Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 31st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Rosenfeldt.

Mr. Bissett, welcome back to the committee. As you know, you have up to 10 minutes.

[James Bissett]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to appear before the committee.

I've had a lot of experience in immigration and refugee issues, almost 36 years. The most difficult area of immigration management has always been enforcing laws relating to the apprehension and removal of those who enter the country illegally, or remain here after their legal status has expired, or they have been convicted of serious crimes.

I believe the measures in Bill C-43 should receive full support. It's a long overdue and modest first step, I would say, toward reform of a system of removal that has proven to be quite ineffective. I have many examples of this, but perhaps the most recent one has been the Rwandan who was removed from Canada just this week, accused of genocide and crimes against humanity. We first found out about him in 2002, and it has taken since that time to finally remove him after many reviews of his case and many appeals.

The most glaring example of abuse of our system is the case of Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad. I think I've mentioned him before in front of this committee. He was an assassin and a terrorist for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. He attacked an Israeli aircraft that was on the tarmac in Athens and used a machine gun and threw grenades. He killed a Jewish businessman and wounded a stewardess before he was overtaken. He came to Canada in 1987. When we found out he was here, we ordered his deportation. He is still here. His case is still before the courts.

A Globe and Mail report a couple of years ago indicated that so far his case had cost Canadian taxpayers $3 million. I doubt very much if we'll ever get rid of this guy. This is not a suspected terrorist.This is a convicted terrorist.

We should put Bill C-43 in the context of an immigration system that currently is undermined by the difficulty to remove people who have been ordered deported, and indeed to keep out some of the really bad guys who get into the country. There are a number of reasons for this, and I'll mention a few of them in the time I have.

Part of the problem, unfortunately, relates to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which indicates that everyone is entitled to due process. It makes no distinction between Canadian citizens and legal residents. Anyone who arrives in the country or even in our international waters gets charter protection.

Charter obligations however well meaning they might be, certainly inhibit the fast removal of foreign criminals and security risks ordered deported, since all of these people have a recourse to a variety of reviews and appeals. They can keep their cases going not only for months, but for years, in most, if not all, cases at taxpayers' expense.

As Mr. Neve mentioned previously, we have obligations under the UN convention with regard to removing people to countries where they might be mistreated or tortured. This is another instrument that prevents us from removing some of the very bad people in the country who should be removed. Germany and the United Kingdom have overcome that by entering into an agreement with the source country to ensure that consular officers from Germany or England can visit the jails and ensure that these people are not being mistreated.

Another factor is the high volume of immigration that we've been receiving in the last 10 or 15 years. It means that very few immigrants are even seen or interviewed now by these officers overseas. It's all done on paper. Many of the immigrants who are coming here are coming from countries where fraud, deception and forgery are almost endemic, so we're letting in a lot of people who probably shouldn't be here.

We also have an asylum system that's unique in the world, that allows anyone from any country in the world to simply walk into the country and claim persecution. All they have to do is claim it and they are automatically admitted. They are then entitled to a quasi-judicial tribunal that sometimes might take two to three years to take place. If, by chance, they are refused—they have to be real refugees—the difficulty of removing them is really immense.

The last report of the Auditor General indicated that there were over 40,000 failed asylum seekers, their whereabouts unknown.

Under-resourced enforcement personnel is another factor. There simply aren't enough enforcement officers in the Canada Border Services Agency to track down some of these very serious cases. They do their best, but there are few resources devoted to that. In the past, the enforcement of immigration has not been something that has been vigorously pursued in the country.

In the last few years, we've also had a very high volume of foreign temporary workers entering Canada. Most of them are not given a criminal check. They simply come in. Most are not interviewed. There simply are too many of them. On December 31 last year, there were over 300,000 temporary foreign workers in the country. If they leave their employment, nobody knows their whereabouts or what they're doing. That's another weakness in our system. We have no exit system, no exit control, and no system to track people who come into the country as temporary workers or visitors, as many countries do. That makes the enforcement of immigration laws very problematic.

I'm going to end by saying that immigration, in my view, is one of the most important issues Canada has to face. It's one of the great and important issues of our time, not only for Canada but for many other countries in the world. There are mass migration movements taking place. Millions of people are on the move, and they are going to keep moving. Indeed, that whole migration movement will increase if climate change and violence continue in many parts of the world. We have to be in a position to deal with that and to manage the numbers effectively.

It's an iron rule of migration that people will move if they want to improve their standard of living, flee violence, or have a better future for their children. But if it's done in a chaotic manner, and the wrong people are let into the country, the whole system can be undermined.

In my view, if we can't determine who should get in, who should be kept out, and who should be removed, in effect, we have lost our sovereignty. That's why Bill C-43, despite its failure to address many of the issues I have raised, is, I hope, a first step in a basic reform of the system so that we can let in the people we want, keep out the people we don't want, and remove the people who have committed crimes or security violations in our country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Bissett. The committee has some questions for both of you.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

As a fellow parent, Ms. Rosenfeldt, I want to thank you for being here, and more importantly, for your service to our country. Congratulations on your recent recognition in receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal. It's an honour to have you with us today.

Mr. Bissett, thank you for coming back and for your very clear testimony. It's been useful for us to hear.

Let me first touch on the use of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which have been used to shelter people who come to Canada as war criminals and are able to use that shelter to delay their deportation.

Can you comment further on the provision in Bill C-31 that is designed to remove the ability for someone who is an acknowledged war criminal to delay deportation?

[James Bissett]

I don't think there's any question that it is used to delay deportation. It's one of the factors this bill is hoping to overcome.

In the case of the Rwandan who was removed this week, he has a wife and children here. One could argue that it's inhumane to remove him, but where is the balance? Here is a man who was involved in genocide. He is accused of crimes against humanity. We're removing him to his own country. Why should we allow him to remain here?

Yes, for every removal, there are humanitarian and compassionate factors involved. But in my view, they have to be overcome for the protection of Canadian citizens and to ensure that Canadian citizens are not harmed by these people repeating their crimes.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

If someone commits a crime and receives a 10-year sentence or more in his or her country of origin, that person can still immigrate to Canada. Would you agree that Bill C-43 changes that practice?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

From my understanding from reading the bill, I believe it would, and rightly so.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Do you agree with that?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

I do agree with that, by all means.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Bissett.

[James Bissett]

I agree entirely with that.

The problem is, if they appear at a port of entry claiming to be persecuted in their own country, we have no idea that they've been convicted and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. No criminal check would have been done. They just arrive at the port of entry and claim persecution, so we let them in.

If the board found that they were in fact a genuine refugee, then the process would start for their landed immigrant status. Then we might discover three or four years later that this is a person who in fact has a criminal record, and a very serious one. Then we would start the deportation proceedings.

Again, unless Bill C-43 passes, this person would have full access to appeals and humanitarian review and could seek leave to appeal to the Federal Court and do what many others have done to stall and delay.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

You've touched on a matter that you've discussed before when you have been in front of this committee and which you touched on earlier in your testimony, and that is the question of interviewing people. You mentioned several things, including the fact that the large volume makes it hard to interview all of those who would immigrate to Canada.

As someone who has practised law, I was really surprised that in fact we couldn't compel people who were considered to be a security risk to be interviewed by CSIS.

Would you like to comment on the fact that Bill C-43 will make it possible for the first time to compel someone already flagged as a security problem to have a CSIS interview?

[James Bissett]

I would agree entirely with that. Another weakness in our system is that you can't compel someone.

These are serious issues. Fortunately, Canada has not had a very serious terrorist incident as they have had in the United States, Spain and England. But until such time as that happens.... I think Canadians very often don't take terrorist acts very seriously, because there hasn't been one at home. We should remember that it can happen and could possibly happen.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

What I'm hearing from each of you, as persons who certainly support our very generous immigration and refugee systems and as persons who understand the importance of due process, and to use your words, Ms. Rosenfeldt, is that to allow people to enjoy the safety and security of their homes and to trust that they live in safety, these are common sense measures that shift the balance in the direction of common sense, logic, security, and safety.

Do you want to comment?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Certainly, I, too, was surprised as I was doing some research into Bill C-43. I was very surprised at how lax the whole process has been over the years. I definitely would agree that through Bill C-43 we would definitely reap the benefits, as law-abiding citizens of Canada.

I think that's why a number of immigrants choose to come to Canada, because it is a very safe country. Despite the many times I have appeared before committees and talked about violent crime and such, we do have a lovely country, and that is what attracts immigrants to Canada.

I would certainly not like to see the provisions in Bill C-43 not taken seriously.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Ms. Péclet, welcome to the immigration committee. You have up to seven minutes.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for their presentations.

I will start by talking about priorities: security and resources. It was part of your presentation.

My question is for Ms. Rosenfeldt. There are two parts to it.

First of all, the government has not respected its promises made in 2006 to put more police officers on the ground and in the streets to make our communities safer. Maybe the government should prioritize security and protection, instead of attacking the law. That is not the core of the problem right now. I would like your comments on this first part of my question. We're talking about crimes that are committed in communities, so maybe the solution would be to prioritize security and to put more officers on the ground to protect Canadians from crimes.

Here is the second part of my question. When speaking at a federal inquiry related to the Clinton Gayle file, the then associate deputy minister of immigration stated, “Quite simply, the system failed”. He went on to explain that the departmental priority at the time was to target unsuccessful refugee claimants who were on the run, rather than criminals, because that way the deportation numbers were higher.

Can you share your thoughts on this priority? Would you agree that resources should be allocated to finding criminals and focusing on their deportation rather than targeting unsuccessful refugee claimants?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Yes. My answer to that would be that this is why, in my presentation, I mentioned the $31.4 billion. That takes into account court costs, police, and on and on. In our organization's estimation, if we had stricter laws and deportation orders, some of that money could go toward possibly providing more police in our country.

We have to look at a balance. I do not understand your feeling that it would be a saw-off to not seriously look at the deportation orders and send foreign criminals back after they have committed crimes. I must stress that we do support due process. We're talking about convicted foreign criminals. We're not talking about people who are charged with an offence, or who haven't gone to trial, or anything like that. We're talking about the convicted.

We have worked with victims where the crime that has happened to them was done by individuals who have committed some very serious crimes and are open to deportation. The whole process takes so long. We've had victims who have had to go into domestic violence shelters. We've had victims who have had to move out of Canada. There are all kinds of problems caused within Canada by convicted foreign criminals.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

In actual fact, the legislation already exists. But if certain people were not able to apply it, that's another matter. In any case, I am going to switch gears.

In explaining the rationale for the bill, the government cited a number of high-profile cases to instill a sense of fear in the public. We absolutely agree that those cases are appalling. However, they do not reflect the whole reality, in other words, the overall state of affairs. What the government is doing is unfortunate.

We're dealing with the immigrant community and refugees. And I can tell you that, over the past seven years, 250,000 immigrants have come to Canada each year, totalling some 1.75 million people. The cases you referred to in your presentation, the same ones cited by the government, are only a drop in the immigrant bucket, so to speak. These people are members of our communities and contribute to our economy and our culture. I think the minister and the government would do well to remember that a mere drop in a bucket does not justify an entire bill, especially when the measures already exist.

I'd like to hear your comments on something the minister said about Jackie Tran. It's fascinating what you see on a blog. I am going to read you a statement made by Raj Sharma, a former immigration officer who is now a partner at an immigration law firm in Calgary:

Notwithstanding the general relief felt by (apparently) most Calgarians, Tran's deportation does not actually make them any safer, or any less susceptible to the increasing levels of gang violence in Calgary (the fact of the matter is that most criminals are Canadian and therefore cannot be deported). Moreover, Tran's removal had less to do with his criminal record and more to do with his unpopularity and the fact that he had somehow became the public face for organized crime in Calgary.

I would like you to respond to that comment and tell us how you believe deporting an individual like that makes Canadians safer.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, we're out of time.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I want to pose a question and maybe both presenters could respond to it.

I always wonder about the title of the bill, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, because it does speak volumes. There are about 1.5 million permanent residents, and that's really what they're talking about. The foreigners they're referring to are permanent residents, 1.5 million of them. Of that, thousands have been living in Canada for 15-plus years and, for whatever reason, were not able to get their citizenship. Maybe they couldn't pass the test because they were hard at work. In other words, there are many outstanding residents who at times, like the rest of the population, make mistakes. Any law that is broken can be a serious crime, given a certain situation, but ultimately they could be deported. Why? Because they never got their Canadian citizenship.

I'll give you an example. If a 23-year-old man is caught growing six marijuana plants, he is going to be deported without appeal, even if his parents came to Canada 15 years ago. His parents get to stay but he will be deported. He's a student and maybe he went to the United States or another place on vacation, maybe to celebrate his graduation from university. He will find himself in a situation where he will not be able to receive an appeal because he happens to not be a citizen, but just a permanent resident.

I agree about the severity of the crimes, like the five examples that the minister always gives, and I think most Canadians would agree, but there's the other side. The other side is that there are a lot of good people in Canada in that 1.5 million who will make some mistakes. Should they be treated differently? If they've been in Canada for 15 or 20 years and have been contributing to our economic growth, our social programs and so forth, should they be deported without the right to appeal, because of a stupid mistake?

Does that come across as being fair?

[James Bissett]

I'm sure it doesn't seem to be fair to many people, but on the other hand, those kinds of cases that you've described—and there have been some; I've been personally involved in them—are very few indeed. It is a misfortune, in many respects. As I mentioned before, there isn't any case I know of when you're removing someone from Canada that people aren't hurt by it. However, if you're a 23-year-old man and you know you might be removed if you're convicted of an offence over six months, then you shouldn't commit the crime.

Remember, these people who have been charged with a crime, the sentence for which would be more than six months, have the right of appeal to the courts. We're not sentencing them to jail. In most cases we're sending them back to their own country. We're not doing anything except removing them from our country because they haven't lived up to the obligations they should have.

The removal of these people does serve as an example to the rest of the immigrant community that some of these bad actors that put their own community in a bad light should be removed; they're sympathetic with the removal of criminals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Ms. Rosenfeldt.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Do you know how much marijuana comes from six marijuana plants? It's quite a bit. I think what you failed to mention is the law would take into consideration if the six marijuana plants were used for trafficking.

I have a 16-year-old grandson. I certainly don't want people who are trafficking. I don't care if they're 23 or 45 or if they're a Canadian resident or if they're not.

Once you break the law in Canada, the process that we have in Canada is very fair. What would have to be taken into consideration by the judge, which most judges do, is: is this their first offence or is this their fifteenth offence? Lots of people come before the courts when it's their fifth or sixth offence. The judge has discretionary powers on a first offence to ask if they would prefer to go into treatment—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.