Denis Coderre

[Immigration, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what is important is that we ensure that for the next phase, we have a system that works.

We are fulfilling our obligations under the Geneva convention to ensure that there is a swift, fair and equitable process for refugees. That is what we are doing right now.

This government's priority is clear: to ensure that we have a system that protects refugees while fulfilling our international obligations.

[Immigration, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I think that we must make one thing clear. As it now stands, already 55% of all applications that are handled by the board are reviewed by one member. This is the first point.

Second, there is already a process in place. If applicants are not satisfied, they can appeal to the federal court and, before removal, there is also another step to protect them.

Not only is Canada a signatory to the international convention, but I believe we also have a reputation for protecting people who may be tortured.

[Immigration, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, our country's legal obligation is to ensure that refugees are heard and that there is a process that allows a person to be judged on merit.

Currently, there is no right of appeal. However a person can go to the federal court and seek permission to appeal. If there is a removal order, there is another process that allows the case to be heard.

Ultimately, I want to ensure that the refugee system works. We will go about this properly, fulfilling all of the requirements involved.

[Immigration, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, no one is playing on this side of the House.

I think it is important to point out that we have always worked to ensure that we have fulfilled our obligations. I believe it is important to go about the process of setting up the new law with a great deal of honesty. If we want things to work properly, there needs to be a solid footing.

Due to a lack of resources caused by the fact that our system, which is designed to take in 25,000 refugees, received 45,000 applications last year, the proper course of action was to make the right decisions to ensure that the system works.

[Immigration, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. I am in favour of having more resources and more refugees coming from camps. At the same time, we have a duty to be respectful of the law. The supreme court made it clear that anyone coming as a refugee claimant has the same rights under the charter of rights and freedoms.

To do so, the only way to be respectful of article 33 of the Geneva convention is to make sure that we sign a deal with the Americans as a safe third country. If we have that, we will be able to do so.

[Immigration, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think that what is the most important to point out is that we have legal obligations. As a result of the Singh case in 1985, we have an obligation to have this process in place for refugees. If we immediately send claimants back to the United States, we would have to be answerable before the courts on our obligations.

We must therefore ensure that, not only is article 33 complied with, but that we used due diligence to ensure that the safe third country agreement is in place.

[Question No. 128, May 1st, 2002]

With regard to the activities of the Canadian embassy in Tunis and Tunisian students who disappeared after their arrival in Canada:

(a) Most of these visitor visa applicants were full time students at the post-secondary level with adequate financial means to pay for a trip during their school holiday.

In order to ensure that this was a genuine visitor movement, the embassy established certain ground rules, such as the need for each applicant in these proposed tours to present the documentation requested and to attend any requested interviews.

A triage was performed on applications based on the criteria established; only applications of concern were interviewed. Other applications were waived the interview. In addition, measures were put in place to monitor compliance of returns to their country, Tunisia, by preceding groups before subsequent groups could be accepted.

(b) Media reports indicating that this was a student movement are inaccurate. In fact, this movement was a visitor movement comprised of primarily Tunisian student applicants visiting Canada as tourists in order to explore post-secondary educational opportunities in Quebec for the longer run. Thus, there was no need, nor possibility, to ask for acceptance letters or to verify registration.

(c) Information regarding the applicants’ financial situation formed part of the required documentation and was reviewed as part of the decision making process.

As all members of the first groups of visitors had returned to Tunisia without incident, the office streamlined the triage process to further reduce processing time. The profile of the new crop of applicants was similar to the first group, i.e. full time students at the post secondary level and with adequate financial means to pay for their trip.

(d) When Tunis received the first report from Dorval on July 31, 2000 indicating a problem with young Tunisian visitors arriving with limited funds and vague travel plans, the embassy responded immediately by cancelling the visas of travellers who had not yet departed Tunisia and re-examining applications which had not yet been finalized. The embassy also immediately terminated the service offered to this group of travel agencies.

There was no need to discipline staff. Any misrepresentation made on applications originated with the applicants or their travel agencies and not with staff members. Our review has confirmed that staff made a reasonable decision based on the information available at that time. They made immediate adjustments when information suggesting fraud surfaced.

(e) No. Employees of the embassy were not involved in the submission of these applications from the travel agencies. They processed the visitor applications as part of their normal responsibilities applying reasonable judgment for what was known at the time. Adjustments to their assessment were made within a matter of days when new information surfaced suggesting fraud. The system, which relies on check and balance and feedback, worked.

(f) The embassy in Tunisia considers all cases on an individual basis rather than as part of a group recommended by anyone. This is the procedure for all visitor applications; the visa office no longer receives applications submitted as group submissions. Interviews are conducted and documents are verified as required.

Closer scrutiny of visitor applications has been the norm since that time. All applicants, whether they have applied as part of a group or not, are assessed based on the merits of each individual case. This is reflected in the current refusal rate, which jumped from 13.77% in 2000 to 28.63% in 2001.

(g) In late July 2000 officers at CIC Dorval suspected that an illegal movement was occurring because visitors were arriving from Tunisia in groups of 10 to 20 individuals.

Effective July 31, 2000 the officers at CIC Dorval detained and referred for inquiry all Tunisian visitors who were not, in their opinion, genuine visitors within the meaning of section 19(1)(h) of the Immigration Act. CIC Dorval issued 40 report 20s between July 31 and August 6, 2000.

In order to monitor Tunisian visitors more closely, CIC Dorval also asked customs officers to refer all Tunisians for a secondary examination by Immigration officers.

On August 7, 2000 CIC Dorval ceased detaining Tunisian visitors and referring them for inquiry because the adjudicators in the adjudication division of the Immigration and Refugee Board had systematically freed and admitted as visitors the people who had been previously referred for inquiry. The adjudicators based their decisions on the fact that they considered these people to be genuine visitors. Having been admitted as visitors, the Tunisians were not subject to removal orders and therefore could not be deported.

The adjudication division of the Immigration and Refugee Board is an independent administrative tribunal.

[Terrorism, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we did indeed table the report on special permits yesterday.

Incidentally, all the members of this House submit special requests asking that we show compassion in certain cases.

We are here to ensure public safety. We definitely do not want to let terrorists enter our country.

[Immigration, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is not contempt I am showing. I am being honest and trying to ensure that the system works so that we respect the rule of law.

I am giving myself a year to finalize the plans. In the meantime, it is clear that refugees have rights. We respect these rights and we are in favour of refugees here in this country.

[Immigration, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Obviously, we are in an implementation stage. We are in transition between two systems, the old system and the new one. I think that this should be done on solid ground.

For this reason, I said that we would not suspend, but delay the implementation of this appeal division to ensure that we do it properly. However, in the meantime, there are other courses of action open to refugees.