Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2012

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Davies, it's a pleasure to see you back.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be back.

Your Excellency and witnesses, thank you for being with us today.

I'm going to pick up on what Ms. James said, because I'm not completely sure that a complete picture was given to you.

The legislation currently before Parliament would allow the Minister of Immigration himself to designate certain countries as safe. Also, it allows the Minister of Immigration himself, or herself, as the case may be, to designate as irregular arrivals people who arrive in Canada other than by being settled through the UNHCR process. This would apply to groups of two or more, although that is undefined in the bill. If the minister designates people as irregular arrivals, then they would be prohibited by this legislation from making permanent resident applications in Canada for five years, and it would also ban them from sponsoring family members for a period of five years. If they come from a so-called safe country, unlike other refugee claimants they would have no access to the Refugee Appeal Division, which is an appeal division set up under this legislation, and they're subject to be mandatorily detained for up to one year without review.

The reason I'm telling you all those things is it's in those factors that many people have asserted that this legislation would violate the UN convention on refugees and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, because what it does is it imposes penalties on refugees who arrive on Canada's shores by irregular means, contrary to article 31 of the UN convention on refugees, which says that no signatory state may impose a penalty on a refugee claimant because of their mode of arrival.

Now, with that context, I want to ask any of you if you know if any European states have special prohibitions on refugees that give them fewer rights than other refugees because of their mode of arrival into your country.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Someone at the European Commission perhaps, or Germany?

[Ioana Patrascu]

I can reply concerning the legal framework in the European Union.

No, refugees are not to be penalized due to the way they arrive. So if they are regular migrants who arrive irregularly, they should not be penalized. There are also specific provisions saying that an asylum seeker should not be detained only because he or she arrived irregularly and applied for asylum.

No, we don't have these kinds of differentiations based on regular entry or irregular entry in terms of rights for asylum seekers and refugees.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, did someone else want to answer?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could you identify yourself please?

[Angela Martini, Policy Officer, Directorate General, Home Affairs, Border Management and Return Policy Unit, European Commission]

My name is Angela Martini. I work on borders, but I worked for many years on asylum.

I would also like to underline one fact that you are aware of, Mr. Davies. Contrary to Canada, in Europe the vast majority of asylum seekers arrive by irregular means. The vast majority of asylum seekers who arrive here don't have travel documents or visas. Very few arrive by regular means. You are aware that resettlement in the European Union is not very developed. For us, of the 250,000 who arrived last year, a big chunk arrived irregularly.

As Ioana said, they're not penalized. When they arrive from a country that has been designated at the national level as a safe country of origin, they go through a quicker procedure. They're not penalized. There is a presumption that their claim is unfounded. They still have access to remedies.

If I may add, regarding the first question about the duration of a procedure, there is no such thing as the ideal duration, whether it's too short or too long. Too long we could say is if someone is stuck for a year waiting for a decision. The most important thing is that the guarantees of the asylum seeker are respected so that he or she has access, for instance, to a lawyer and to an interpreter, that the interview takes place allowing enough time for the applicant to put forward the elements of his or her application, and that there has been access to a judicial review. The assessment is to be done more on the merits of the individual examination rather than to say that 14 days is too short a time, or not. It might be a perfectly adequate period of time if the procedural steps are being respected.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Martini. I appreciate that clarification.

Everybody is agreed that, in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with having a streamlined or quicker procedure for claimants from safe countries or even having a safe country list. We're talking about whether or not we make sure we still have procedural and substantive protections and equality.

I want to move on to the safe country list. It's the position of the opposition that any country on earth is capable of producing a refugee. That's our position. What we're concerned about is making sure that even those who come from so-called safe countries have their rights respected.

I want to focus on the Roma.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're really out of time, but be very quick, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

We know there's a rise of right-wing extremist activity, and some of it is violent. We know that in May 2011, the UN Special Rapporteur found that violent crimes are increasing in Hungary. Other governments are not really able to protect the Roma. There have been any number of human rights complaints against Hungary in particular and about its descent into authoritarianism.

Could you comment on whether you feel that Hungary as an EU member is a safe country for the Roma, and whether you think the Roma are adequately protected there?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm only giving you extra time because I like you.

Is anyone there?

[Angela Martini]

It's a very difficult question that you asked. I don't think we are here to comment on that.

As you know, in the treaty of the European Union there are articles that allow action to be taken against a member state that is considered to be violating human rights in a constant, repetitive manner. We are not in a position to pronounce on the policies of Hungary.

However, on the first part of your question regarding whether any country, even Canada, could be producing refugees who are persecuted, in a way, yes, I could agree. At the same time, in the European Union we have the presumption that each country is a safe country of origin. It doesn't prevent—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have to move on.

[Angela Martini]

—a member state from examining a claim. It's not obliged to refuse it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Angela, thank you.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you to all the presenters.

Your Excellency, it's great to see you here this morning.

If you're a family of four, a husband, a wife, and two young children, let's say, under the age of 15, in my understanding there is the potential of being put into some sort of detention if you don't have proper ID. Do you break up the family? Is each individual state responsible for making that determination, or does the European Union as a whole decide? Here is a refugee family of four. Because we don't know who they are, we're going to put the kids in a foster care facility and we're going to hold the parents in detention. How does that work?

The question is for the European Commission first.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go for it, Angela.

[Angela Martini]

In the European Union, examination of asylum applications is dealt with by member states' administration. We don't examine any applications; however, there are rules at the EU level, and for the moment there are also minimum standards on how you examine the application and on, let's say, the reception of asylum seekers.

As Ioana said before, in a way, detention should be a measure of last resort, so it might be possible—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'm going to interrupt, because I only have five minutes. I'm going to ask that the answers be quite short.

[Angela Martini]

Families should be kept together.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Are there situations—I'm going to go to the family of four. Do you put young people in detention? If the answer is yes to that, okay, if the answer is no, do you keep the family unit together?

Could you provide a very brief answer? You have less than a minute to comment, and then if I could get the Government of Germany to provide comment on that issue too, that would be nice.

Thank you.

[Angela Martini]

The family should be kept together, whether they are just in reception or in detention. In general, families should not be put in detention.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Brumberg.