Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2012

[Ward Elcock]

What I said is that I have visited a number of countries, including Thailand, to work with the authorities in those countries and to work within their laws to try to assist them in dealing with what is a problem that confronts all of us—human smuggling—and has an impact when a vessel arrives in Canada.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Are you aware that Thailand is not a signatory of the United Nations refugee convention?

In your work with the Thai police, as one of the countries you did work with, were you successful in arresting some of the Sri Lankan asylum seekers in Thailand? And is it correct, from what I'm learning, that some of the people who were arrested by the Thai police were deported back to Sri Lanka, back to persecution?

[Ward Elcock]

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, it's within Thai law what activities the Thai government and officials would undertake. From our point of view, we're simply working with them to assist them in ways to deal with the human smugglers who are attempting to depart to Canada.

I'm aware that they are not a member of the conventions. But, having said that, UNHCR has an office in Bangkok and works very closely with the Thai government.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

We, as in Canada, did send people to Thailand to help the local Thai authorities, to work within their laws, when we know that they're not a signatory of the UN convention of the refugee, and there have been people who, we're hearing through the media, have been sent back, deported back, from Thailand, back to Sri Lanka.

Is it true also that there was no review of their refugee status prior to their deportation from Thailand because they don't have a refugee review process?

We're also learning that Canada gave $12 million to the Thai government to work on the deterrence of asylum seekers leaving Thailand and coming to Canada.

So isn't it that one of your projects that you work on is to assist the Thai government to deport asylum seekers back to persecution?

[Ward Elcock]

Mr. Chairman, my total budget is about $12 million, so I can assure you I haven't given anybody $12 million. We've worked with a number of countries in terms of capacity-building in a variety of places to assist governments. Many governments in many countries have far less in terms of resources and capacity. They may lack the capacity and may require training to deal with fraudulent documents and so on and so forth.

Our goal is to work with a number of countries, and Thailand is one of them, where we have provided some capacity-building assistance. In many cases it's more often training than it is actually a physical piece of hardware.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Elcock.

The time has expired, unfortunately. We could go on, but we can't.

Admiral Loren, Mr. Elcock, and Mr. Perchal, thank you for your expertise, and it certainly has been that.

Thank you.

We will suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Let's reconvene for panel two.

We have two witnesses: Lorne Waldman, of Lorne Waldman and Associates; and the Anglican Church of Canada, represented by Reverend Canon William Prentice and Reverend Laurette Gauthier Glasgow.

Have I met you before, Reverend Glasgow?

[Rev Laurette Gauthier Glasgow, Special Advisor, Government Relations, Diocese of Ottawa, Anglican Church of Canada]

Yes, you have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't know where it was. Was it in Europe?

[Laurette Gauthier Glasgow]

I was the Canadian ambassador for Belgium and Luxembourg and the Council of Europe.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's where it was. Yes. I met you in Strasbourg.

[Laurette Gauthier Glasgow]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's right.

You see? I do remember people.

Well, I'm pleased to see you again.

Reverend Prentice and Reverend Glasgow, the two of you have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation, as do you, Mr. Waldman.

You can proceed. The church goes first.

[Rev. Canon William Prentice, Director, Community Ministry, Diocese of Ottawa, Anglican Church of Canada]

Sir, thank you for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. It's a privilege to be able to engage on this issue and to be here with you in the committee this afternoon.

Within the Anglican Church and within the Anglican Diocese of Ottawa, which is the regional expression of our general synod or national church, our commitment to working with refugees is a long-standing one. It grows from an enduring partnership with Canada.

Anglicans throughout Canada have walked the biblical walk of welcoming the stranger, an integral part of our faith and an important element in our baptismal covenant to strive for justice and peace among all and to respect the dignity of every human being. We do this by opening our arms to refugees and by providing financial and other support to newcomers.

For several decades, the Anglican Church of Canada more broadly, and the diocese of Ottawa specifically, have established close partnerships through sponsorship agreements with the Government of Canada and with other ecumenical groups to sponsor, welcome, and help legitimate refugees build new lives in the safety and security of Canada.

The Primate's World Relief and Development Fund, the official development and relief agency of the Anglican Church of Canada, has had in its mission and mandate a strong concern for and response to refugees both overseas and here in Canada since its founding in 1959.

[Laurette Gauthier Glasgow]

We know that immigration and refugee systems can always be improved. We recognize the government's underlying desire for a fair and consistent immigration and refugee system. We also welcome proposals to increase by 20% the number of resettled refugees and the funding for resettlement programs. We even welcome measures that would facilitate and accelerate the processes for the successful integration of refugees into Canadian society.

However, Bill C-31 raises several serious concerns. The Canadian Council for Refugees, amongst others, has articulated concerns with which we concur. These concerns emanate from our long-standing and practical experience with the refugee community and from our deep religious convictions to welcome the stranger and to protect the vulnerable—values that we believe are shared more broadly by others in our open and democratic society.

[William Prentice]

Of particular concern and what actually drives us to come and be present here this afternoon is clause 19 of the proposed legislation.

Clause 19 has the potential to place legitimate refugees in jeopardy of losing their permanent residency status and of their removal from Canada. It would permit the deportation of refugees who have been accepted as permanent residents.

Clause 19 would apply to all former refugees, we believe, both those identified overseas who arrive in Canada with their permanent residency status--as is the case for those we sponsor--as well as to those gaining that status after a successful inland claim.

Clause 19, we believe, undermines our commitment to resettle refugees and provide them with the security of permanent residency.

[Laurette Gauthier Glasgow]

It also undermines the fundamental objective of Canada’s long-standing refugee policy to integrate refugees promptly so that they are in a position to contribute more fully to Canadian society.

It undermines the considerable efforts and human and financial resources that sponsors, other support agencies, and the Government of Canada itself has dedicated to their welcoming, their settling, and their integration.

What befuddles us is the rationale for clause 19. It remains unclear to us, as there are ample mechanisms within the existing legislation to deal with any fraudulent claims or criminal cases.

[William Prentice]

But we believe the most threatening aspect of clause 19 is the potential, through the principle of cessation, for this potential law to be applied retroactively, including in situations where people have acted in good faith and within the current law since arrival in Canada, but find later they have unknowingly placed themselves in jeopardy through this retroactive application.

[Laurette Gauthier Glasgow]

Through our extensive and long-standing work with refugees, our volunteers are aware of several specific cases where the application of clause 19—either sporadically or potentially systematically as part of the review process for citizenship applications or of major changes in circumstances in the countries of origin—would result in the stripping of permanent resident status or deportation of legitimate refugees. These are not hypothetical cases. These are real cases affecting refugees and families.

There are two broad kinds of categories.

First are the instances of potential jeopardy whereby the permanent resident voluntarily re-avails himself or herself of the protection of his or her country of nationality by using his or her passport of origin. The second general case is where there is potential jeopardy, where the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist, through the principle of cessation.

[William Prentice]

In the first kind of case that we identified, as our volunteers tell us, we know of two situations here in the city of Ottawa, with the refugees we work with, where, if Bill C-31 were enacted and applied retroactively, individuals and their families would have their status jeopardized.

Both cases can be referred to later in testimony, but suffice it to say that humanitarian considerations compelled two refugees in two separate instances to use their passports of origin in order to travel to nearby countries to rescue family members.

In the second case, there is widespread concern, notably among our friends in the Rwandan and Burmese communities, that recent developments in their country of origin might lead to the invocation of the cessation clause, thereby putting the status of legitimate refugees in question, notably with respect to their application for citizenship.

Again, we have four examples we could give to express a more general concern emanating from our friends in the Rwandan community and from the primate's fund sponsorship of Kachin families and a Karen family from Burma.

[Laurette Gauthier Glasgow]

Make no mistake: we should rejoice in the transformation of oppressive societies and the consequent normalization of relations with them. That's one of our objectives. However, we should not punish those who left those countries during times of oppression and who have made a new life for themselves and their families in Canada. They have made sacrifices to become part of our country, and their continued hope lies in becoming Canadian citizens regardless of what occurred in their countries of origin.

[William Prentice]

We cannot assume that those who have escaped persecution in the past by becoming refugees and later permanent residents in Canada would not face retribution, scorn, or persecution in their country of origin if they were turned away from their country of adoption: Canada.

[Laurette Gauthier Glasgow]

In the light of the detrimental effects of several provisions of this proposed legislation on members of the former refugee/permanent resident community in Canada, our recommendation is that we see the withdrawal or redrafting of these provisions through amendments to ensure fairness, transparency, and predictability, as well as to ensure that all provisions of the proposed legislation are in conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s international obligations.

[William Prentice]

Mr. Chair, members of the community, it's been an honour to be here this afternoon.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Reverend Glasgow, Reverend Prentice.

Mr. Waldman, it's your turn.