Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 7th, 2012

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

Aside from our differences of opinion on this, you haven't commented on proposed section 42.1, which would allow her to apply:

The minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the matters referred to in section 34, paragraphs 35(1)(b) and (c) and subsection 37(1) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.

There is the opportunity, and this is what I find interesting about the dynamic in terms of negative discretion, which seems to get brought forward on a regular basis, but I never hear from those who are opposed to negative discretion. I never hear any comments about proposed subsections 42.1(1), 42.1(2), and 42.1(3), which do not exist in the existing legislation but do under the proposed legislation. I'm assuming that if you were not in favour of the whole aspect of negative discretion that you would therefore not be in support of the new piece, which adds positive discretion to allow the Minister of Public Safety, if he or she sees fit, to allow the individual to stay in the country.

[Richard Goldman]

Please read very carefully the sections that we cite at footnote 5. She is caught by proposed paragraph 35(1)(a). The proposed subsections that you just mentioned do not apply to proposed paragraph 35(1)(a). She cannot ask for ministerial relief. Persons who are excluded from protection under article 1F(a) of the convention and therefore inadmissible on proposed paragraph 35(1)(a) have never been able to apply for ministerial relief. They have been able to apply for permanent residency on humanitarian grounds. Bill C-43, under clauses 8 and 9, is taking that away. We didn't talk about it under Bill C-31. Bill C-31 didn't take it away. Bill C-43 is proposing to take it away.

Moving to the—

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

Sir, just hold on a second.

The chair always wants to give people the time to respond to questions, and I want to do the same, but we have seven minutes, and it cuts into the area that I'd like to go to. I know this isn't an easy dialogue to have because it's technical. The fact is the example that you cite is someone who was refused refugee status. She didn't qualify for refugee status. You're making the leap.

The examples we bring up are of convicted individuals. They've gone through court and have been convicted of a crime. You're speaking about, and you want to concentrate on, a very small area where an individual was not given refugee status. You may have your opinion as to whether the IRB made a correct or incorrect decision, and I respect that, but you can't use a decision that was denied to suggest that this individual has now been denied something else when they don't have refugee status to begin with.

[Richard Goldman]

She was denied refugee status, as we explained, because of a very low-level involvement in a multi-faceted opposition movement, which we—

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

We agree with the decision, but the decision was not to allow her refugee status based on her—

[Richard Goldman]

Okay. Let's agree with what you said so far. The point we're making is that person with her profile was at least allowed to make a humanitarian application and is still allowed today, but would not be if Bill C-43 is adopted.

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

Because she isn't a true refugee.

[Richard Goldman]

Sorry.

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

Because she's not a true refugee. Her application was denied, and therefore, the rules fall into place. The rules are the rules and they need to be followed. Just because you don't happen to like the rule doesn't mean it isn't one that has been judged to be—

Would you say the IRB is not a quasi-judicial and fair board? Are you suggesting—

[Richard Goldman]

I don't understand why you're saying that because you don't like the rules, those are the rules. We're talking about a change in the rules. We're talking about Bill C-43 changing the rules so that someone like Salma can't apply on humanitarian grounds. That's what we're talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have to say time, unfortunately.

Ms. Freeman.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for coming to present to our committee today.

The more we hear about Bill C-43, it seems that we're not only creating legislation that's going to affect criminals, which is supposed to be the intention—when we asked the minister about it that was the intention; it's supposed to affect serious criminals, and we need to get them out of our country faster—but it may also be affecting or creating victims.

Could you speak to other examples where victims may be created or may be kept out of the country due to these changes in Bill C-43?

[Rivka Augenfeld]

I'm going to ask my colleague for help on this, but there was a case recently in Montreal where a very seriously mentally disturbed man was killed in an altercation with the police. He was an Iranian refugee. He had been recognized as a refugee. I don't think he was a citizen; no, he was not. Because he was disturbed, he ended up walking into a building looking for shelter. He was a homeless person.

Even though he couldn't have been deported, the CBSA started deportation proceedings against him. The starting of those deportation proceedings against him put him over the edge and scared him so badly that he ended up having a psychotic breakdown.

I will turn it over to my colleague to explain what the implications are there.

[Richard Goldman]

In this case it was a break and enter, a crime that is punishable by 10 years or more. Although he was a refugee, it was extremely unlikely he could be deported because he didn't seem to be a danger to the public and, in fact, had mental health problems. CBSA chose to take deportation proceedings against him simply to get the deportation order on the file. This actually sent him over the edge and led to a fatal altercation with the police. We do think it's an example of where overzealousness can lead to a very adverse consequence for somebody.

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

Witnesses have told us that some false declarations may not be intentional.

Can you give us your opinion on that change?

[Richard Goldman]

It is very clear that they are not intentional in some cases. It may be made by a consultant or perhaps even by a family member. It can happen in situations that we can call humanitarian. Let me give you a concrete example.

A young Congolese woman was raped in that country when she was 14 years old. She did not declare her child. Her parents were accepted as refugees through family reunification. The young woman came, but she was ashamed to declare that she had had a child as the result of a rape. She was caught by that darned paragraph 117(9)d of the immigration and refugee protection regulations. She was helped to put in a sponsorship application on humanitarian grounds.

In certain cases, people do not declare family members. She could have been accused of making false statements. Luckily, she was not charged. If she had been charged and found guilty, not only would she not have been allowed to bring her little daughter with her, but she would also have been inadmissible to Canada for two years. Under Bill C-43, she would be inadmissible for five years. That example shows the extent to which the measures are much too extreme.

[Rivka Augenfeld]

Do we have time for another example?

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

Sure.

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thirty seconds.

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

Oh, okay. What I'm actually going to ask is that you submit any examples you have to the committee, through the chair.

To finish up, do you think it's possible to make the deportation process for those we do want to get out of the country more effective without the changes made in this bill?

[Richard Goldman]

I don't think these changes are necessary because we already have a rule that says if you have a two-year prison sentence you don't have a right to an appeal. It seems to me the ones that we're going after here are the less serious criminal offenders.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Even the less serious criminal offenders shouldn't be anyway; I mean, they shouldn't be coming to this country committing crimes in the first place. My parents came here. Chungsen Leung came here. Many other people in the House have come from other places. They didn't arrive in Canada saying that they are going to live in this country but, by the way, they are going to commit some crime along the way. Generally, most people don't do that. But some do, and some of those serious criminals have committed serious crimes, including murder, including trafficking, including fraud, including assault, and a whole host of other crimes. We do have a list, and I could go down that list.

You're talking about the criminals. Again, I'm not hearing much about the victims. Have you actually talked to any victims' groups about this, and what the impact of these serious criminals have on their families? Never mind the criminal's family, what about the victim's family and the impact it has had on them?

I'm going to give you an opportunity to answer that. Have you talked to victims of crime perpetrated by serious foreign criminals?

[Richard Goldman]

Well, I have to confess, no. We didn't come here primarily to talk about the criminal aspects, but we are happy to talk about them, because we have some experience. I think the point is absolutely well taken. It's not too much to ask foreigners, foreign nationals to come here and respect the law. It's absolutely a normal expectation of Canadians. Again, I think it's just a question of proportionality.

We heard briefly in the previous presentation about sensational crimes. It seems to me when we're talking about murder, serial killers, and so on, these were already being dealt with by the previous legislation. We're here today to talk about how Bill C-43 could improve things. I'm not understanding how lowering the threshold for the right of appeal from two years to six months is going to have anything to do with serial killers and so on. Maybe you could explain that.

Again, really to show what we're talking about, the people with the six-month sentences are the kids next door who break in and drink some of your liquor or who break into the mall and steal DVDs.