Okay.
Evidence of meeting #50 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 ensure.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #50 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 ensure.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Waldman, you said that detention is being used more and more every year. You mentioned the possibility of implementing alternative measures. You brought up various models. Do you recommend any specific model over the others?
4:50 p.m.
Partner, Lorne Waldman and Associates, As an Individual
The issue of detention is complex. It really depends on the reason for the detention.
There are two fundamental reasons we detain people in immigration. One is that we think they may be dangerous because they have a criminal background or a terrorist background, or we may detain them because at the specific moment they come to Canada, we're not sure who they are and we're concerned that they might be dangerous. That is one ground. We have to be very careful in those circumstances.
The other reason we detain people is to ensure that they appear for hearings. In that context, there are fewer concerns. It's really just a matter that if we don't detain them, maybe we're going to have to find them, and there's going to be an expense attached.
The options depend. One of my clients was wrongly accused of being a member of al-Qaeda. He was ultimately cleared after eight years. He was released under electronic monitoring, camera surveillance in his house, and a whole series of conditions.
Other clients who aren't dangerous can be released with some kind of simple weekly reporting. The bail project, which is something I am pretty sure is financed by the government, is a very inexpensive way of ensuring compliance. People register with this project that's funded by the government, and the bail project then acts as an intermediary between the government and CBSA to ensure that people comply with the conditions. If they don't comply, the bail project tells the government, and the people are taken back into detention.
There are different options, depending on the seriousness of the case.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I have two quick comments. One is for Nathalie. It is with regard to Bill C-43, which I'm sure she's quite familiar with. I'd be very much interested in hearing some of her thoughts in regard to that particular bill. It may not be this afternoon, but maybe we could provide an opportunity to get your understanding of that bill.
Mr. Waldman, to continue with what you just referred to, the bail project and the electronic monitoring are wonderful things. The problem with the bail project is that it only applies in Ontario. Do you think there is something we should be doing in Ottawa to ensure that B.C. and Quebec have similar programs?
You have 100% confidence in the bail project as an alternative to detention, and you see a role for electronic monitoring. Is that correct?
4:55 p.m.
Partner, Lorne Waldman and Associates, As an Individual
All of these are alternatives. When I offer my clients a choice of staying in Toronto West Detention Centre or going out under electronic monitoring, they're all going to agree to go out under electronic monitoring. It's not that expensive. It gives the government an opportunity to know where people are if they're concerned they're going to disappear. If they take action to cut the monitoring equipment off, the government gets an immediate warning, is aware they've absconded, and can take action immediately.
It's better than nothing. It's not failproof, for sure. The bail project is another example. For sure we should have the bail project across the country. It's an inexpensive way of finding an alternative to detention, no doubt about it.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Chair.
My question is for Mr. Waldman.
Mr. Waldman, my question is fairly straightforward. In the society where we live, where technology is so advanced that now we talk about electronic monitoring and so on, if a person comes in and he's not documented and we don't know who he is—we know how he got in, he flew in—then isn't it the responsibility of us as Canadians, as parliamentarians, to ensure we understand all that information first, through interviews, and questioning, and perhaps our links to Interpol and foreign governments, before we even allow him into the society in general?
I hear that if you let them in, even those on the bail program or on electronic monitoring, it still potentially can be a risk factor for Canadians.
4:55 p.m.
Partner, Lorne Waldman and Associates, As an Individual
I agree with you. That's one of the points I made. One of the primary grounds of detention is not knowing the identity of the person. The onus is on the individual to establish his identity. If he doesn't, then he can be kept in detention until he does.
When the people came off the boat, for example—it's a good example—most of them didn't have proper identity documents. They were held for two or three months. By the end of three months, family members had gotten identity documents that satisfied immigration officials as to who they were. At that point we could move on to see them released.
There is absolutely no doubt that a valid reason to hold someone in detention is not knowing who they are and having a concern, based upon what we suspect, that they may be dangerous. The immigration act already provides for detention on those grounds.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Don't we also have the right—or perhaps it's not a right—to just turn them around and put them on the next plane back? If they come into this country without proper documentation, it would appear to me they have violated our immigration laws.
5 p.m.
Partner, Lorne Waldman and Associates, As an Individual
It depends on why they've come and what they say. If we don't know who they are, but they say that they're at risk of persecution if we send them back to where they came from, then we have an obligation under the United Nations refugee convention to consider if their fear is valid or not before we send them back. We don't want to be complicit in sending someone back to be tortured.
If they just say they want to come to visit, they get routinely turned around if we're not satisfied as to who they are. Once they make claims of persecution, we have to adjudicate those before we send them back.
5 p.m.
Conservative
September 26th, 2012 / 5 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I just wanted to clarify that under the convention on the status of refugees, if somebody's claiming refugee status, the fact that they don't have any papers cannot be held against them, because it may be due to the circumstances of how they left. You have to be a bit careful in just assuming that the failure to provide identification is enough to turn them back. You have to have more than that. Certainly I think we want to comply with the convention. That was my point. It's just a clarification.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Fine. I appreciate your clarification.
I have trouble with the situation of a person having the documentation to board a plane somewhere and then, when he arrives at our border, all of a sudden not having documentation. To me that signifies some sort of ill intent. During our visit to the various detention centres, we saw cases of that.
What I will say is that if they come in on a boat, like the one that came in, the MV Sun Sea, to me that's also people coming in with ill intent, trying to circumvent our system. In that case, I think it is necessary for us to take a little firmer attitude in determining their identity and intent.
5 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
My point was simply that I think we have to be careful in the way we frame this to make sure that we are complying with—
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Well, I think once someone has claimed refugee status, we have the obligation to adjudicate. Their question of credibility, as you point out, is certainly relevant to that, but I think that's....
You need to adjudicate. I think as Lorne said, before you pack them up, you need to adjudicate. My point was simply to clarify that obviously we want to be in compliance with the international conventions.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Oh, it's a minute and half.
As my next question, if a person destroys his identity on an airplane coming back, we now have the ability overseas to know what documentation they have. As they come in, we know they had a passport to get on. They simply destroyed it—ate it or flushed it away. To me, that signifies that there was intent to do something illegal, and that is to enter this country and claim political asylum as a way of getting in and see whether they can drag this process out to stay here.
Again, to me, that appears to signify.... You know, it is hard in a court of law to determine credibility, but it is also the actions they have taken that would make me very suspicious.
5 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
The actions are relevant to credibility. It's one of the elements that will be looked at.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
