Evidence of meeting #55 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 c-43.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We will reconvene.
Thank you very much.
We have one witness in the final...less than an hour now. We had two, but the other witness called at the last moment to say they were ill.
Mr. Dykstra has a point of order.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I guess it is a point of order.
We had two pieces that we didn't deal with in our last hour's session. The first is that Ms. Taub indicated that she had a list of criminals she would like to submit to the committee. I'd like to ask that she do that through the clerk, to then distribute to each of the members of the committee.
The second request I had—because I know we've already had one witness....
I'm sorry?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
As she was working through her list of examples, she said that she had generated a larger list and would be prepared to give it to the committee. If not, I'd at least like to get the list that she actually stated here at committee then.
The other piece was that we have had one witness who has indicated that they could not actually participate in Bill C-43. We had a suggestion that MADD Canada come to present to the committee. We have an agreement that in general, if there is a witness we'd like to add to the list, we bring that name to the committee, have the committee agree to it, and then add them to the witness list.
So I'd like to put forward MADD Canada as a witness here for Bill C-43.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I think our agreement was, Ms. Sims, that all subcommittee members must agree to that.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Unfortunately, you're representing Mr. Lamoureux, so we have to look at you.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The question was whether you have any problem with Mr. Dykstra's suggestion that MADD Canada appear as a witness in this committee.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
My understanding is that it's to replace one of the Conservative witnesses. Is that right?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Yes.
I don't recall Ms. Taub making that request. If she agrees to do this, does anyone have any problem with that list?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
No. I heard Mr. Dykstra saying....
The examples she actually quoted, I'd like to have, though.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
All right.
What I'm going to do is ask the clerk to ask her. She's no longer before us. She's still here, so we will ask the clerk whether that information could be made available, and I'm sure it will be.
Mr. Brouwer, finally we get to you. You're a familiar face. You've been here several times, on security and Bill C-31.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you for coming again. We'd like to hear what you have to say.
You're with the Canadian Council for Refugees?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You know how the committee works.
You have up to 10 minutes, sir.
4:40 p.m.
Representative, Canadian Council for Refugees
Thanks very much. It's a pleasure to be back before the committee. I've been here...this is my third time in seven months, I think. You've been busy; the minister has been busy. I think the fact that the committee has been this focused on immigration and refugee legislative changes is an indication of the massive reforms that are happening in the world I work in, so I'm grateful for this chance to talk with you.
On that note, though, I would like to mention that a number of us were surprised when Bill C-43 was tabled in the midst, as I understand it, of the proceedings that were already going on here at this committee with respect to the background study you've been doing on immigration security provisions. It looks as though there was a bit of a missed opportunity, because I know from a number of the witnesses who appeared before you in connection with the other study that there are a number of reforms to the provisions addressed in Bill C-43 that could have been proposed in the context of that study's report.
It would have been nice to have it all together in one package. That said, I'm going to comment on Bill C-43. I want to point out and make it clear that I'm not here as an individual this time; this time I am here on behalf of the Canadian Council for Refugees, for whom I'm a member of the legal affairs committee.
The CCR is an umbrella organization that works on issues of refugee protection and the settlement of immigrants and refugees in Canada. I'm on their legal affairs committee, as I mentioned, and I'm also a practising refugee lawyer in Toronto. We've provided a short brief, setting out our main concerns; however, because of the short notice, it probably hasn't been translated and circulated yet, but I presume will be before you're done your study.
I'm going to limit my comments to a few of the issues that are set out in the CCR brief, and I look forward to an opportunity to address those issues as well as some of the others during the question and answer session.
Overall, the CCR is concerned that Bill C-43 contains a number of provisions that will lead to less fairness in the refugee and immigration system, that do not honour Canada's international legal obligations, and that deny people the right to appear before an independent decision-maker for decisions that go to fundamental rights and interests.
The inadmissibility provisions that are already in IRPA are extremely broad and catch people who have committed no crime and represent no danger to safety or security. Among those who are affected already are people who are inadmissible simply because they worked against a repressive regime or an undemocratic government in their own country. It is by now a cliché to observe that the anti-apartheid hero Nelson Mandela—Nobel Prize winner, honorary Canadian citizen—could be caught up by the revised section 34, as it is drafted.
The CCR has produced a number—two, in particular—of excellent reports on the impact of those very broad immigration security provisions, and the impact upon certain communities in particular.
The more recent report is called From Liberation to Limbo, and it addresses the impact of the provisions on the Eritrean refugees who have come to Canada. The impacts are profound and devastating upon those who are labelled as terrorists under the act.
Bill C-43 would deprive those who are labelled as terrorists of fair consideration of their actual circumstances in a number of ways: it does it by limiting the scope of the exemption from inadmissibility, known as ministerial relief; it does it by denying access to humanitarian and compassionate consideration; and it does it by imposing mandatory conditions when released from detention. It's our position that those changes are inconsistent with the charter and with Canada's international legal obligations.
The limiting of ministerial relief will prevent some refugees from making a refugee claim, leading to their being returned to their countries of origin, directly contrary to Canada's obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. The proposed new wording for ministerial relief—I think it's in clause 18—will also prevent the minister from considering whether a refusal of relief and a finding of inadmissibility will violate the charter rights of the individual affected.
Elimination of access to humanitarian and compassionate consideration will prevent consideration of the best interests of any child directly affected, which is also directly contrary to Canada's obligations under international law.
Bill C-43 also denies permanent residents the right to appeal to the IRB, the IAD, if they're sentenced to an imprisonment term of six months or more. This means these permanent residents will not have an opportunity to have an impartial and independent decision-maker consider all the relevant circumstances of their case prior to their deportation.
This is a significant denial of access. For example, with someone who came to Canada as a young child and has lived in Canada for decades, that is no longer going to be taken into account prior to the deportation of an affected individual. The person will be sent back to a country where he or she may have absolutely no connection. Likewise, as one of the previous witnesses noted, people who are suffering from mental health problems that contributed to the commission of a crime will also be denied access to any consideration of those circumstances.
I'd be happy to give you some examples of these cases that we have in our office. That denial of access to any humanitarian and compassionate consideration, in our view, is inconsistent with fundamental Canadian values of fairness and justice, particularly in those cases where we have very long-term permanent residents of Canada facing deportation. These are circumstances where it's exile, practically speaking, not deportation. They have no direct contact, no connection, anymore with the country of origin.
I'd like to close my opening remarks by reading from Hansard. This is from 2001, at the time that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act itself was under consideration in the form of Bill C-11. There was a comment made by a PC member, Gerald Keddy, from South Shore, when he was considering the impact of deportation of long-term permanent residents. He said this:
Somehow we will say that an individual, after residing in the country 30, 40 or 50 years, does not have the same rights as any other Canadian. Rather than sending them to prison for a criminal offence should they commit one, we would deport them to a country they may no longer have ties with. That is not what being Canadian is about. It is certainly not what I have always thought being Canadian is about.
A little bit farther in his comments to the House, he said:
...surely in this nation and at this period in our history we would not deport them to a country to which they no longer have ties.
I would like for Mr. Keddy to be right, but under this bill it would appear that he's wrong.
Those are my comments.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you.
We now have Ms. Taub's list, so we'll translate it. It's a list with statements underneath each name. We'll make that available to the committee.
Mr. Weston, you have up to seven minutes.
