Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on June 16th, 2008

[The Clerk]

The notice of meeting, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

And of the witnesses.

Madame Deschamps, because this is taking up the remaining time we have to ask questions, I am going to suggest that perhaps you and I could discuss this outside of the committee. Otherwise we'll eat up much of the available time we have to ask questions.

Is that reasonable?

Mr. Silva, please.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me thank all the witnesses who have come before this committee and say how important and valuable your statements and testimonies are today. They truly do shine a spotlight on the human rights abuses that are taking place and the persecution in the countries that were listed, specifically in the area we're dealing with today, which is religious persecution.

In relation to the Baha'i faith, I also have a motion before this committee. It's specific to the Baha’is and their persecution in Iran. We did not deal with the issue of Iran, but we do know that the Baha’is are certainly a minority group there. They have been persecuted for a very long time. They are deeply distressed not only about the arrests that are taking place in Iran but also about the new legislation coming before the parliament that will even further add to the persecution of the Baha'i faith.

As a community, we are deeply concerned by the failure of those countries we have spoken of to protect their religious minorities, as well as the state-sponsored persecution of those religious minorities that is taking place. We, as Canadians and as parliamentarians, have a duty not only to speak out against those abuses that are taking place, but also to act through our own legislation, through the immigration policies we have and the refugee policies we have.

It was also good to include in this presentation somebody who has had dealings with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Some of the statements that were made are very valid. I also have witnessed where people have in fact been persecuted and have gone before the IRB. There is a need for sensitivity, to understand that these individuals do need our assistance. We cannot simply send them back to places where they know they're going to be tortured and persecuted. By doing so, in fact, we are also in compliance with that policy. We have a responsibility to those refugees to make sure they're protected and not sent back to those places to be persecuted.

There is a host of questions; unfortunately our time is extremely limited today. But I would like to state that we are very much concerned. We appreciate your testimonies. As a committee, we will do whatever we can here.

If anybody has any further action plans they would like to see from this committee and this government, I'd like to open up the floor for those who want to make a very brief comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Madame Deschamps, vous avez la parole.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I support Mr. Silva's statement to save my time and ask Ms. Desloges a more specific question on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Could the introduction of a refugee appeal division also protect certain refugees who are in Canada and who are facing removal to a country where they are threatened without having a chance to speak?

Canada is currently providing Pakistan with millions of dollars through CIDA. Trade flows with that country also amount to half a billion dollars. How could the Canadian government influence the conduct of the Government of Pakistan and counter its laxism? We talked about certain solutions, such as reaching a trade agreement with countries where minorities are treated horribly.

Your presentation ended with a host of recommendations, Mr. El Shafie. Can you send them to the committee?

[Rev. Majed El Shafie]

With regard to my immigration recommendation--and I'm sorry I didn't have the time to go through it--I think Ms. Desloges is the best person to recommend in this field.

I will say just one thing about immigration. In May 1939, there was a ship by the name of the St. Louis that came to the shores of Canada filled with Jewish people running from the Holocaust. Our Prime Minister at that time, Mackenzie King, who used to speak to the ghost of his mother and who used to ask his dog about foreign affairs, turned them around, and most of them were killed in the Holocaust. I don't believe that Canada can afford another St. Louis on its conscience. This is number one.

With regard to the foreign affairs recommendation, part of my recommendation was to link the trade and aid with improvement of the human rights record in these countries. For example, we made a commitment to give Iraq $300 million between the years 2003 and 2010, besides the $269 million in exports to Iraq and imports of $1.5 billion. Exports to Pakistan are $450 million, imports are $243 million, and aid is $49.78 million. Exports to Egypt are $348 million, imports are $161 million, and aid is $25.8 million. That's all from taxes collected from the Canadian people, and I don't think the Canadian people want to hear that their tax money is going to support governments that are going to persecute minorities.

What you can do is not cut the aid or the exports or imports, because if you cut the aid, you've lost your power and the pressure on them, but you can make it connected to the improvements. So if they improve, the aid increases, the exports increase, and the imports increase. If they do not improve their record, then start to downgrade the relationship, the aid and all of it. This can be a great support to the minorities there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Ms. Desloges, did you have a comment?

[Chantal Desloges]

I did, because the first question was related to immigration. I believe you're talking about the Refugee Appeal Division, which has yet to be implemented, but which is in the act.

The short answer to whether or not that would be an effective means of dealing with this is yes and no. I would prefer to see a system in which we get it right the first time, as opposed to inserting another layer of appeal without necessarily having the knowledge and sensitivity training at the lower level. The risk is that once you get to the Refugee Appeal Division, if it were implemented, you're dealing with the same kinds of problems.

So I would prefer to see the government, as I said, instead of re-inventing the wheel, making those minor modifications at the bottom level, which would prevent us from having to go to that length in the first place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Marston, you're up next.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hopefully there won't be a Komagata Maru or a St. Louis again. We've had those in our history. In fairness to the government, though, there have been apologies made on a number of fronts, which probably is quite shocking to some people, because they never thought we'd reach the stage where those things would take place.

What I think I'm hearing from you, Ms. Desloges, is that there is a systemic problem in our immigration system, both at the review board stage and perhaps at the policy stage.

Just for our information, how many directors would be on the immigration review board across the country? You spoke in your initial comments about some particular problems, and it sounds almost as though those could be with individuals as opposed to being systemic. Do you see the problems you quote as being systemic across the board or more individual in nature? Obviously, that speaks to the question of whether we can train people with sensitivity training.

One of the things we're hearing a lot about in my constituency--Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, which has a lot of immigrants and new Canadians--is that there seems to be a higher number of deportations happening than what we've seen before, and I'm very concerned about the refugee applicants. No matter what their religious background, we should be protecting as many as we can, and I'm very concerned.

Could you address those points, please?

[Chantal Desloges]

I wasn't clear on your first question. In your reference to the number of directors, what did you mean by “directors”?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Across our country, in the review board system, how many people would actually be reviewing these applications? What would be the number? I'm looking at whether we need training across the board—policy training—and how large-scale it should be.

[Chantal Desloges]

Are you talking about refugee cases?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes, I'm talking about the boards.

[Chantal Desloges]

There's a well-known shortage of refugee board members right now, which is another problem. Not enough are being appointed to keep up with the attrition. I don't know what the exact numbers are, but they're a fair percentage short of where they should be.

You asked whether the problem is systemic. I think the problem is systemic because the problem is our human nature. Any time you have a human decision-maker, you're going to run up against these problems of your own inherent biases, which aren't necessarily a bad thing. You have people coming from various backgrounds. There may simply be gaps in their knowledge, and they might not have the necessary sensitivities towards people of faith to sit on these cases. So yes, I think the problem is systemic, but that's not by any means a condemnation of the system we have.

With respect to your third question, or comment, about removals seeming to be on the upswing, I have no problem whatsoever with our government removing people who should be removed, who are under valid removal orders, and who have lost their various appeals. However, I become concerned when the system doesn't work the way it should. That's the real issue here. It's not removing people with deportation orders. I think the Canadian public would support that. The problem is that you want to make sure your decision-making is valid before it gets to that point.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That was the point of my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to see the clock as being at five minutes before two. That will allow one government member to ask a question and get a response.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Actually, I'm going to try to do the impossible. Since we have three minutes, I'm going to take one and try to give my colleague a question.

I want to thank all the witnesses for an extraordinary testimony. I'm glad we used the majority of the meeting for it.

Refugee and immigration issues take up most of the work in my constituency office. I've heard this time and time again, so I was glad I heard it again today from a legal advocate in the field—there is an unprecedented number of situations in which people seeking refuge are interviewed by people who in some ways resemble those who were persecuting them. I'd like to find a way of investigating this more, if it is happening consistently in our consular offices.

Mr. Silva alluded to this and I want make it known to our witnesses. We would welcome any specific recommendations that witnesses would like to submit to the committee.

I've heard two kinds of suggestions. Some have suggested a broader refugee policy to get those who are persecuted out of Iraq; others have said they would like us to make sure there are not dwindling numbers, as this would make those left behind less secure. At some point in the future, I'd like to hear a written submission on this.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I'd like to thank all the witnesses, particularly those who came from overseas, Mr. Bhatti and Mr. Zia.

Is it correct that they came from Pakistan and Iraq, respectively?

[Rev. Majed El Shafie]

They are now living here. Both of them live in Toronto now.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I apologize. I thought we were bringing witnesses from overseas. In any event, I want to thank all of the witnesses for bringing these issues to public light here in Canada, and inspiring us as parliamentarians to respond in a way that's consistent with Canada's best values. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I want to thank our witnesses again on behalf of all committee members.

Madame Deschamps raised an interesting question earlier: are we going from this to a study? The answer is that this is something for the committee to decide. There is material that would justify some form of study. You've been given an offer to submit further recommendations to this committee, so I think there's every possibility that we might go forward, if that is the committee's will.

Thank you, everybody. We are adjourned.