Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As my colleague Ms. Sims has quoted, we heard from many of our witnesses that access to travel documents—not to travel to their country of origin but travel to a neutral country—is extremely important to designated foreign nationals.
I want to add more of Mr. Donald Galloway said. He is, of course, from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. He continued to say, after Ms. Sims' quote, that:
...genuine refugees who are fleeing often cannot stick together. They end up in different countries. There are families I know in Victoria who have very close family members in Sweden. They need to be able to get and see these family members to look after them. They need the travel document in order to do so. The travel document is something that we undertook to provide when we signed on to the refugee convention.
Clause 16 tells us that we're going to, from now on, give a narrow interpretation of the refugee convention and only supply this travel document to refugees. If they have come here in an irregular manner and are designated, we're only going to give this travel document to individuals after they become permanent residents, after the five-year process, or after they gain a temporary permit.
Once again, that's a five-year process.
He continued:
When it signed up to the convention, Canada attached a reservation. The reservation that it attached said that for two articles we would like to give a narrow interpretation of the phrase “lawfully staying”. These two articles relate to the provision of welfare services. Canada did not exercise its right to attach that reservation in relation to eight other articles, one of which is article 28. In other words, with full knowledge of what we were doing, we signed up to this international regime of granting families who had been split up the chance to go to other neutral countries in order to meet up with their family. That is what's at stake here in clause 16.
It looks like a very odd interpretative clause. I think it's essentially important, that it is really vital to understanding what we're doing. I fear that it may have been attached there because of a mistake. I fear that it is actually there because the government, or the drafters, were actually concerned about people returning, using this document in a way that they are currently not entitled to do. If you go to the passport office, if you go to their website, you will see that these documents are not valid for return to the country of origin.
Many other witnesses have described the ways they have seen their clients using these travel documents, highlighting that under current, existing legislation, these documents cannot be used to travel to their country of origin. They described how, for many refugees who arrive in Canada, this is the only way they can see their family members—for years.
These are people who are in limbo. Canada has not decided to deport them, but it also will not land them. Some are in limbo for 10, 20, or 30 years. To these people, having access to travel documents that allow them to visit a neutral country is the only means they have to see their families. By removing access to these documents, we are asking people who we have pledged to protect to endure enormous personal hardship.
For these reasons, Mr. Chair, I believe this clause should be amended. Thank you.