Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 29th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I agree—except I heard Ms. Sims say that she has a point of order.

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

My point of order is that once the chair has made a ruling, you can challenge the chair's ruling, and then we can have a vote to sustain the chair or defeat the chair.

What my colleagues are doing is debating something from one side, and I refuse to enter this debate. I want to stick to the chair's ruling and get on with the business of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sytcheva, I'm looking forward to hearing further recommendations from you.

[Irina Sytcheva]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We need some order, please. Our guest is about to speak.

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

Well, we have five more minutes, so....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead.

[Irina Sytcheva]

Thank you.

Another accommodation I would...[Inaudible—Editor]...counsel in the criminal justice system. I think it may be helpful to have that in the immigration system as well, helping individuals, particularly those with mental health issues, figure out how to file their applications, how to navigate the system, and how to present evidence that would ensure that their mental health needs are put forward.

Again, within the recommendations, we would really like to stress that before any changes are made we want to have a study of the impact of the proposed legislative changes on our population. It hasn't been done to date with other changes to the immigration policies and laws. It hasn't been done to date with the changes to the criminal justice system and the Criminal Code of Canada.

What we're seeing on the ground is that people are really being disproportionately swept into this net of the criminal justice system and the immigration system, and their mental health concerns are not being addressed or acknowledged. From our perspective, we feel that in a country that calls itself fair and with a great health system, we cannot do that. That is not fair to the individuals.

I would like to apologize to my colleague here. My intention was not to paraphrase what my colleague said. I was just making a statement around the way it might be interpreted.

If you wish to strike that from the record, please go ahead, but I just want to make the point that if she can make those comments...I just want to be very clear that we are being cognizant of how they may be interpreted by others, particularly under the umbrella of hate speech and having certain judgments about certain groups.

Thank you.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Do you want to speak about the problems some may face when they come to this country, if they're coming from a war-torn country or somewhere like that, that may cause them to end up in the criminal justice system?

[Irina Sytcheva]

It's not even so much an issue of somebody coming from a war-torn country or not; it's more about undiagnosed mental illness. It's an episodic illness. People may experience psychosis, which is a complete disconnect with reality; they may think and truly believe that something is happening and that they have to do something. For example, an individual might break into their neighbour's house believing that aliens told them to be there and that they're going to be harmed unless they go there. Well, that's a punishable offence and it makes a person inadmissible to Canada, essentially, under the current IRPA. Again, it's something that stems from symptoms of the mental illness that is not being treated.

Another thing I want to comment on is that under the conditions that are currently out there, people may slip with their treatment. Sometimes treatments do not work, medications may not work, they may not have access to a good psychiatrist, and, again, they may become symptomatic and commit crimes, or they may be picked up because they're being a nuisance. They may accumulate quite an extensive criminal history on paper, but it may be minor things such as panhandling or uttering threats while on the TTC, or whatever the situation may be. These don't make somebody a “serious criminal”, as would some of the other instances that were brought up by Ms. James and my colleague around some individuals out there.

I want to be very cognizant of how wide we're spreading the net and what the consequences would be. At this stage, we really don't know because we're not keeping that data. We don't understand the mental health issues and needs under the immigration system.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Yes. I frankly think it is worrying to see that there has been no examination of how many people this would affect, and whether the reasons for this bill.... Immigration Canada put forward five examples, but how many other types of people does it affect? Are we really only going after the serious criminals? Of course, none of us thinks there should be access to unlimited appeals, but are we going after other people by making it six months and things like that?

I'm really glad you came to explain that point of view. I've heard of some cases like this, and it is worrying, so thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Freeman.

In the last round we only have one speaker, so I'm going to give Mr. Dykstra his five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Julie, I have two questions for you, specifically dealing with the issues of change with respect to humanitarian and compassionate considerations, and also the whole issue around the ability to compel. I want to get your thoughts on both.

But I do have a question for Irina first, so maybe you could think about it a little bit and come back as soon as we've completed.

Irina, I do have a couple of things I want to ask you, because I haven't heard you say anything about this, and I understand your specific concerns with respect to immigration. I don't agree with them, but I understand them, and certainly you've presented them today. But you've said nothing about this government's efforts over the last six and a half or close to seven years in terms of the mental health strategy that we've implemented. I want to give you the opportunity to do that because you haven't referred in any way, shape, or form to the strategy that we've implemented since 2007 with respect to mental health in this country.

[Irina Sytcheva]

Actually, I mentioned that we applaud the release of the first national mental health strategy as a step forward. It's a first step. It would be great to see some of the recommendations they are putting forward, particularly around the criminal justice system and how that may leak into being implemented in the immigration—

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

I don't think that justifies what we've done. In 2007, we put $55 million over five years towards the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and we implemented the Kirby-Keon report. In 2008, we raised that funding to $130 million because we wanted to combat the stigma attached to mental health. In 2008, we allocated another $110 million to the Mental Health Commission to find ways to help fight the very issue you talked about here, homelessness. We also included a knowledge exchange centre to foster information sharing and research collaboration. The very issue you brought to the table today, we started in 2008.

In 2012, the commission came back and delivered a blueprint for a national mental health strategy. We funded five years of research, which included thousands of people coming to testify, scientific modality, and 100 recommendations on what would go across the country. They are not just for federal governments; they are for provincial governments. They are for professionals in the health care profession. You alluded to the fact that we've started down the road of assisting those in the criminal field, whether they be judges or lawyers. We've implemented it with health care professionals and businesses. Volunteers across this country are entering into programs. Since 2008, we've implemented 45 active projects across our country, working toward reducing the issue of mental health in this country.

I appreciate what you are saying, but when you come to the table, you at least have to acknowledge that this government, for more than any other issue with respect to health care, has identified mental health as a serious issue, a number one issue, a compelling issue. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars across this country to say, “We're going to fix it. We're going to try our best to try to solve it.” You are picking up one small aspect of it and saying you want more to be done. We're moving in that direction as we speak.

I'm giving you the opportunity to acknowledge that this government has done more.... I'm not speaking in a partisan way—the Kirby-Keon report is not written by Conservatives. It was written by one Liberal and one Conservative senator. The fact that we have moved in this direction has to make you think that from a mental health perspective we have definitely done more than just taken a first step. We've actually moved this issue onto the national agenda. We have said that in every community in this country we are going to face and deal with the issue of mental health.

[Irina Sytcheva]

We do applaud the research strategy. It's a huge step forward. However, we are not seeing what is proposed in the strategy leaking into Bill C-43. There are no specific mental health provisions under this particular legislation. This is what I have been asked here to comment on—

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

That has less to do with the legislation—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, let her finish.

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

I understand what she is saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, she's in the middle of a sentence. Let's let her finish.

Go ahead.

[Irina Sytcheva]

I appreciate your bringing forward the mental health strategy and the great work your government did with the contributions and investments you made in this area. However, in the context of Bill C-43, we are not seeing any special provisions to accommodate individuals with mental illnesses or even to study the impact on this population with the proposed changes. That is what I'm saying here—

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

That is slightly different from what you had said earlier. I accept that. If there's work to be done, it has little to do with the legislation itself and more to do with the issue of mental health. I appreciate what you're saying. That brings it much more clearly into the context of what you're trying to identify here.

Julie, I wanted to give you rest of my time to comment on the two specific areas I mentioned.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have 15 seconds.

[Julie Taub]

First of all, the humanitarian and compassionate considerations start in the criminal justice system because a judge does take that into consideration—takes into consideration the background of every person who is charged, and takes into consideration their immigration situation. That has always been done, and that will continue to be done. As I stated several times before, they also take into consideration a mental illness if there is one. That's where it starts.

Currently, at the Immigration Appeal Division, humanitarian and compassionate considerations are just one of the many factors that are considered for a stay of deportation. There is also their establishment in Canada, their family in Canada, their remorse, if any, and their risk of reoffending. That is under the current legislation. It's so generous and so wide that I have been able to succeed with all my clients for stays of deportation. That is being removed. Based on my experience and what I have seen, not just with war criminals and terrorists, but there are also drug addicts, sexual assaults, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms.Taub, I'm sorry, but I have to....

Thank you, both of you, for coming and for making your presentations to us.

We will suspend for a few moments.