[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, March 1, 2000
• 1538
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)): Order.
Ladies and gentlemen, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are resuming our study on all aspects of the refugee determination system and illegal migrants.
We are very pleased to welcome two folks today who can testify to their experience of coming to this country as refugees. We're going to allow ten minutes for each to make an opening presentation and then we'll have questions and answers and some discussion.
Our first witness, who indeed was a refugee when she arrived here in Canada, is Nawal Haj Khalil, and our second witness is Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas.
Ms. Khalil, as I said, you have ten minutes for your presentation, after which we'll have some questions and answers.
In fact, perhaps what we'll do is have each of you present and then go to questions.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon. I am Nawal Haj Khalil. I am Palestinian, born and raised in a refugee camp in Damascus, Syria. I lived a typical life until I entered university, when I met people I never even thought existed.
• 1540
In February 1978, pamphlets were distributed among
students. Many were arrested. I was one of them. I
endured a horrible torture I will never forget. It was
a turning point in my life.
They released me after four months. I moved to Beirut, got married, and started working. By mid-1979 I was a full-time political reporter for the PLO's central magazine.
In 1982, during the war in Lebanon, an agreement was reached between the American envoy, Israel, some Arabic countries, and PLO. All Palestinians had to empty Beirut and move to different Arabic countries. I was among thousands who moved to Syria. Later I joined my husband in Tunisia. I continued my job as a journalist, had two children, and lived a normal life, trying to help people whenever I could.
After 1991, changes started to appear, depending on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Most of the families had to leave Tunisia, preparing for the return to Gaza, Jordan, or Syria. I had been ordered to go back to Syria, where, for sure, imprisonment was awaiting me because of some activities I did for Amnesty International. I chose to take my children and leave before the Tunisian government forced me to go back to Syria.
I applied for a Canadian visa, but I don't think my application even left the embassy. I applied for an American visa and came to the U.S., where I learned that I had to contact the coalition in Detroit. They contacted Canadian immigration.
After two interviews I entered Canada on April 5, 1994. I thought then that all my problems were solved, that my children were protected and safe. It never crossed my mind that this would be the start of my children's suffering.
In December 1994 the court decided we were convention refugees. It was the happiest day of my life. I thought we could start a new life. My children would belong to a country to be proud of, a country where people are equal, where everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I thought we were like any other family, and in a few months, or a maximum of a year, my children would enjoy being with their father—a simple right no one can discuss.
For six years my case was in and out. My interview with CSIS was humiliating and filled with accusations. Why? Nobody knows. All they could tell me was that everything is protected by the Privacy Act. They tried us, judged us, and sentenced us. The sentence was also protected by the Privacy Act.
Two and a half years later, I had another interview with an immigration officer, and a decision was made. The reasoning behind that decision was protected by the same act.
For more than five years I contacted organizations, including MPs. I sent more than ten letters to the Honourable Herb Gray. The answers were always, “You have to wait, because that's the procedure.”
I sent a letter to the former immigration minister, believing she didn't know we even existed. Nothing changed.
I believed in God and the system, and I tried my best to save my children from all their suffering.
• 1545
I will never forget the time my daughter's class went
on a trip to the Detroit Zoo and my daughter
couldn't go. All the teachers cried that day because
of what she had to go through. They had to call me
from school to calm her down.
What was the cause of all of this? She was not a
landed immigrant.
My son can't participate in any school activities outside Canada—for instance, student exchange programs—because he is not a landed immigrant.
I applied for a loan to attend college. It was denied. I am not a landed immigrant.
Most importantly, my children haven't seen their father for more than six years. Can you believe that? How do they handle it? How does it affect them? Nobody cares.
Six years have passed. My children now think Canadian, act Canadian, speak Canadian, and are as proud of Canada as any other Canadian is, and yet they have no Canadian rights at all.
When you go home tonight, when you kiss and hug your children, please think of other children who can't kiss and hug their parents not because of God's will but because of Immigration's will. Think of the children who have been deprived of their simple rights and their little dreams. Don't punish them because their parents believe they are entitled to their own views. Do not make them pay with their innocence and childhood. They did nothing wrong.
To protect Canada, protect them first. They are the bright future of Canada. Please, don't fail them, and don't fail me.
I did not, and never will, hurt anybody. I am human, like you, and it hurts me to watch my children grow up missing an important part of their childhood. Think of a little girl whose biggest dream is to have a piggyback ride on her father's back. Make her dream come true. If anybody can, you can.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.
Mr. Bernadas.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairperson, honourable members of the House of Commons, officials, and fellow witness, good evening.
I have been asked to share with you how I travelled to Canada and my experience with the refugee hearing system.
First of all, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm a Sri Lankan Tamil. I was born on February 25, 1964, in the Mullaittivu district of the northern part of Sri Lanka. I'm a law graduate and a human rights activist.
Before I tell why I came as a convention refugee to Canada, I'd like to tell you what kind of situation made me come here and claim refugee status in this country.
In 1987 I was living in the northern part of Sri Lanka, which at that time was controlled by the Indian forces. While the peace accord was in progress, my brother was taken by Indian forces as well as some Tamil militants, called EPRLF, in 1987. After that, he never came back to our home. Still we are searching, but he is missing.
After that, I studied at the university in Colombo as well as at law college in Sri Lanka.
After I passed to become an attorney-at-law, I practised criminal law and human rights law. I appeared for the innocent victims in human rights law.
• 1550
At that time, you may recall, there was a famous case
called the Krishanthy rape and murder case. In that
case a young school girl of 18 years of age was
abducted near an army camp in the Jaffna peninsula.
She was taken, she was raped, and she was killed along
with her mother, brother, and a neighbour. That case
was taken to Colombo High Court. I was appearing on
behalf of them; that is, I was watching over their
interests with my senior, the late Mr. Kuma Ponnampalam.
After that case, the High Court gave the five soldiers and one PC death sentences. What I am showing you here is the headline of that news at the time. After that, I got several anonymous calls threatening to kill me and also several threats to kill me. I thought my life was in danger. Several times they tried to come to my place, with their arms, in search of me.
Because of that, I had to get out of that country. I had no other alternative. I applied to the Canadian High Commission. Actually, they refused me, and they told me it would take a long time. So after that, I paid a lump sum of money. We didn't have money. Our parents sold most of their property and arranged with an agent to send me to Singapore. From there, the agent sent me to the U.S.A. From there, the agent asked me to cross the border through Blackpool. I entered Montreal on August 4, 1998.
My senior lawyer, Mr. Kumar Ponnampalam, remained there. Last month, on January 5, he was killed in Colombo. His commemorative service was held in Switzerland. He was praised as Kumar Ponnampalam...the late Martin Luther King, as shown in this English newspaper cutting I have.
If I had been there, I would have been killed. Fortunately I escaped and now I am living in a peaceful country like Canada.
Regarding the refugee hearing system, I came into Canada at Montreal. They called me three months later, on November 23, 1998. I was in the fast track, that is, the expedited process of the Immigration and Refugee Board at Montreal. I was accepted as a convention refugee. After that, I applied for permanent residency and it was granted me in 1999. Now I'm an accepted convention refugee as well as a landed immigrant, that is, a permanent resident of Canada.
I'm a lawyer. You may think that in our country we have some of what you call privileges, but actually that is not.... If you are a Tamil, if you are a human rights activist, if you are going to protect our people's rights.... What happened to my senior lawyer, Mr. Kumar Ponnampalam, would have happened to me, and because of that I am here.
So this is my travel...as well as the refugee determination system that I have undergone.
I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for giving me an opportunity to speak a few words here. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you both for those presentations.
We'll go to questions, with 10 minutes for Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to both of you. Those are two heart-wrenching stories, for sure, and having them come from you personally certainly adds strength to the stories. I'm very pleased that you're both here today.
I think I'm going to start by asking a couple of questions of you, Mr. Bernadas, because you spoke last and I have them fresh in my mind. It seems that the refugee determination system actually handled your situation very quickly.
• 1555
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Unusually quickly, I think, and I think—
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: I must thank the refugee board for treating me to the expedited process.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Right.
It was a very interesting story. Just to understand it, again, you were a lawyer and a human rights activist in Sri Lanka. You were involved somehow in the case of the murder of the 18-year-old girl and her family.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: How were you involved, again, just for clarification?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: I watched over the interests of the affected party.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Then you had death threats, so at that time you went to the United States, in 1998.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: And why did you come to Canada from the United States?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Because they told me, because I was told, because all the arrangements were made by the travel agent. I told him only that I wanted to go to the safest country, that my life was in danger so I wanted to go to the safest country. I told him to send me to any country that was the safest for me.
He told me that Canada was one of the best countries, the number one peaceful country in the world, that it would be the safest country for me, and he told me that my people were there so that sometimes I might not feel that it was a foreign country. So because of that, according to his plan, I came. I never thought of where I was going. I only thought of getting out of my country.
Mr. Leon Benoit: As for this travel agent, as you put it, during your presentation you made it sound like that person was in the business of helping people get out of the country under circumstances such as yours. Is that the case?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: And he was paid a fee to do this.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: He did it for money, yes, a big sum.
Mr. Leon Benoit: So you got to the United States. Why didn't you claim refugee status in the United States?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Because I was going according to the plan. I went to Singapore. I didn't claim refugee status in Singapore. At the same time, I went to Japan. I never claimed refugee status in Japan. I came to the U.S.A. and I never claimed because I was going according to his plan.
I paid about 10 lakhs of Sri Lankan rupees. For that, he told me, he would take me to a good place, that is, a better country, a peaceful country, which is here, I feel, because my rights are protected.
Mr. Leon Benoit: So it was a plan laid out by the travel agent?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes, by the travel agent.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Why do you think the travel agent, in his plan, had you coming to Canada? You did mention that there would be others from Sri Lanka in Canada, but I'm sure that's the case in the United States at least, and possibly in Singapore as well.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: But in Toronto, in Canada, there are Sri Lankan Tamils, around two lakhs, I think, according to the.... So particularly if we are living in Toronto, we are not feeling as if we are living in a foreign country. In my country I live with my people, and if I'm going abroad, to a place where our people are there, I feel like I'm home.
Mr. Leon Benoit: So the agent didn't feel that a similar type of situation existed in New York or in some other city in the United States.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: New York, not much—you can't compare it with Toronto.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.
Do I still have some time?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Yes, sure.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Ms. Khalil, your story, again, was a very personal, disturbing story. It's really difficult to sit here and listen to you having to going through such trying circumstances.
Am I to understand that your husband still isn't in Canada with you?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes, he is not in Canada with me.
Mr. Leon Benoit: What reasons have you been given? You said you'd been given very little information—
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: —but what information have you been given as to why you haven't been reunited with your husband and your children haven't been reunited with their father?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yesterday I received the decision of Immigration, 24 hours ago. It reads:
So the reason was that I was a journalist within PLO. This is what they sent me yesterday.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Is that letter referring to you or your husband?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: To me. They denied me the landed immigrant status.
• 1600
Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're still here, then, as a refugee. You'll have refugee status.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes. They told me at the end of their letter:
Mr. Leon Benoit: And you don't have any right to sponsor your husband or anything like that.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Not at all. Even my kids can't enter school without applying for student authorization every year.
Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're really in a state of limbo for the indefinite future. You're really limited in terms of the way you can participate in Canadian society and in terms of your access to certain programs and so on, such as education, that landed immigrants are entitled to.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Exactly. Two weeks ago I applied for student authorization and employment authorization. I received both. On the student authorization they wrote that I can't work in Canada. On the employment authorization they wrote that I can't study in Canada. So in fact they sent me two documents for nothing. These are the documents.
Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like to get a copy of those afterwards, if I could.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes, for sure.
Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're not even allowed to work or to go to school.
It's interesting, because just earlier this week I was discussing the fact that refugees in Canada aren't entitled to qualify for student loans. To me it doesn't seem to make an awful lot of sense. It really isn't going to help people take care of themselves if they're not allowed to get an education under the same terms as anyone else who would qualify for a student loan.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Last Friday I finished a training program. I didn't tell them that I lost my employment authorization two weeks ago and that's it's invalid. I lied. That's why they kept me to the end. Had I told them the truth, they would have kicked me out.
I can't participate in a training program or attend college. I got a higher mark in English than a person who was born a Canadian. I have my Canadian high school diploma, and all of my marks were in the nineties. Some of them were ninety-fives. I couldn't move because I can't get a loan. I can't get a job. Whenever I look for a job, the employer will say, you still have five months left. By the time we train you, this four or five months will be gone. We are not sure if you can get a new one. So nobody would hire me.
Mr. Leon Benoit: I have just one last question, because my time is up. If you were to leave Canada, what countries would you be entitled to go to?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Syria.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you mean only Syria?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes, because I have Syrian travel documents.
Mr. Leon Benoit: What do you feel the situation would be for you if you were to return to Syria?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: I will never see my children.
Mr. Leon Benoit: What if you had your children with you?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: I will be in prison, for sure. I have documents from a Canadian doctor in Windsor describing all the scars on my body. Would you go there?
Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.
Mr. Limoges, you have 10 minutes.
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you.
First to Mr. Bernadas, as I understand it, you travelled through several different countries on your way to Canada.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes.
Mr. Rick Limoges: First of all, before I say anything, I'd like to thank both of you very much for joining us here in Canada and for joining us here at this meeting.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Thank you.
• 1605
Mr. Rick Limoges: It's quite an honour that you chose Canada as a destination and as your new home. So I'd like to thank you for that.
Mr. Bernadas, why did you travel through all those four countries? Was it because you couldn't get a direct flight?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes. I tried the Canadian High Commission in Colombo, Sri Lanka, but they were unable to accept my application. I told them that I'm a lawyer and a human rights activist and that I had undergone all of these problems, but they were unable to accept me. Now my senior has been killed in Colombo. That's a famous story, so now they realize that. But at the time, they told me they could not accept me.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Is it that they couldn't accept you just in terms of the travel or as a refugee?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: They told me that if I was going to apply for refugee status, it would take some time. I told them that my life was in danger and that I wanted to get out as soon as possible. They told me I couldn't do it immediately, so I tried for a tourist visa or something else in the visa system. First I asked if I could apply for refugee status. They told me, no, it would take a longer time, so according to my problem, you couldn't. They asked me to try for the other one, but I was refused.
Mr. Rick Limoges: I hope you understand that it's interesting to this committee to know of the difficulties refugee claimants have in even getting here, let alone the trials and tribulations you're put through in the process once you're here. Is there anything else you can tell us in terms of the difficulties you had just in coming here? I understand it cost a lot of money. Were there people who had to be paid other than for your travel in order to help you along your route to get here?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: In my case I came under the expedited process, the so-called fast track.
Mr. Rick Limoges: That's once you got here.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes. I am lucky.
But for most of the cases they now are doing a full hearing, or something like that. It takes some two or three years. I know that for one person it took about six or seven years. At that time, if they do not have their employment authorization or their student authorization, they are remaining on welfare. So that means that the Canadian government is losing some money. If it is positive or negative, if they can determine whether or not he is a convention refugee in a quick time, then the Canadian government can save money. Until that time they can't work, so they have to go on welfare. So it should be in a fast track or expedited—
Mr. Rick Limoges: I think we all agree with you that there ought to be a process that's quicker for all concerned.
Going back to my original question with regard to your travel to get to Canada, did you have to pay people to help you? Did you have to lie to people in order to hide the fact that you were trying to get to Canada? Describe that a little more fully.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Actually, if you are not legally coming out of that country, you have to pay a lump sum. I paid about 10 lakhs of Sri Lankan rupees for that agent, who was doing it as a business to take people to the U.S., Europe, or Canada. So he had taken me. I paid a lump sum of rupees. At the time, because I was a young lawyer, I didn't have that much money. My parents had their savings. They sold several properties and gave me the money because my life was in danger.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Were you able to travel with your own identity, your own documents?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes, to Singapore I travelled with my identity. From there, the agent made all these arrangements. He made the passport, and he asked me to travel to the U.S.A. From there he asked me to go to the border, what you call Blackpool, I think. That is near Montreal.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Was the passport you had a legitimate one or was it a front?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: That is my photograph and a different name.
Mr. Rick Limoges: I see. So you did have falsified documents in order to travel.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Khalil—
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: [Inaudible—Editor]...refugee hearing.
• 1610
Mr. Rick Limoges: I understand that. I wasn't casting any aspersions. It's important for us to know the difficulties you faced in order to get here, and the fact that sometimes you can't follow all the rules and even make it here.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes. I am a lawyer. I studied the system. I have some knowledge.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Right.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Thank you.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Ms. Khalil, you've been in Canada now since...was it 1994?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Rick Limoges: You have two children here with you.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Where is your husband?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: He's in Gaza now.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Is he himself in danger in Gaza?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: No.
Mr. Rick Limoges: But it's not possible for you to go and join him.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: No. My kids are here. The only language they speak is English. I won't move them.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay, but that would be considered a choice.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Even I can't go there. It means a certain procedure because we are a family, but it might take another six years; nothing is for sure.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay.
So you would have difficulty going to your husband, as he would have difficulty coming here?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Your husband has landed immigrant status in Gaza?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: In Gaza, yes.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Is he a citizen there?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes, he resides there.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay. But here in Canada, you were denied landed immigrant status through an entire hearing process that you described earlier. Is that correct?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: I am a convention refugee—
Mr. Rick Limoges: I understand.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: —but I was denied landed immigrant status.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay.
How many different hearings have you had? We can't hear all the evidence, naturally. That's not our function here.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: I understand that.
Mr. Rick Limoges: But at the hearings to which you went, they took all the information you gave them and they decided against your case. Is that correct?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: No. I got the first hearing in December 1994. On December 21, I got the decision. The judge accepted me right away. I applied for landed immigrant status right away, in January 1995. Since January 1995, I have been in and out.
Mr. Rick Limoges: You've been stuck in the process.
But on your landed immigrant status, the last thing you read off to us was that you were denied, and you implied that your denial was because of your previous job, before you came to Canada.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Rick Limoges: You said you were a journalist.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Rick Limoges: What was the paper or whatever from which you were a journalist?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: The magazine's name was Filastin al-thawra. It is the central magazine of the PLO.
Mr. Rick Limoges: I see. So they considered your relationship with the PLO to be a major factor in denying you the landed immigrant status?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: It was the only factor.
Mr. Rick Limoges: The only factor?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay, thank you very much.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: You're welcome.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.
Mr. Anders.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you.
This question is for Mr. Bernadas. You mentioned that you had to pay 10 Sri Lankan rupees—or your parents' savings, anyhow. Do you have any correlation for, when that was paid, what that would equate to in Canadian dollars? Unfortunately I don't have a grasp of what 10 Sri Lankan rupees would be in Canadian dollars.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Roughly, 50 Sri Lankan rupees is equal to $1 Canadian.
Mr. Rob Anders: So we're talking 20¢?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: No, it's about $20,000: 50 Sri Lankan rupees is $1 Canadian; 10 lakhs—
Mr. Rob Anders: So you paid $10,000?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: I paid $20,000.
Mr. Rob Anders: Okay, I'll go with that.
I'm going to flip back and forth here.
Ms. Khalil, you said you had some difficulty with regard to getting employment documents and that type of thing. How have you been able to make your way in Canada without having some of those documents...or having difficulty finding a job?
• 1615
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Do you mean the documents inside Canada?
Mr. Rob Anders: You said you have to get an employment authorization—
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Rob Anders: —and you are without that right now. Is that correct?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: No. Right now, I have the one that says I can't study. But I have the student authorization that says I can't work.
Mr. Rob Anders: Okay, I see. So in your opinion, that makes it impossible for you to get a job here, or it's very difficult.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Exactly, or they're asking me to lie. Either they've been asking me to lie or to do nothing, just stay home, eat and sleep.
Mr. Rob Anders: All right. In order to eat, sleep, and stay home, you still have to have some financial resources to help pay for yourself and your children.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Rob Anders: How are you sustaining yourself?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: I am on social assistance.
Mr. Rob Anders: Okay.
Out of curiosity, I don't mean to pry, but on how much are you sustaining yourself; how much do you receive?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: It's $1,041, or something like that.
Mr. Rob Anders: Is that $1,041 per month?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Rob Anders: Okay.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Add to it what we get for the children.
Mr. Rob Anders: Okay, so you receive something for the children as well?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes, around $250.
Mr. Rob Anders: Is that for each child?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: No, for both.
Mr. Rob Anders: So then, in total, you'd receive around $1,300 per month.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: And $50.
Mr. Rob Anders: Okay, and $50?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: We receive $50 every three months, the tax return.
Mr. Rob Anders: Is that the GST rebate?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Rob Anders: All right.
I apologize; I'm going to flip back over to Mr. Bernadas.
You mentioned some friends or some people you were aware of or working with who had been as long as seven years in kind of a limbo state without receiving employment authorizations in Canada?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes.
Mr. Rob Anders: And for that time, they were on...you called it welfare.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes, social assistance.
Mr. Rob Anders: Social assistance is the technical term. Do you have any idea how much they were receiving?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: It's about $400 to $500, roughly. I don't know the exact amount.
Mr. Rob Anders: Is that per month?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes, that's per month, for a single person.
Mr. Rob Anders: Did that include rent, or was rent taken care of on top of that?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: No, per person, because there are three persons, it may be about $1,200 or something that he would get, but he had to pay the rent out of that.
Mr. Rob Anders: Okay, I see.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Okay, thank you.
Ms. Leung.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think both of you went through a lot of difficulty to reach Canada. Thank you for coming here today.
I assume both of you came to Canada to seek a better life.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Ms. Sophia Leung: Okay. Do you find our immigration system, our immigration officials, very courteous, polite, or fair to you?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: As far as my case goes, I think they are courteous and very polite. But I studied some other cases, because I am a lawyer. I read some cases back home. At that time, they were cross-examining like a criminal case. Because these are refugees coming here in a pathetic situation, there should be some sympathy towards them.
So they have to be treated in that way, but in some cases, if they are going for a full hearing, that is like a criminal murder case. They have cross-examination and re-examination, something like that. So it shouldn't be held, because they are real refugees. They are coming here in a pathetic condition, so there should be some sympathy.
• 1620
Ms. Sophia Leung: Yes. Would you like to comment now?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: He is lucky. I believe my experience was the worst experience man can imagine. I never felt that they were nice or they were welcoming me. Every time I felt that. Even the meaning of these letters—they were telling me indirectly, “We don't want you here. We don't have anything against you to take you to the court, so we will let you wait here until you're fed up and leave by yourself.” But they don't know that my children are my priority, and I won't leave the country.
Ms. Sophia Leung: So you feel they are trying to humiliate you.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Exactly. They are trying to make me leave by myself. They think within the year I will choose to find another place. Had they told me that in the beginning, the first time I crossed the border, believe me, I would have left. My kids were still small. They could have learned the Arabic language and how to write it. I would have left, but after six years when the only language my children know is English, where do I go with them? I won't leave. They feel they are Canadian, even if we don't have these papers, and I will keep them in Canada.
Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.
You trained as a lawyer, Mr. Bernadas. Are you able to practise as a professional here?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Yes, I can, because of the expedited process. I'm trying to go to university to do some more courses to enter into the professional stream in Canada.
As I told you earlier, if cases are determined quickly, they can become useful citizens for Canada. They can make other choices. They can select universities and continue their education. Otherwise they can't work here.
Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you. I have just one more little question.
How do you feel we can help or, to be more practical, improve our system? As you know, there are regulations. There are a lot of applicants or claimants who take advantage, so sometimes it goes both ways. I just want to hear your comments.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: I think when you have a family you have to look at the situation. When there are kids involved and some member of the family is out, they must be the priority. It's not like a single man or woman who is waiting. For them it means the same, but it's not like children growing up without their father. They must take it more seriously. They must think of other people, even if they are not Canadian, as humans first of all.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: In the case of some Sri Lankan Tamils, mostly they were arrested by the army or police or something like that. But when they went for the hearing they were asked for some evidence or documents from the particular police station or camp. How can these people expect them to have certificates for that?
In some cases they ask for evidence. If you were tortured in a police station or arrested by the police, what is the evidence? Do you get evidence from the same place? That is impossible. That type of requirement should be abolished because it is impossible.
Ms. Sophia Leung: Okay. If I understand you clearly, they ask for evidence that you've been tortured or mistreated in your homeland, to prove you are a refugee, but you say you cannot get that evidence.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: You can get a medical legal report or a doctor's report, but if you were detained at the police station or arrested at the police station, they won't give you a receipt for that.
Ms. Sophia Leung: So there's a lot of difficulty. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.
Mr. Muise.
• 1625
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to first say, Ms. Khalil, that I understand this is very difficult for you. I sense that. On the other hand, I think it's very important for us to be able to know what you experience in order that we can make the process better. If improvements need to be made, I think it's important we know. So I thank both of you for coming. I think it's very important.
Ms. Khalil, I was wondering if you could provide us with a copy of the letter you received yesterday refusing your landed immigrant status.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Sure.
Mr. Mark Muise: This is a question that I would ask to both of you. What advice would you give us, as committee members, in making recommendations when we're working to prepare a new piece of legislation?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: I think, first of all—maybe it's my experience that tells me to tell you this—don't label people. I am not a terrorist because I am Palestinian. I am first of all human. I am a mother who has children. There are terrorists everywhere, maybe here, or down the street—and there also, I don't deny that. But don't label us. Look at us and at what we did.
If you have evidence against us, take us to court. Don't sentence us without even letting us know what it's all about. If you have anything against me—these are the rules everywhere—take me to court. Let me know. Nobody can be sentenced without knowing the crime. I believe the immigration people did that because they have labels. That's all.
Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: It's the same thing I'd like to say, because if there is a Sri Lankan Tamil.... Most of the Sri Lankan Tamils are refugees in Canada. They came as refugees. We have to consider the ongoing war, about 20 years of Sri Lankan military and LTTE fighting. More than 50,000 or 60,000 people were killed and lots of people injured, and several hundred billions of properties were damaged. So we have to think about that situation.
The problem is getting worse in South Asian countries. Sri Lanka is becoming worse. So as far as Sri Lankan Tamils are concerned, we should think about them and why they are coming. If there were peace, they wouldn't be coming out of their country. There is a problem. The world recognizes, the NGOs recognize, that there are problems, even ICRC and Amnesty International. The records say the problem is there, that there is discrimination against the Tamils in Sri Lanka. So it should be considered, and there should be a sympathetic way to consider the refugee claims of Tamils from Sri Lanka when they come to Canada.
Mr. Mark Muise: I'm hearing a bit of a conflict here in a sense. Madam Khalil, you're saying don't label people, but Mr. Bernadas is saying, if they're Tamil refugees, be careful.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: No.
Mr. Mark Muise: Okay, I misunderstood. Thank you.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: They have real problems there.
Mr. Mark Muise: Okay, sorry. I'm glad I asked. Thank you.
Mr. Bernadas, do you think the system is prone to abuse, or do you think there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure that criminals and queue jumpers are kept out of Canada?
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Of course, anywhere in the world, in any country that's accepting refugees, there will be some people like that. That is a common thing. But as far as the majority of positions are concerned, I think that's correct.
I checked some of the decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Most of them really concerned people who were accepted. But I'm seeing that it takes such a long time. The time to determine if a person is a refugee or not should be reduced. That would be a good solution you could recommend, I think.
Mr. Mark Muise: Okay. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you. You can have one more if you want it.
Mr. Mark Muise: Well, I have one more.
Mr. Bernadas, how should Canada strike a balance between meeting its international commitments for refugees and administering a system that's able to identify those who pose a threat to Canadian society? How should we balance that?
• 1630
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: As far as my community, the Sri Lankan Tamils, is concerned, they are well known as hard workers, so they are becoming useful citizens of Canada. They are improving the economy of Canada. So as far as Canada is concerned, they are an asset to this country.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: The same question?
Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: I agree with Immigration sometimes, that they have to do some research or check people's backgrounds. I agree with them. What I don't agree with is that when you find that the person belongs to a certain nationality.... Don't go too far just because he is of that nationality. Also, I believe it is necessary to protect Canada for my children to be safe in Canada. It is their country. But be fair.
Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: You're welcome.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.
We'll go to Mr. Benoit for five minutes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to ask some follow-up questions, Ms. Khalil. First of all, Mr. Anders was asking you about the amount of money you and your children received to live on. Is your rent paid from that amount?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: So you pay your rent from that amount?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Roughly how much is your rent per month?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Lately, it is $750. It was $700.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. You commented—I think this is a quote—“I believe they did this because they label us”. You're referring to the officials who dealt with you in what you felt was not a very kind way. You, I think, commented that you worked for a PLO magazine?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Of course you know the PLO are considered, and have been for some time—certainly by Canada, and by many countries in the world—to be a terrorist organization that has performed some incredibly harsh terrorist acts.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Having worked for the PLO magazine, you must know that you will be connected to those acts, whether you participated in them or not. When you were working for the magazine, did you have knowledge of the types of activities, not specific activities, that the PLO were involved in?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Here I always find that there is not enough information among Canadian officials about the type of work within the PLO in Beirut.
In Beirut, everyone has to belong to the PLO to work. Even in the hospitals, doctors have to belong to the PLO to work, because their salaries come from the PLO. Journalists have to belong to the PLO. Their salaries come from the PLO. It doesn't mean that you attend a meeting or get involved in preparing something. There are branches, or the military, whose job that is.
But when you find nurses, doctors, journalists, and teachers in the schools who get their salaries from the PLO, it doesn't mean they are terrorists. This is the system, and there is no information about the system in Canada. They don't know anything about the system. They think if you are a member of the PLO, you are involved in some activities. It is not the truth. You have to belong to the PLO to live. Anyone in this place must belong to an organization within the PLO. You can't live without it. Even those who have a store, to get protection, must belong to the PLO.
Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand what you're saying. What types of activities did you report on in this magazine you wrote for?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: I was a political reporter. I used to write about Israeli and Syrian conflict in Lebanon, because I believed until now that the Syrian-Israeli struggle was in Lebanon, not in Syria, not in Israel. They struggled in the south of Lebanon. I always wrote about this and nothing more.
• 1635
Mr. Leon Benoit: In your articles, did you write about some of the terrorist activities the PLO carried out in a way that you could consider to be propaganda on behalf of the PLO?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Never. Most of all, my writing was against Syria. The PLO has certain magazines for their activities. The central magazine of the PLO is just to write about political opinions.
Mr. Leon Benoit: I asked you some of those questions only to lead into this question. Knowing how the PLO is viewed in Canada, particularly their terrorist activities, I'm somewhat surprised that you would be surprised that CSIS and others doing background checks and questioning you would ask tough questions about exactly what you did with the PLO.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Exactly. What surprised me was that my boss is here and he is a Canadian citizen now and he told them that. He came two years prior to my coming here. He told them the truth, because he gave me his file number. If he wanted to lie, he would not have given me his file number. His file number is with my lawyer. He told them where he worked exactly. He was my boss. So who is most dangerous?
Mr. Leon Benoit: He was your boss at the magazine?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Exactly.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.
Mr. Telegdi, you have five minutes.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much for coming. Certainly, Mr. Bernadas, you showed us that it's not always possible to get to this country by applying at the high commission and getting status. Sometimes people come by not the most direct method. From the sounds of your experiences, they're fairly positive, and that's good.
You tell me you came here as a refugee. Well, so did I. My situation was a lot easier because we were recognized very quickly as soon as we crossed the border.
Ms. Khalil, this issue you mentioned.... How old are your children?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: My son is almost 16. Next month he will be 16. My daughter is 10 years old.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Let me ask you a few questions. Did you have any real following up on the fact that your boss was granted status and you weren't? Was there any explanation at all given?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: If you can find somebody to ask, I will. Who is there to ask? They are always behind glass, saying “We will send you a letter.” Nobody to ask.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Could you make that information available to the committee, in terms of your boss?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: Yes.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I would like to—
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: There are a lot of people who worked with me who are Canadian citizens now. Every one of them—I asked most of them, especially my boss.... I told him I was going to say that he was my boss. He said “Go ahead. I told them I was the executive editor of the magazine.” I was a journalist and he was an editor.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I would very much like that information.
When you get your work permit, what period is it for?
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: One year.
• 1640
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I noticed that it says you have to apply for it 30 days before it expires.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: And it's not enough, in fact. I do have to apply 30 days before, but it never comes within 30 days. It usually takes around two months. Two years ago my children were kicked out of school for one week because it didn't arrive in time.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'm very keen on that particular one as well. When you don't have your permit, they aren't allowed to go to school.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: They can't.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I would like to thank both of you for being here and for the evidence you gave before the committee. Hopefully your situations will improve.
Ms. Nawal Haj Khalil: I hope so. It should be improved.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.
As chair, I would like to thank you as well for taking the time to attend and for coming the distance that you have. We hope your problems can be resolved. We really do appreciate the input. Hopefully some of the recommendations that come out of this committee will make the road a little smoother for those folks who need the help.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: May I speak?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Yes, sure you can.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: I mentioned my kids. My parents are back home in Sri Lanka. If the journalists or the press mention my name in the newspapers here, sometimes it may affect my parents and my sisters who are living back home. Can you give the details without mentioning my name?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): It's a little late, I'm afraid. Everything has been put into the transcript. Perhaps if you had made that request at the beginning, we could have moved in camera to hear your testimony, but unfortunately it's a matter of public record.
I'm not sure there's any media here particularly. They may not pick up on it anyway, so I think the best we can do is just hope that is the case.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: [Inaudible—Editor]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Yes, okay.
Once again, thank you very much. We appreciate your input and we'll move on with your information, which hopefully will help us to write a report that will be helpful to the minister and to the department.
Mr. William Kennedy Bernadas: Thank you very much for allowing me to appear before the standing committee.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): We'll just take about a five-minute break and then we'll come right back. I'll suspend the sitting for five minutes.
• 1643
• 1651
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Can we reconvene the meeting. I believe we have votes tonight, and we want to try to finish up as much as we can.
I have two issues before we move in camera that I would like to deal with. The first is that I have received a notice of motion from Mr. Benoit requesting the minister to appear, after March 30 but not later than May 31, to address the estimates for the year.
If it's all right with you, Mr. Benoit, I don't see a problem, but it should go to the steering committee.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Why?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): To allow the steering committee to order the business. Why not? What's the urgency of dealing with it right now? We'll receive the notice of motion, refer it to the steering committee, the steering committee approves it, and it's a done deal.
Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll just bring it up at the next committee meeting. It's no problem.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Okay.
Mr. Leon Benoit: The other thing is that tomorrow we have Ward Elcock, the director of CSIS, here. Our House leader has asked that we use room 253-D, the committee room that is televised. I think that's the type of meeting there would be an interest in and where that would be a positive thing to do. The room is free, the House leader has confirmed that, and I would like to know whether that has been discussed with you and whether we will be in that room tomorrow.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I've had it discussed with me, and that was, unfortunately, during the deliberations here. It's not exactly a good opportunity to discuss it among other members who, I am sure, would like some input. I am informed that the room is only free until 12 p.m. and our meeting is scheduled to go until 2 p.m. The first part of our meeting is CSIS, which only lasts an hour. For the second part of our meeting, it's extremely important to our staff and to everybody that we put in a full session. I'm open to hearing comments from other committee members, but the room is definitely only free until 12 p.m. It would mean that logistically the clerk would have to change arrangements. We've ordered lunch so that we can work through tomorrow. Those arrangements would need to be changed as well. We certainly have not notified the witness that this would be moved.
It's now almost five to five. I'm a little uncomfortable with the timing of it. That's my only concern. Are there other members who have comments?
Mr. Leon Benoit: This was taken by our House leader with enough time to deal with this.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Who to?
Mr. Leon Benoit: To your House leader, I would assume, or possibly to the committee chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): No, apparently not. It wouldn't be the committee chair because he's been off attending a funeral since yesterday.
Mr. Leon Benoit: To the clerk, actually.
The Clerk of the Committee: Only this afternoon.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): This afternoon.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, which gives enough time to deal with this. I'm wondering what possible reasons there could be. We can surely deal with logistics like that. It's not that difficult moving from a televised room to another room if we would need to. With this kind of interest in the meeting today, which is going to be the same kind of meeting we have tomorrow, I don't see that there's going to be anybody complaining if we make a move during that time. There's not a lot of interest shown by the government side here—two members.
• 1655
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): That's unnecessary. That's not exactly a good way to influence people, taking shots at them.
Mr. Telegdi, any thoughts?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'm not going to talk about when Mr. Benoit's not here.
Let me say that if we're going to do this, it certainly should be discussed with members beforehand. That's one of the reasons why we have a steering committee. We either have a steering committee or we don't. The fact of the matter is that we do. I don't like to make last-minute changes, especially if it messes up our meeting because the room is not available. We are going to be working through lunch and this would create havoc.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Let me just be clear. The room is available until 12.15 p.m. It's not available for the entire meeting.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: That's what I mean.
Mr. Leon Benoit: That's a good chunk of time. The meeting starts at 9 a.m.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Right.
Mr. Leon Benoit: So that gives us three and a quarter hours in the room. That should be enough to get a fair bit done. If necessary, we can certainly move after that time. Again, I don't think the move is something that somebody as capable as you, Mr. Chair, can't handle.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): The actual chair will be back for the meeting tomorrow. It won't be me handling it, and even if it was, I'm not at all worried about handling a meeting. I am concerned about the late notice. Our colleagues have not been notified. The witnesses have not been notified. We'd have to make all the changes.
I don't understand why your House leader couldn't have got his act together. We've known about CSIS appearing for well over a week. We had plenty of time to make those arrangements, and frankly I think it's disappointing that we weren't given an opportunity to do it. If you're asking for my ruling, as of this meeting, which I believe will be the one that will stand as far as the decision goes, my ruling is that we should maintain the location where it is and regrettably turn down the request of your House leader due to the late notice.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, one other thing about steering committee meetings is...as you know, I had a great concern about what happened before the last meeting I attended. I came back Wednesday night. Thursday night the steering committee met. We talked about witnesses we would have in future meetings and there was agreement to have some of those witnesses. There was no talk whatsoever of going in camera to discuss our ideas as to what we had heard from the witnesses. Yet I get back Wednesday night, into the meeting Thursday morning, and here we are in camera dealing with the discussion on our ideas as to what the witnesses said. The direction the steering committee gave really became irrelevant. I don't know how it would help to put this issue to a steering committee.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Are you referring to your letter to Joe?
Mr. Leon Benoit: No, I was just referring to what happened there.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): There does appear to have been some confusion. I read your letter and I had a different interpretation. My understanding was that we were going to try to get another witness, and I don't remember the name of the individual—
A voice: Fairweather.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I believe those attempts were made and that individual was unavailable. The purpose of going in camera, as I understand it, at the last session was in fact to start dealing with the draft report, not so much with comments from witnesses. But obviously comments from witnesses would be part of what we would be dealing with, just as these witnesses today have made a number of comments that you would deal with when you get into drafting the report.
Mr. Leon Benoit: If I could comment on that, in fact we have no draft report to look at. So how could we be dealing with a draft report? It was made very clear—in fact, the chair explicitly said at that last meeting—that there is no draft report to deal with. What are you talking about when you mention a draft report?
We're dealing with some broad ideas put together by Margaret, our researcher, and I thank her for that. Why on earth you would go in camera to discuss ideas on things we've heard from witnesses is beyond me. But that's an issue for another day. We don't have quorum here. I guess our meeting is probably over for today, is it?
• 1700
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): No. We can discuss the same issues without quorum just as we can have a session for witnesses with only three members.
Mr. Leon Benoit: With this lack of interest, I don't see the point. I think we ought to have a good group here when we're going to discuss issues.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): What would you like to do?
Mr. Leon Benoit: We may as well adjourn for today. We have two members from the government side, plus the chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): That's fine with me.
Any objections to that?
Fine. The meeting is adjourned.