Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 12th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to call the meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 48, Tuesday, June 12, 2012. This meeting is televised. The orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), studying “Standing on Guard for Thee: Ensuring that Canada's Immigration System Is Secure”. That, translated, means the security of Canada's immigration system.

I have just a few comments before we start. First of all I wanted to thank Madame Béchard and Ms. Elgersma for the briefing note you gave us as to the evidence we've heard to date on this subject, since February. Of course, we were interrupted by a study of Bill C-31.

I will be attending the Liaison Committee tomorrow, as the chairman, to seek approval for spending to the three detention centres: Laval, Toronto, and Vancouver. We'll see how that goes. If it is successful, I will count on the two critics and the parliamentary secretary to ask their house leaders—I don't know whether it's the house leaders or the whips, maybe both—because a motion would then have to be made in the House approving our attendance on those visits.

We're going for an hour. We have the Canadian Centre for International Justice, Jayne Stoyles, executive director. Good afternoon to you. We have the Canadian Council for Refugees, Loly Rico, vice-president. Good afternoon to you. You each have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation to the committee. I think you've been here before, so you know the rules. Then we'll go in rounds asking questions.

Ms. Stoyles, you may proceed.

Thank you.

[Jayne Stoyles, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for International Justice]

Thank you very much.

Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to join you today.

Distinguished members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

In the context of your discussion on Canada's immigration system, I will address the issue of how Canada should respond to the presence of alleged war criminals in this country.

I'm the executive director of the Canadian Centre for International Justice, CCIJ, which is based here in Ottawa. CCIJ is a charitable organization that works with survivors of torture, genocide, and other atrocities to seek redress and to bring alleged perpetrators of these crimes to justice both in Canada and internationally.

I'm a lawyer, and I previously directed the global campaign to establish the International Criminal Court.

After the Holocaust, the world said “never again”, and yet mass atrocities have since been committed in a great number of countries in every region of the world, subjecting people to torture, murder, rape, mutilation, false imprisonment, and many other horrors. During or after a period of massive human rights violations, many people flee the country because they have nothing left. They no longer have any means of survival, or staying in their country is not safe for them or their families.

Most of those who come to Canada are victims of conflict and human rights abuses, yet there will inevitably be a few who were involved in ordering, participating in, or committing atrocities as well.

There are about one million people in Canada who are survivors of torture and war trauma, according to torture treatment centres. At the same time, there are an estimated 2,000 people in Canada who may have been involved in planning or perpetrating war crimes or crimes against humanity and genocide. Canada does invest in preventing entry to Canada on the basis of allegations of involvement in war crimes, and does indeed prevent many people from entering on this basis.

I do not think the emphasis should be placed on doing more on that point. There will always be some people who slip through the cracks, and there is also a risk of preventing the victims from escaping their abuse when the net is cast too widely.

What I do strongly believe is that we need to do more when it comes to light that there are alleged war criminals in Canada. My organization and many other Canadian organizations and individual experts have, for over a decade, been calling on the Government of Canada to take action on this issue. In fact, these efforts date back to just after World War II when members of the Jewish community in Canada became aware of the presence of Nazi war criminals in Canada. It was 40 years before a commission of inquiry was established to look into that, and it was found that indeed about 800 former Nazis were living in Canada, some in the same communities as survivors of the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, despite changes to the Criminal Code to allow for at least some of them to be prosecuted in Canada, a Supreme Court case allowed the defence that one was simply following orders. This shut down other cases and led to a complete focus on immigration approaches such as citizenship revocation and deportation.

Last summer we saw this approach taken one step further with the names and photos of 30 individuals accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity and thought to be in Canada were made public. The publication of names and photos was for the purpose of inviting assistance in finding them so that they could be arrested and deported.

We know that everyone in Canada would share concern about the potential for alleged war criminals to live here without facing consequences for the very serious crimes in which they've been implicated. In particular, when we imagine them in the same communities as their former victims, as is often the case, there is a clear need for action, but it is a matter of what kind of action.

We have concerns that a singular focus on deportations of alleged war criminals in Canada will not, in fact, meet the stated goal of making Canada safer, nor will it make the world safer. It is also in violation of our obligations under several international treaties we've ratified, and is contrary to the global trend in the past 15 to 20 years, of seeking justice in response to the commission of mass atrocities.

What would we like to see? We strongly believe that Canada should be trying to ensure that as many as possible of these alleged war criminals will be held accountable for their crimes in courts of law. This would contribute to sending a message that the commission of war crimes and genocide could result in a life behind bars, in the same way that we want to send that message to someone who commits murder in Canada. It is still largely true globally that while the murder of one person results in a jail sentence, the murder of hundreds of thousands of people results in an invitation to a peace conference and to live out ones days luxuriously in another country.

We have two specific recommendations as to how Canada can contribute to sending a message that there will be accountability, which would make a much greater contribution to public safety and to global security than would simple deportations.

There are now options for individuals to be held criminally accountable in courts of law in the affected country, in another country not directly implicated, or before an international court or tribunal. As a result we first recommend that there be an approach that both bureaucrats and members of Parliament and their staff discuss, with their counterparts in the affected country, the evidence against these most wanted individuals and the potential for them to be brought to justice there.

These discussions could also take place with other countries that may have a history of trying some of the cases related to a particular conflict. Spain, for example, has taken on a number of cases arising from Central and South America, and other European countries have prosecuted cases arising from mass atrocities committed in Africa. This might result in requests for extradition or at least an assurance that the case will be investigated seriously. This does not require a large investment of resources.

The second recommendation is that, when there do not appear to be options for justice anywhere else, an investigation be undertaken in Canada with a view to a potential prosecution here. Canada has committed to seeking justice in response to the presence of alleged war criminals within our borders. We've signed a number of international treaties that include a duty to extradite or prosecute people suspected of torture, genocide, and other atrocities.

Canada also committed to doing that when we ratified the International Criminal Court treaty in 2000 and passed the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. The International Criminal Court opened its door in The Hague in 2003, as the first permanent international criminal court capable of trying individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Yet, at the same time, it was intended that this court be a court of last resort with the resources and jurisdiction to try only a relatively small number of alleged perpetrators in any situation of atrocities. It was intended that the national criminal courts of countries around the world would take on cases as well. With this in mind, there are now a number of options to seek justice globally for the commission of the most serious crimes of international concern.

One might ask, though, what would be achieved through justice rather than through deportation. The primary goal, the real hope and potential in bringing alleged war criminals to justice, is that we can finally realize the goal of “never again”. Most, if not all, situations of mass atrocities like genocide are premeditated. It's therefore very intuitive that at least some of those who might otherwise plan and carry out widespread acts of violence will not do so if they know there's a risk that they might be held criminally accountable and receive a sentence of life imprisonment. In the same way, although not all crime in Canada is prevented by our laws, police, and courts, one can imagine how much more crime there would be if we did not have laws, police, and courts. That has been the situation at the international level until very recently, and Canada must participate in changing that.

Pursuing international justice also makes sense financially. We invest billions of dollars in military missions overseas, and we expend so much time and resources and diplomacy and other responses as armed conflicts and situations of mass atrocities emerge and unfold, as they are right now in Syria, for example. Investing in justice as prevention can, not only reduce the need for financial investments and responses at a later stage, but also reduce the human cost of war, both in terms of the lives of Canadian soldiers and the lives of people in the affected countries.

I highly anticipate that you'll be asking yourselves if I'm really asking the Government of Canada to make the resources available to prosecute the 2,000 alleged war criminals that I said are currently in Canada, when these cases can cost several million dollars. I'm not asking for that. I'm saying that if these two things are done—collaborating to seek justice elsewhere and prosecuting more criminals in Canada—we need perhaps to see only a handful of cases going on at a time. We've had this new legislation in place since 2000 to take on these trials in Canadian courts, and yet we've only had one case completed in the 12 years since it was passed and another now under way in Canada.

I'll just add that I do think if we are seeking justice, both internationally and in Canada, then there might be some circumstances in which deportations are an appropriate response, particularly when that's undertaken in a way that does not violate the rights of the accused.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Rico.

[Loly Rico, Vice-President, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me again to come before the standing committee.

I'm coming just to talk a little bit about what I'm doing every day. I work with the FCJ Refugee Centre. We work with women and children, and we accommodate them.

One of the things I'll do is bring you the experience of working with women who have been detained at the immigration holding centre in Toronto. Some of these women have been in detention for 72 hours or even for eight months. The longer they are in detention, the greater we can see the impact, especially if they have children. They show signs of depression, loss of appetite, anxiety, and so on. The children exhibit behavioural problems, and often they have loss of appetite.

I'm telling you this is because I want to bring to you the alternative to detention. After living in detention they come to our agency, and they look much better. Also, they start to establish themselves in English classes, and the children go to school, and they show more signs of integrating into the community.

We are making this presentation because we oppose the detention of refugees, and the alternative to detention is to integrate refugees into the community, especially refugees—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra has a point of order. Stop the clock, please.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Chair, I have a point of order.

I'm sorry, Ms. Rico; I didn't mean to interrupt your train of thought or speech. I just wanted to get a clear understanding. I'm not planning on taking any time away from your presentation.

Through you, Chair, we're studying safety and security. I'm just wondering, the alternatives to detention or not detention, how do they relate to the study of security?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

He made a valid point, Ms. Rico. We are studying security, not detention. We're interested in hearing what you have to say, but I'm not sure where detention—

[Loly Rico]

I'm sorry, because we received the invitation to talk about the alternatives to detention.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Who would have sent you an invitation to speak on the alternatives to detention?

[Loly Rico]

I received it from the committee.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, the difficulty is that I don't know who spoke to Ms. Rico. Perhaps it was the clerk; perhaps it wasn't. The topic of detention, contrary to what I just said, is on our list, as approved, as to what we were going to discuss. In fact, we were even planning visits, so I'm going to say that what she's saying is in order.

We'll start the clock, and you have not lost any time. We have these from time to time. Ms. Rico, you may proceed.

[Loly Rico]

Thank you.

I came here to talk to you very briefly about the experience with the immigration holding centre and about alternatives to detention.

For 21 years I've worked with women who've come out of detention. When we see them coming out of detention, they're in trauma, in part. They had to flee from their country because they were in a traumatic situation. They had to flee from persecution because of their gender.

I can tell you about what is happening right now with the immigration holding centre. In my organization, for example, we receive referrals of women, those who are pregnant or who have children, to our organization without bond or any bail. Sometimes we do receive referrals from the Toronto bail program. What happens is that when they're out, they start to integrate into the community and into the society.

One of the things we are looking at is inviting the committee.... I know you have in your package a study by Janet Cleveland, dated April 2012. The suggestion is that perhaps you can look at some of the alternatives to detention. One in Sweden, especially, is managed by case workers.

What we are doing right now in Toronto—the Toronto bail program with the immigration holding centre—is a kind of pilot project. We are looking to see if we can formalize it and have it as more of a national process for people who don't need to be detained, including women and children and pregnant women.

I can give you an example of a woman who was pregnant. She had contractions because she was detained. When she arrived at Toronto Pearson airport, I was called by the immigration holding centre, and she was released to us. With her, after that, we complied with doing all the paperwork. She was there every time they required her to be there. After eight months, she was accepted as a real convention refugee, and she had her baby outside of detention.

That's one of the things we're looking at and are recommending as an alternative to detention: have an agreement that it is not necessary to detain women and children, and if it is necessary to have more supervision, use the bail programs. They can be present, and we in the community can be involved and help people become integrated into the community.

That's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Rico.

We will have some questions.

Ms. James is first.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to Ms. Stoyles and Ms. Rico. Welcome back for another time at this committee.

Ms. Stoyles, you mentioned war criminals, and you said that you would like to see the government take no more action to prevent more criminals from coming into Canada, even though some people will always slip through the cracks. I'm a little alarmed by that, because in the same sentence you said we should do more to deal with the war criminals who are already in Canada.

It's kind of circular, because if you're not preventing them from coming in, then you have to deal with them after the fact. I just want to give you a chance to comment. You know, if we can prevent war criminals from coming into Canada, that is ultimately the best possible scenario. Then we wouldn't have to deal with the situation thereafter.

Would you agree with that statement?

[Jayne Stoyles]

Yes, I think it's a good question.

I don't know a lot about what happens at that end of it, in terms of what's happening in the countries themselves as people are making the applications. But my sense of things is that certainly if there were significant resources to really be able to investigate someone's background and history, and make a decision on that basis, then I understand the idea of trying to prevent more people from coming.

My sense is that at that stage, it can be fairly loose evidence against someone, and that you may in fact be preventing also some of the victims and people who legitimately have refugee claims, and really need to prevent—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I think, though, with war criminals, part of this study has to do with biometrics, as well. We want to determine that the person who applies is the person who arrives, and that when people arrive, they are actually the people they said they were.

With biometrics, you're not doing only that; you're also checking the databases of some of our allies around the world. Those types of things, with war criminals and so forth, would be detected. I think that's the real benefit. We want to stop those people from coming into Canada.

I know that you're here to represent the real victims of war crimes and so forth, so I do appreciate your being here.

Just in line with that type of question, our government, actually our Prime Minister, recently set aside $12 million to prevent human smuggling operations in Southeast Asia. We're actually working with other police and other organizations around the world. We're trying to prevent them from coming to Canada in the first place. This is completely new. I think the majority of Canadians would welcome that.

My question goes to knowing who arrives on your shores. Would you not agree that on exit and entry, being able to know ahead of time who's coming in and who's leaving is something that's very important for the safety and security of Canada and Canadians as a whole?

[Jayne Stoyles]

My points, given the mandate of our organization, are more about the issue of justice. I'm sure that there are others who can speak more to what's happening at the border. That's really not our area of expertise.

The point I really want to make is that, in a sense, when someone who's accused of some very serious crimes comes here, it almost presents an opportunity, if there are a few cases that can actually then be prosecuted. My point is about prevention and the opportunity, by having some cases here, to send a message that there really is nowhere to go if there isn't going to be justice in the affected country.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I understand. We've heard your opinion expressed.

The point I'm trying to get at is that it's important that we, as Canadians, try to prevent situations from occurring as opposed to dealing with them after the fact. I think you agreed that it's more important to identify people before they arrive in Canada, so I thank you for that.

I'm just going to ask Ms. Rico a couple of questions as well. I know that you're here talking mainly about women and children, and I know that you're opposed to detention.

Do you not think that a woman could also be someone who could present a serious security risk to Canada? I know that you're tending to group everybody in the same bunch, male and female. In actuality, terrorism, war crimes, and so forth are not always isolated to one sex or the other. I would just like you to acknowledge that there is a possibility that women, not just males coming into Canada, could also present a problem. Could I have your comments on that, please?

[Loly Rico]

Yes, I understand that. I'm not coming to say that whoever comes here doesn't have a criminal background. One of the things right now in the bill, in the law, is that the minute anyone comes to Canada and claims refugee status, they immediately start doing a fingerprinting process. That's how you find them.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

You mentioned people being in detention. Why are they in detention?

[Loly Rico]

Most of them are in detention because they don't have ID documents. Some of them are there because they are going to be removed.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I had another question to ask you specifically.

Obviously, at one time, fraudulent documents meant just passports, but now we're getting into things such as birth certificates, accreditation, diplomas, and so forth. It has surpassed what we're familiar with in regard to fraudulent documents.

Would you not agree that in the best interests and the safety and security of Canadians as a whole, as a government, we must be focused primarily on the safety of our own citizens? If someone comes in with fraudulent documents and we cannot prove one way or another....

I'm alarmed that you think someone should just be released into society. I have to tell you that I'm a mother of two children. I'd be very concerned if that were the rule of law in this country.

Please acknowledge that a government's main priority is the safety and security of its citizens, first and foremost.

[Loly Rico]

One experience I have had in my 21 years of working is that I haven't seen any woman who has been involved in criminal acts. Second is that what we know is that most of the refugees, you see, are victims of war crimes. They come—

Let me finish.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, Ms. James. I'm sorry. That's it.