Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 5th, 2012

[Lorne Waldman]

I couldn't resist, sorry.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I know you couldn't.

Mr. Collacott, could you weigh in on that?

[Martin Collacott]

I think it definitely would.

The issue was raised earlier by Ms. Sitsabaiesan about resources. I happen to be rather sympathetic to some aspects. Mr. Waldman raised this as well. I don't think we're properly resourced. For instance, we don't interview most immigrants applying to come here. If we had, we could have advised some of the people who've been convicted of honour killings to not come here if they think their daughters aren't going to be influenced by Canadian society. I think we need more resources. I have to agree with you on that.

I think the issues would still be there. The problems might be reduced somewhat with more resources, but I don't think you would deal with cases like Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad unless you change the system. That's why I think the police would like to see it changed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, sir.

Ms. Freeman.

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

Thank you, Chair.

During the study of this bill, many of the cases that have been cited are cases that went through appeal and ended up taking decades due to systemic issues or, as you were saying, Mr. Grant and Mr. Waldman, problems with the way things are being enforced, personnel, etc. What are we concretely doing with this bill? What are we ameliorating in the system with this bill?

[Angus Grant]

On the security issue, my response to that would be that we are ameliorating nothing except for the fact that we are eliminating the possibility of those who have been innocently found inadmissible under section 34 from having any avenue of recourse.

On that note, the one thing the bill really could have done and which would have been appreciated I think by all parties involved would have been to do something about the frankly scandalous delays that are associated with making decisions on ministerial relief. I understand the Minister of Public Safety is not going to appear before you in respect of Bill C-43. I wish that he were appearing, because frankly, he and all of the ministers who have preceded him, to be fair, have a very difficult question to answer, which is why they just plain don't make decisions on ministerial relief waivers. This is a profound problem and this is the single source of delays really in the process.

Mr. Waldman was talking about some cases that he's had where there have been speedy resolutions. I, too, have had cases where everything up to the point where it gets to the minister to decide has taken place within a year or a year and a half, or at most two years, and then it sits. It doesn't sit for a year or two; it sits for a decade. This, to reiterate, is a scandalous reality.

[Lorne Waldman]

To follow up on that, what we consistently see is that the lack of resourcing is a huge problem. In fact, this bill will put stresses on the parts of the system that don't have the resources and that now are understaffed. As Mr. Matas said, because there's not going to be any appeal, officers are going to have to review the circumstances at the very beginning. They are going to have to make detailed reports. They are going to have to send these reports to senior officers for review. This is a process that is hopelessly bottlenecked and backlogged. There have been cuts to CBSA.

I would think what we are going to see is not a speedier resolution of these cases, but more delays.

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

That's certainly counter to what the intention of the bill was. When you were talking about the ministerial decisions based on section 34, you said it was decades. Does that responsibility lie with the minister? Is it a problem of legislation? Is it a problem of resources? Could you be specific about how we would solve that problem?

[Angus Grant]

This is why I wish he were appearing before you. He is probably the only one who can answer that question.

My sense is that ministers of public safety don't like making decisions on questions of admissibility for those who are accused of security-related actions because they just don't like making these decisions. They are inherently awkward for them to make. This is why when I appeared before you last month one of the things I proposed, in your consideration of the general immigration security regime, was contemplating a way of making these decisions that would be more efficient. Part of that would be to take the decisions out of the hands of the minister. I think the minister would probably welcome that, but that's not really within the framework of what we're talking about today.

The short answer to your question is that it lies solely in the purview of the minister to make those decisions as quickly or as slowly as he wishes.

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

To conclude, when you last appeared here, you made three general recommendations with respect to discretionary decisions in the context of clause 34. You mentioned that organizations or specific situations are no longer covered, that more training should be given to people assessing these files on the real risk of such individuals, and lastly—and this is the most important—that this decision should not be made by the minister.

Do you make these same recommendations with respect to Bill C-43?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

While you are thinking about it, I regret—

[Lorne Waldman]

The answer is yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Waldman, I regret the time has expired.

Mr. Leung.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

I heard arguments that there are criminal rights and so on. Canadians by and large probably enjoy peace, order, and good governance. If I were an immigrant in this country or even as a permanent resident, I don't think that right is there. It's a privilege to be here. I should understand the law, and I should abide by it. I don't quite buy the argument that someone went down to the United States to go drinking. That's a flagrant disrespect of the law of a state, as is to show false identification. It astounds me that someone could flout the law that way.

I want to address a different side of this debate today. It has to do with victims. You probably have more opportunity to meet with victims organizations, or victims of crime perpetrated by criminals or perpetrated by immigrants who are permanent residents. Perhaps you could share with us what their thoughts are. Do they think that this is a good piece of legislation?

Martin.

[Martin Collacott]

I think that's a solid point. This afternoon, you have me and you have these two gentlemen, and you had the three people on the previous panel who were all concerned about rights of people who have committed some kind of serious crime, war criminals and so on. The pendulum has now started to swing back the other way. Canadians, and particularly immigrants, are very conscious of the fact that we have simply given too much priority to one side of the argument.

The kind of legislation being proposed today is to deal with very concrete problems of particularly massive abuse of the system and the refugee system. The changes may involve some shifting of resources from one area to another area. As I was saying a minute ago, I think we are probably under-resourced in certain areas as it is. That has to be corrected.

I think what is happening in this bill makes sense. It is not surprising considering how far we have erred in the other direction. Now it has to be brought back. I am glad to see that this government is trying to do something about it.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Waldman.

[Lorne Waldman]

I think it is important that we take into account the victims. It's also important that we take into account the spouses, the children, the parents of the permanent residents who are being deported. We have to take into account all of those people. I agree that we should consider the impact on the victims. Indeed, at the immigration appeal division, when appeals are heard, if people are ordered deported, the impact on the victims is often a highly relevant factor that will be taken into account. If the minister wants to, he can call the victim to give evidence. I've been involved in cases where that has happened. The victim's rights are important, but so are the rights of the children, the parents, the spouse, and other family members of the person who is being deported. That's why it's important that we have someone take into account all of these things.

To be honest, everyone agrees with the notion that people who have committed crimes and who are to be deported should be deported quickly, but there are other ways we could have solved this problem that would have allowed for an equitable review. This bill is going to create, over the long term, a whole series of cases and issues and administrative problems. I'm sure it will be revisited at some point in the future.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Waldman.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to give my remaining time to Rick Dykstra.

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

I'm trying to get clarity here. There has been a discussion around the part of the legislation that would change the minister's ability to have a say, and Angus, you related it to specifically clarifying. I wasn't sure if you were referring to clause 16 or clause 18 when you were talking about the—

[Angus Grant]

Do you mean what will be proposed section 42?

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

Yes, exactly. It's actually the reverse. It complicates matters a little, because I know a number of you have spoken about the issue around the minister having the ability to make a negative decision. Proposed section 42 also gives the authority for the minister to make a positive decision. In other words, the individual can appeal directly to the minister and the Minister of Public Safety can disregard the inadmissibility decision and allow the individual into the country.

I've heard you speak against the negative discretion, but I haven't heard you speak against or in favour of the positive discretion that the Minister of Public Safety would actually have under the legislation.

[Angus Grant]

My apologies if I wasn't clear. I did recognize that part of the provision, except for a slight change of wording, is essentially unchanged from the current exemption under subsection 34(2). I acknowledge there still is the possibility for applying for relief, and I don't think I said that that is categorically barred. What I said is categorically barred is the access to humanitarian and compassionate relief.

What I was talking about is the addition after that provision you were talking about of this, as I described it, bizarre restriction, apparently, on a minister as to what he or she can consider.

I don't know if that clarifies what you were asking about.

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

I'll repeat my question. I understand your concern around that. Your comment was that we need a better clarification on this specific provision, and I was hoping to get that, but apparently I'm not going to be able to get that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm afraid you're not.

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

That is why this kind of system of questions and answers is unfortunate, because you don't actually get to discuss the changes that you think are necessary.