Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 15th, 2012

[Debbie Douglas, Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)]

Yes, I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Douglas, you're the executive director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. Ms. Casipullai, you are the senior policy and communications coordinator. Thank you very much for coming.

By video conference from Toronto, we have Angus Grant.

Good afternoon, Mr. Grant. Can you hear me?

[Angus Grant, As an Individual]

I can hear you fine. Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We can hear you, sir.

You are a Ph.D. student in security issues and I understand you practise law in immigration.

[Angus Grant]

That's correct, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I thank you for coming and I'd like to welcome you to the immigration committee. We're studying the topic that you're studying and we look forward to hearing your comments.

You will each have up to 10 minutes to speak.

Ms. Douglas, we'll have you go first, and you have up to 10 minutes, as you know.

[Debbie Douglas]

I promise not to use up my whole 10 minutes, after my last time here and your great patience with my going over time.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I want to thank you again for this opportunity. I apologize for not having copies of my remarks for you. Time ran away on us, unfortunately.

We would like to address two items in your area of study. I will begin with the issue of detention.

The committee has already heard that the majority of people detained for immigration reasons are being held because of identity issues, or because they are waiting to be deported and have been considered a flight risk. The majority of those in detention are in immigration holding cells and the rest are in provincial jails.

We are deeply concerned about both situations, but especially the latter, the fact that people who have not been charged or convicted of a crime are being held in the same conditions as those who have are being punished.

While immigration holding centres are different from provincial jails inside, whenever the person needs to go outside for something such as medical attention, she is often handcuffed and shackled and treated as if she were a criminal. I know you have that report. It was part of the presentation to you by Dr. Cleveland in April on Bill C-31.

We know that people being held in immigration detention will often forgo medical treatment because they wish to avoid the humiliation and trauma of being treated like a common criminal.

Children in detention are an ongoing concern. I know that my colleague, Jenny Jeanes, spoke to that as well. Already they are being held with their parents under our current laws.

We were glad to see that when Bill C-31 came back, the government had removed the automatic detention of children. While it's not written into Bill C-31, the reality is that unfortunately, young children will end up in detention with their parents because otherwise, they will be separated from the only person—or persons, if both parents are being detained—they know and trust, as opposed to being left with strangers.

Either situation seriously affects children and their parents. It is not surprising then that many parents choose to have their children with them. I think the last time I was here I talked about that as putting parents in a position of no choice, where they have to choose between having their children detained or giving them up to the custody of the state.

Our concern includes as well that children between 16 and 18 years are detained. The committee has heard from government witnesses that 500 children were in detention last year, and these were refugee cases. Some of our colleagues who have appeared before this committee have already noted that those figures may not capture the full scope of which children are in detention with their parents—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. Dykstra.

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

Ms. Douglas, I really appreciate your being here today. You know a lot, and you did a great job on Bill C-31 in terms of presenting your position. But we're studying the security boundaries of the country, and I hope you're going to get to that point. I know your feelings—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Address your comments to the chair.

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

Sorry, Mr. Chair. I know that Ms. Douglas has strong feelings, which I happen to disagree with, about detention, and that's fine. That's the great thing about this country. But the fact is we are dealing with the security of this country in terms of how we can make sure our borders are more secure. I fail to understand the relevance of how children not being with their parents in detention, or the age of those children, is relevant. It was very relevant with respect to Bill C-31. In fact, we changed the clauses within the legislation based on some of the presentations, such as Ms. Douglas's. But I really would like to hear what she believes will make for a stronger secure border, and not necessarily about issues which, while relevant to the ministry, are not relevant to what we're working on right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Benskin.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I'm sorry but this constant bullying of witnesses is disrespectful.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Benskin, I don't think he's bullying. He's raised a point of order. Try to be as courteous to him as he is to you.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Well, he's not being very courteous to witnesses. The witnesses have been invited here to speak on their topic. Let them speak on their topic. If he has questions about that afterwards, then—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's his point, Mr. Benskin.

Mr. Chisholm.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I'm new to the committee, but my understanding of the process of committees is that the committee undertakes a study, the members of the committee present a list of witnesses they'd like to hear from, and the clerk invites these people to come and speak. Sometimes people will present information with which we don't necessarily agree, but we've invited them to come and speak to our committee. Therefore, I think it's an obligation of our committee to hear them for their 10 minutes. Let them speak, and then we can question them, or we can ignore them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I thought we were getting along so well.

Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

On my colleague's point, respectfully, it's not the issue of people speaking, Mr. Chair; it's the issue of relevance to the topic that's being studied.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis, and then Madam Groguhé.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, it's a matter of relevance to the terms of reference of the study. I believe that is what Mr. Dykstra is referring to.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam Groguhé.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would simply like to point out that we raised the same issue about detention earlier and that you have already dealt with it. So I would like to remind the members of the committee that you have already ruled on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have, indeed, and I also have an obligation to listen to points of order.

Mr. Dykstra, I have no problem with Ms. Douglas proceeding in the way she was proceeding.

Part of our study involves detention, whether it's detention of males or females or children. You are talking about the detention of children, and I have no problem with your continuing on in that vein, Ms. Douglas. You may proceed.

Start the clock again.

[Debbie Douglas]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dykstra, when we received the invitation we looked very carefully at the scope of the study, and we made sure that detention and deportation would fit within the scope of the study. That is why we have chosen to speak to these two issues this afternoon.

In terms of the children, it has been well documented that the incarceration of anyone, but particularly children, has a detrimental effect. The front line workers in OCASI's member agencies often speak to this.

Many of those in detention are coming from traumatizing situations, and being detained retraumatizes them. We believe that the trauma done to children is deeply troubling, and is something that will have long-term effects.

While statistics show that the majority of those who are detained are let go within about 20 days, a significant number of people are detained for much longer. The longer they are held, the worse they are affected, and the greater difficulty they have in adjusting to life outside of detention.

Detention is an expensive proposition for the government, in terms of the damage it does to human beings and the long-term health and social costs, but also in terms of economic costs, such as the costs of building and maintaining detention facilities around the country. We anticipate that with the implementation of Bill C-31 we will see those numbers increasing.

I've said all of this because I want to talk about alternatives to detention.

I, too, attended the bilateral meeting that was held a couple of weeks ago, which was co-hosted by the Canadian branch of UNHCR as well as the U.S. branch of UNHCR. Both Citizenship and Immigration and CBSA presented, along with their colleagues from Australia, the U.S., and Sweden. What was surprising to those who were representing Canada there is that we seem to be way behind in terms of any formal program that looks at alternatives to detention.

You heard from the previous witness that Australia in particular has programs where they've built in conditions that address issues of security. We're not talking about looking at alternatives to detention that would allow, for example, war criminals to get out of detention, but about paying particular attention to those who are at low risk, those who are vulnerable, for example, pregnant woman or people in the deportation stream who are ready to go home and have no need to be in detention.

Here in Canada the only program we are able to point to as an example is the Toronto bail program. It's certainly something we can build on. Australia works very closely with the Red Cross, but also with other civil society organizations and NGOs. They have set up quite extensive and effective programs where those who do not belong in detention and are going through the process, either for ID purposes or deportation purposes, are able to live in the community until such time as they are removed from the country. We believe—and they have testified to the fact—that this is certainly more humane and cost-effective. Compliance is in the 90th percentile.

It is certainly something I'm strongly recommending. The time has come for us as a country to look at a national formal alternative to detention program. I would love to have a conversation about that when I'm finished.

Before my time is up, I also want to talk about the second point, which is the impact of the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. My concerns are based on two factors. First—