but not conclusive—do you have any alternative recommendations to detention?
If someone is a potential terrorist or criminal, we just can't let them loose in Canadian society. We just can't do that.
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think detaining someone when there is a risk to the security of the Canadian population is a legitimate ground for detention. I just would like to remind the committee that, according to CBSA stats, only 6% of all refugees and asylum seekers in detention have been detained on security grounds. That means, basically, that 94% of other refugees or asylum seekers are detained for two main reasons: because there is a risk that they will not present themselves and follow the immigration procedures, or most of the time, for identity reasons. In that particular case, I do believe that there might be alternatives to detention, and I'm actually—
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Probably making sure that they comply with the immigration procedures, among others—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
How do we do that if we are letting them loose?
The reason I'm asking this question is that many counsel and lawyers have come before us and said that detention is unconstitutional.
All I know is that it would be totally irresponsible—and here I'm the Chair and shouldn't be taking positions—to let people loose into our society who are potential criminals or potential terrorists. Therefore, I respect your position that it may be unconstitutional, but surely when you say that, there must be some alternatives.
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'm not saying that detention in itself is unconstitutional. I'm saying that detention has to be reviewed on a regular basis. If you want, there is a legal framework around detention that has to be respected. International law does not say that detention for immigration purposes should be forbidden, that this is illegal. It just says that it has to be allowed within a legal framework.
I certainly see your point and your concerns, and I certainly see that this is a difficult balancing act, but—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
But, excuse me, there's no balancing. The problem is that if we have a whole bunch of people arrive—and I'm going to stop soon, Mr. Lamoureux, and I thank you for not interrupting me—by boat or some other mode of transportation, we don't know who they are. They may not have identification. Canadian authorities have an obligation to determine whether any or all of these people are terrorists, or any or all of these people are criminals, because there's been evidence given to this committee that people who are potential terrorists or criminals have gotten through the hoops and are living among us.
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Once again, according to CBSA stats, it's only 6% of all refugees and asylum seekers that are being detained for security risks.
There are studies, among others, commissioned by governments that clearly show that detention does not work as a deterrent against irregular immigration. That's a fact. You want some facts. Here are the facts: This is not working and there—
Conservative
Conservative
As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, can I just make a comment, with Mr. Lamoureux's permission—
As an Individual
Another motive for the year's detention stems back to what happened to the first boat from China that arrived here in the mid-nineties. A boatload of asylum seekers arrived from China and they were all released. None of them showed up for their board hearing and we have no idea where they are.
When the second boat arrived, all were detained. They were put through accelerated procedures. Board members were sent down to Vancouver. All of the people were interviewed. They were all determined, with the exception of four, not to be genuine, and we asked the Chinese government for permission to return them. The Chinese government said, “Return all of them or none”. There were very delicate negotiations about that. Finally, the Chinese agreed to let us keep, I think, four of them and all the rest were sent back. We have not had another boat from China.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
No. Chair, I think I get the right to state my point of order.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I believe the chair has overstepped the time. I can see your making a quick comment and moving on, but I believe you have used up seven minutes of the time. I have not seen this kind of an intervention or this kind of freedom before.
I am really hoping, then, that the opposition side will get to balance out that time, because to me this was just not called for today, Chair.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, if we are going to go down this road of talking about time, then I am going to hold the first three days of our hearings as an example when the government loses minutes every single hour when points of order are called.
If you want to get into a discussion about time, Ms. Sims, and what has been lost or what has been gained, then you're going to have to suggest and make a recommendation as to how every minute the government has lost from its time for questioning will be replaced.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Dykstra, with all respect, I am really focusing on the role of the chair and the amount of time that was taken up by the chair. I presumed the chair was doing what I have done in the past, which is to get on the list. I was just surprised that he went ahead of Mr. Lamoureux.
Now, I've witnessed in the past that he has made a quick intervention and then moved on, and I've been okay with that. But today I just want to put my concern on the record about the length of time the chair took to question the witnesses and make his own comments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You are right, Ms. Sims. I will hold you to seven minutes, on the button, from now on.