CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Friday, May 4, 2001

• 0910

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. Welcome to Montreal, a major city that has welcomed many immigrants in its history.

The committee has come to hear witnesses so it will be better able to prepare a new law on immigration for Quebec and Canada.

[English]

Welcome all. It's a pleasure for the committee on citizenship and immigration to be here. We thus far have travelled from Vancouver to Winnipeg to Toronto, and it's our pleasure to be here in Montreal, a city that has a great history of immigration and welcoming immigrants and refugees to Quebec, Montreal, and other parts of Quebec.

The committee appreciates our witnesses coming forward to give us their input, their ideas, and their recommendations as to how we might improve the legislation that has been put forward by the Government of Canada. We have received your submissions. We'd like you to take five to seven minutes each as a group to give us a summary of what's in your submissions, and then we'll ask you some questions.

I also want to thank each and every one of you for working each and every day on behalf of immigrants and refugees. I know the committee has been very impressed thus far across the country at the number of people and organizations and governments at all levels that work on behalf of immigration. We have heard that immigration has helped build this great country and the province of Quebec, and that Canada has a proud history around the world on how immigration has been not only beneficial to Canada but beneficial to the immigrants and refugees themselves.

So we look forward to your presentations. I will move now to the first session with the witnesses. This morning we have McGill University, the University of Montreal, the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration, Montreal Action Refugee, and, as an individual, Mr. Colin Singer.

I will ask McGill University to start. I believe we have Cécile Rousseau.

Professor Cécile Rousseau (Professor of Psychiatry, McGill University): Good morning.

The Chair: Good morning.

Prof. Cécile Rousseau: I will speak on behalf of a multidisciplinary team of researchers from McGill, l'Université du Québec à Montréal, and the l'Université de Montréal, who work in law, psychiatry, and anthropology.

Refugee determination is one of the most complex adjudication functions in our society. In Canada, despite a relatively broad recognition rate and an ideological interpretation of the international refugee definition, dissatisfaction with the decision-making process at the Immigration and Refugee Board has been expressed by numerous actors.

I think it's important to see that these differences in opinion are often interpreted as purely ideological and thus non-solvable. People tend to say, you have different ideological camps and that's the problem. The challenge of our study was to try to prove that beyond ideology, other factors that may be modified were at stake in those differences of opinions and in those different perceptions between the actors.

For that reason, we undertook a study that implied both qualitative and quantitative analysis from a cultural, anthropological, psychological, and legal perspective of a number of cases that have been considered as representing diverging opinion between different professional bodies in Canada.

The results indicate numerous problems affecting the role and behaviour of all the actors. For example, at the legal level, there were difficulties in evaluating evidence. Those were huge. Assessing credibility and conducting hearings—the modes in which hearings were conducted were very significantly problematic. At the psychological level, problems with coping with the vicarious traumatization and uncontrolled emotional reactions during the hearing were also very common. Finally, at the cultural level, just to give an example and not an exhaustive list, poor knowledge of the political context, false representation of war, and cultural misunderstanding and insensitivity were also very prevalent.

• 0915

In the majority of cases these three levels of factors interact, and I think that's the huge complexity in addressing this issue, that we cannot say we're going to give legal, psychological, and anthropological training. Of course, we should do that, but that's not enough, because these interact in a very complex way. That's why, if we want to address this issue, we should change profoundly the way in which the training is organized, to work a process-focused training and not a content-focused training, for example, in the areas of case discussion and of settings where board members can question and reflect and behold, because they have a difficult and burdening task throughout their decision process to make competent decisions.

This also implies that the selection process of board members should be revised, taking into account that we cannot ask a board member to have full competence in the three areas, cultural, legal, and psychological—that's impossible, even for us. But we can expect that they have reasonable competence in one of the three domains and that they could acquire, as they train, some competence in the other areas.

These were really the conclusions of our first study. We plan to go on and expand the study, in order to have an idea of the prevalence of the problems throughout Canada. This will be a multi-site independent study in Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto, looking, with a random sample, at the prevalence of a problem case, and then replicating our findings in respect of the problematic elements.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Cécile.

Just for the record, is this part of the study you were referring to, the preliminary study we have?

Prof. Cécile Rousseau: Yes.

The Chair: Great, thank you. I'm sure we'll have some questions for you.

Next we have France Houle from the University of Montreal. Bienvenue.

Professor France Houle (Professor of Law, University of Montreal): Good morning.

I speak on behalf of myself, of course, and also of François Crépeau. We wrote together this brief, which is titled “The Security of Refugees and the Abilities of IRB Members”.

There was a time when, you will know, President Kennedy said “Don't think about what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. Of course, this was said in another context, the welfare state, which is apparently more or less dying. But I would like you to take President Kennedy's words and stand them on their head. What can you do, as a representative of the Canadian state and in the context of globalization, for the people who are in need of protection? In fact, the very central question is, who can protect people other than the state, people who are vulnerable especially? As far as the Immigration and Refugee Board is concerned, I would like you and the Liberal government to reflect on the persons who are appointed to the board and who have the tremendous responsibility to protect those who are in need.

I, with François Crépeau, suggest in our brief that one useful step could be taken to ensure that the persons who are appointed to the tribunal are competent, meaning that they have the required skills to fulfil their task in a competent manner and that they are able to make reasonable, well-motivated decisions. As an expert in administrative law, I can say that this task is not always fulfilled to the highest standards expected, which leads to unfortunate decisions, to say the least.

It is important in this day and age of the charter, which the Liberal government fought for, to understand that I and my team of researchers, with Cécile Rousseau, François Crépeau, and Patricia Foxen, as well as other experts in the legal field, believe that the constitutionality of tribunals that are not filled with competent persons cannot be said to be independent and impartial. Independence and impartiality start with the very belief that one is capable of fulfilling a task to the highest standards. I, with other experts, feel strongly that being and feeling competent is a necessary component of independence and impartiality. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is the cornerstone of any system to establish its credibility and legitimacy. Without it, the system cannot fulfil its promise.

• 0920

The Province of Quebec has made its move with the creation of the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. The Loi sur la justice administrative provides for very specific legislative rules and regulatory powers to ensure that competent members are appointed. This was a first step and a very good step. And we must say that the transition from complete arbitrariness in appointing members to structured discretion in Quebec was not especially painful. The system has not collapsed, and democracy is definitely better served with a more transparent procedure. We expect no less from the federal government.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

So far I'm very impressed with the submissions. Usually in Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Toronto I had to cut my witnesses off, because they were going longer than the five or seven minutes. So far both McGill and the University of Montreal have been under that time allotted. So feel free—I'm not putting that much pressure on you yet.

[Translation]

An Hon. member: ... the difference...

The Chair: Yes, indeed. Vive la différence.

I would like to welcome Jacques Beauchemin and Carole Fioré from the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration.

Mr. Jacques Beauchemin (President, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration): Thank you.

I have with me today Carole Fioré, the Secretary-Treasurer of our association. I would like to point out that our association is made up of approximately 120 lawyers who work in the field of immigration, representing refugees or immigration applicants who are outside the country.

Our association has already made known its views on Bill C- 31. It would like to reiterate certain observations here. In the first place, we are concerned by the fact that, in our eyes, Bill C-11 diminishes the rights of individuals affected by immigration, be they immigrants or refugees, while increasing the powers of the government or of government employees over these same individuals.

You will no doubt recall the shortcomings observed by the Auditor General of Canada in his April 2000 report, with regard to the quality and consistency of decisions made by visa officers abroad. You will also recall the conclusions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Baker decision, regarding the importance of transparency in the process and of procedural equity in the way decisions are made by immigration officers.

Our association proposes the creation of an immigration ombudsman's office that would have broad investigative powers and that could receive complaints from any person affected by the administration of the future Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We feel this would be important because, just recently, the press revealed various abuses committed by immigration officers, who went so far as to falsify documents in order to facilitate the removal of people from Canada, as well as possible abuses by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which also may have falsified documents or evidence relating to people who had requested refugee status in Canada.

We believe that, at this stage, there should be an independent body that can oversee the officers who apply the Immigration Act, so that this ombudsman's office is in a position to report to Parliament and, with its investigative powers, provide it with the means to say how the legislation will be administered.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Fioré, who will talk about the rights of landed immigrants in Canada.

Ms. Carole Fioré (Secretary-Treasurer, Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration): Good morning.

The new act will bring in procedures that will take away from permanent residents travelling abroad the right to return to Canada, even if it is to appear before authorities that are charged with determining their status, even though their status may be perfectly valid. These provisions make major changes to the right of entry, which is a fundamental right for permanent residents.

• 0925

Furthermore, as far as the rights of permanent residents are concerned, Bill C-11 seriously limits their right to request a review of the circumstances surrounding their loss of status or removal, where this loss or removal is based on general grounds of inadmissibility such as criminal acts. For example, a permanent resident who arrived in Canada at a very young age, who married and had children, who paid income tax, but who is convicted of a serious criminal offence, could be deported from the country, even though this might be the only event that had happened to him during all his years spent in Canada.

The AQADI recommends that the Immigration Appeal Division maintain all its competency regarding equity and regarding all the circumstances surrounding any issue relating to loss of status by a permanent resident or relating to the sponsorship of a person in the family class.

However, it should not be necessary to obtain prior authorization for judicial review by the Federal Court of Canada from a decision by the Appeal Division, as such an application stays the removal order in the case of deportation.

We do not believe that the volume of applications for judicial review can justify requiring an application for leave to conduct judicial review by the Federal Court with regard to decisions made by visa officers. According to 1999 statistics, only 856 applications for judicial review were made, out of a total of 25,000 rejected immigration applications made from outside Canada. Of these 856 applications, 36% received a positive decision in the applicant's favour.

However, we suggest that, in order to reduce the number of challenges to decisions made by visa officers, an appropriate training plan be set up for visa officers abroad, in order to encourage more standardized and more consistent decisions. We also suggest that legal counsel be allowed to attend interviews, so that they will be more effective and better protected, as has been shown by Quebec's experience with interviews conducted by Quebec immigration advisers abroad.

Thank you.

Mr. Jacques Beauchemin: I would like to add something regarding refugees. I do not wish to repeat the comments made by Ms. Houle and Rousseau regarding the way Board members are appointed. I think that a great deal has already been said on this subject, but I believe that something must be done to ensure the competence, independence and impartiality of the tribunal. Obviously, the goal here is to ensure that the security and freedom of the people involved—because these are serious issues—can be protected in an equitable manner.

The AQADI is pleased to note the very first introduction into Canadian law of the application of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and approves of this initiative. This will be an interpretative tool that Board members can use to decide the fate of a refugee, which was not the case previously. There are other international conventions, however, that could have been introduced into Canadian law to ensure a better assessment of refugee claims.

However, the Association cannot agree with the fact that, in the future, immigration officers and the minister alone would be responsible for ruling on the ineligibility of refugee claims on the grounds of security, violating human rights or criminality. This would mean that, based exclusively on the opinion of an immigration officer, the Refugee Protection Division would not have the authority to examine various claims. We believe that an independent tribunal should be able to rule on such questions, and the only tribunal who could do this would be the Refugee Protection Division, not the opinion of an immigration officer.

• 0930

Moreover, the AQAADI does not agree with the provisions of the bill that would allow a person whose claim had been rejected because of the application of section F of article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, or on grounds of security or criminality, to be deported to a country where he or she could be tortured.

We are of the opinion that protection against torture cannot be set aside. The bill's initial provisions include an interpretative tool, article 1 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, but at the same time, the obligation to apply the Convention is set aside in the case of people who, for example, may have committed a crime or for reasons of security. I believe that Canada's international obligations go further than that. We cannot set aside these obligations and send people to be tortured, when we are there, in theory, to protect them. Therefore, in our opinion, there are no grounds that would justify deporting someone to a country where he or she might be subject to torture.

Furthermore, we believe it is essential that the application for judicial control following a negative decision from the Refugee Protection Division should be able to be made directly before the Federal Court without prior authorization. Above all, this application should also be able to have the effect of staying a removal order applying to a refugee claimant. Otherwise, there would be no point to a claimant's claim.

In conclusion, we believe that the current bill gives far too much power to the instruments that the government has available to deport people, by taking away from the tribunals, which previously had this power, the authority to review decisions made by officers. In our opinion, we must return to an approach that is a little more equitable for refugees, permanent residents and immigration applicants alike. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. I will now give the floor to the representatives of Action Réfugiés Montréal, Catherine Gauvreau and Vincent Valai.

Mr. Vincent Valai (Member of the Board of Directors, Action Réfugiés Montréal): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you, on behalf of the Action Réfugiés Montréal, for inviting us to this round table. This bill could be attacked on many fronts. However, we have decided to speak to you about our concerns regarding a single aspect, which is detention. Since our organization and our volunteers visit detention centres regularly, insofar as possible, given the small amount of time at our disposal, we will use examples of people we have met in these facilities in our presentation.

Depriving people of their freedom is an exceptional measure under the rule of law and should be subject to constant monitoring of the respect for the most elementary human rights. Our international obligations also require that we use the greatest caution in depriving people of their freedom. Unfortunately, this general principle is not taken into account in the bill, because measures of last resort are not mentioned except in the context of detaining minors, in clause 60.

We recommend that the bill be amended to affirm as a general principle, in the section dealing with detention and release, that detention is an exceptional measure and one of last resort.

We are also concerned about the expanded power of arrest and detention for issues related to identity. As you know, the state of anarchy that prevails in some countries, the civil and inter-statal wars that prevail in others, mean that it is nearly impossible, or an extremely long process, to obtain identity papers. Clause 55(2)(b) could lead to abuses because it would allow an officer to arrest and detain a person who is referred to in the bill as a “foreign national”, if the officer is not satisfied of the identity of the foreign national in the course of a procedure. It is easy to imagine that people could be arbitrarily and unjustifiably detained as result of this clause.

Still in the same clause, subclause (3) deals with entry into Canada. This provision also concerns us because it would mean that people could be deprived of their freedom simply because an officer has not completed his or her examination. We feel that the reasonable grounds mentioned in subclause (2)(a) are entirely sufficient and that there is no need to give additional discretionary powers to officers to arrest and detain all over the place.

• 0935

We ask that clause 55(3)(b) be revised, so that simple, unfounded suspicions do not lead to detention, although the violation of human and international rights are serious crimes and everything possible must be done to arrest those responsible. We believe that a mere suspicion is never adequate when a right as fundamental as freedom is involved.

We recommend amending the bill by removing the word “identity” as a ground of detention. We also recommend that the discretionary power of immigration officers to arrest and detain not be unduly expanded, and we therefore ask that the bill be amended by simply deleting subclauses (2)(b) and (3)(a) of clause 55.

Finally, we ask that the bill be amended by removing the verb “to suspect” from clause 55(3)(b).

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will give the floor to Ms. Gauvreau, who will provide you with some examples to illustrate what I have said and also speak to you about the detention of minors and vulnerable people.

Ms. Catherine Gauvreau (Detention Worker, Action Réfugiés Montréal): Thank you.

It is important to keep in mind that the provisions of the bill will have a major impact on the life of people who are detained in the future.

I am concerned that it has apparently not yet been established that detention must be used only as a last resort.

I will give you a little example. There was a woman who was in the third trimester of her pregnancy. She was detained at the Prevention Centre, while the father of the unborn child was a Canadian. This woman had been hospitalized and was taking medication. She was still being treated by her doctor, who had informed Immigration Canada that it would be too dangerous to her health and to that of her unborn child for her to travel. An airline company had even refused to allow her to travel on its planes.

She was detained at the Immigration Prevention Centre because of the danger of escape. We wonder about this reason and we do not believe that, in her state, she represented a real danger of escape. In our opinion, the principle of last resort was not applied in her case.

I will give you another example, although it has a happy ending, because I believe that it is a good illustration of the abuses that can be committed if we maintain identity as a ground of detention.

This case involved a couple from Angola, a country where Portuguese is spoken. They had claimed refugee status at the border.

Before coming to Canada, these two people had lived for many years and had studied in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country where French is spoken. They submitted their refugee claim at the border, with their identity papers. On some of their documents, their names had been gallicized, but they were very similar to the Portuguese version and it was clear that they referred to the same people.

On one identity paper from the university where the woman had studied, the country of residence was shown as “RDC” (for the République démocratique du Congo). Even though some of the documents corroborated the fact that both of them came from Angola, they were detained. I would remind you that Immigration Canada did not cite any danger of escape or danger to Canadian security.

Immigration Canada insisted on having passports. Fortunately, in this case, both of them could make themselves understood in French and had a passport in the United States, which they had sent to Canada.

In the great majority of cases, people do not have passports and they are therefore detained for an interminable amount of time, simply because the officials do not believe that they are revealing their true identity.

We are also opposed to the detention of minors, because this goes against their best interest, and we believe that it is not an adequate means of protecting them.

You are no doubt aware of all the cases of unaccompanied Chinese minors who were detained for six months at the Immigration Prevention Centre. Not only were they detained for a long period, which greatly affected their psychological state, but in addition, these young people did not receive any schooling during the five and a half months that they were detained.

The guards at the Immigration Prevention Centre have no way of ensuring the children's well-being.

• 0940

We must also emphasize the importance of implementing eventual regulations and agreements regarding the guardianship of minors—they are mentioned in paragraph 61(a) of the bill—, especially with regard to any commitment to provide social services, health services and recreational services to minors, more specifically to unaccompanied minors.

Finally, let me draw your attention to the treatment of some vulnerable people who are often forgotten. I do not think that detention provides an adequate environment for people who suffer from severe physical and psychological problems or from mental handicaps.

As we said in our comments, we are worried about detaining elderly persons, stateless persons or persons from moratorium countries or countries whose authorities have difficulty in co- operating with Canada. We do not believe that the person in detention should suffer the consequences of the fact that the government—if government there be—of his country of origin refuses to provide him with travelling papers.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Colin Singer, welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Colin R. Singer (Law Offices of Colin R. Singer, Appearing as an Individual): Good day. Committee members and colleagues,

[English]

my name is Colin Singer and I'm an immigration attorney, a member of the Barreau du Québec, in my fourteenth year practising immigration law. I thank you for extending an invitation to me today, this being my second time appearing before this committee in the past two years.

I apologize that I too wish to begin my five-minute presentation by quoting a noted American politician. Adlai Stevenson was an author and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 1960, who, while governor of Illinois, said in a speech in 1952, “Public confidence in the integrity of government is indispensable to faith in democracy, and when we lose faith in the system, we have lost faith in everything we fight for.” I submit to you that the administration and integrity of this Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration consultation process must not be compromised or seen to be, at best, a mere exercise in formality. I urge the members of this committee, as duly elected members of Parliament, to carefully and judiciously consider the over 90 submissions made by a broad spectrum of entities from east coast to west coast, many of whom are highly respected stakeholders in the field and validly question many aspects of Bill C-11. In so doing, you can maintain loyalty to your government as well as to the people of this great country.

I personally find it very questionable that the minister, who on March 1 before this committee, as well as on other occasions in the public spotlight, has suggested that Bill C-11 is balanced, while publicly stating her intention to report back to committee by the end of May, with the hope of having this bill go through third and final reading before summer recess. I ask you, committee members, on your first and only day in the province of Quebec, which, as you know, represents 23% of this country, how can you possibly carry out your mandate effectively under such conditions?

Bill C-11 is being marketed by the department as getting tough on criminals. You can look at the mission statement, and it is very pervasive throughout this particular process. Immigration is not about criminality. In the United States immigration is under the justice department, but in Canada immigration does not fall under our justice system. Immigration in this country is addressing negative birth rates, declining death rates, an aging population, and devising effective policy to ensure our population increases, a major factor towards continued economic prosperity for a very small country and population covering a very large land mass. This department is marketing Bill C-11 as getting tough on criminality, and I agree that it's a sensitive issue and Canadians like to hear we are getting tough on criminals. Who would not want to be tough on criminals?

• 0945

Second, Bill C-11 focuses on strengthening efforts to attract skilled workers. The mission statement of Bill C-11 fails to address the equally important goal of keeping skilled workers in this country. As a practitioner, I am well aware that a significant portion of our clientele will inevitably and often become brain drain casualties, looking to the south of us—the United States of America—at the very earliest opportunity. Many such individuals never intend to utilize permanent residence, and they merely comprise a portion of the statistical measure of the 225,000 landings—our department doesn't let you forget how many people they are bringing to the country—but they really never establish residence in this great country. It is far too premature to be coining the phrase, as our minister has done in her March 1 submission to you, “inventory of people” wishing to come to Canada. Now she's comfortable replacing “inventory of people” with the term we have known so well, “backlog of applications in process”.

I think you have before you many concerns—and I call them flaws—that will serve, in my view, to diminish the “made in Canada” label of Canadian permanent residents. You have been apprised of flaws in the areas of compelled examinations, rights of permanent residents, the downloading of authority to regulations, which will be shielded from you in the future if you allow Bill C-11 to go through in this format. You will be taking away the role of your fellow parliamentarians to scrutinize future legislative enactments. The substance of Bill C-11 is clearly in the regulations. It's unprecedented. Bill C-ll is merely a skeleton shell, and we do not know where this department is going.

I am concerned with the judicial review of decisions, which will be severely tempered under Bill C-11. With over 800 judicial review applications out of many thousands and thousands of applications, why is the department doing this? Why do they want to shelter their internal workings from an impartial judicial review process, with such a clear objective of making it difficult to question the workings of the decision-makers? We need checks and balances. It's a necessary part of our democratic process.

You know that there are 210 Canadian visa officers posted abroad and more than 1,000 locally engaged staff, many with the designation of immigration officer. These are non-Canadians. These people are making decisions on who comes to our country. They will be shielded. Their decisions will be shielded under Bill C-11. With the severe removal of a fair judicial review process, or a tempering, their decisions will be shielded. I find it very questionable that this department continues to engage non-Canadians. I can submit to you numerous instances of corruption and malfeasance at Canadian missions abroad. This department has great difficulty in managing its immigration infrastructure abroad, and they have chosen to use the services of non-Canadians. I find you must take serious cognizance of these elements that are now before you in Bill C-11.

• 0950

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Singer.

Before I go to questions, I want to thank all of you for some great presentations, some new information, and some other information that has been repeated.

I want to just address a couple of points, Mr. Singer, as they relate to our responsibility as a committee. First and foremost, you're absolutely right. The committee intends to take the time required and the due diligence required in order to make sure we get the balance right and the bill well and in good form. There's no doubt our immigration and refugee bill of 25 years ago has served this country very well. Therefore, we'll take the time that's required.

I can only tell you that although this new immigration bill has been on and off, it has been four years in the making. There has been a tremendous amount of consultation. In fact, on Bill C-11, this committee will hear something like 154 submissions from across the country, as you indicated. So people are engaged, people are very important.

I would agree—and I'll leave it at this—that it is unfortunate that perhaps maybe the department or the media have tried to label this bill as tough on crime. In actual fact, I'd like to characterize it—and the government would like to characterize it—as opening our doors wider for more immigrants to come to this country, based on what you've indicated as being the values and the requirements of this country. While I'm sure that's going to be part of the debate, I just want to tell you from my standpoint that the marketing of this bill is about more immigrants, more immigration, more protection for refugees.

Yes, we need to be concerned about criminality and security. At the end of the day, though, I think all of us might agree that in 99.99% of the cases, people who have come to this country, either by choice in terms of immigration or by necessity through refugee claims, have in fact brought great value to this country. Sometimes the preoccupation of the media and others will focus on that .01%, as opposed to telling about the happy stories and the great stories of the people who have made some great contributions to this country over the hundred years, and specifically even to this province.

So I thank you, but I want to let you know that through this process, we're going to take the time that we need. We're hearing witnesses. We intend to start clause-by-clause study based on the input that we've had. There have been excellent suggestions so far even by our own committee members, as well as from the public, as to how we might improve the bill. I can therefore guarantee you that, at the end of the day, this committee and I, as the chair, are not going to pass a bill that we don't believe will have the support of the Canadian people. At the end of the day, that's who our primary stakeholders are.

I'll move immediately to Inky Mark for a five-minute round.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank our witnesses for coming this morning to appear before us. I continue to be impressed with the statements made by the witnesses, even though this is the last day of the hearings through the week. Most of us are fairly tired, but the wide range of concerns that are brought before us is incredible, and they're very impressive.

Let me just make comments on some of the things I heard this morning. On the issue of hiring for the selection process for the IRB, there isn't anyone around this table who doesn't agree it should be based on merit. In fact, the last committee report made that recommendation.

I guess the big challenge is to make sure the selection process is open and transparent. As you know, it's based on an old patronage appointment process. It's interesting that the province of Quebec has made changes. Perhaps we can learn a lesson from them.

Let me get to the question that I have in this area.

We've gone to a single-member panel. I met with an Australian senator a couple of weeks ago. He indicated that Australia went from a single member to three members. They increased their numbers, so I'm thinking about whether or not we're doing the right thing. Or is this just a temporary...? Is it good to make a change that's going to alleviate a temporary problem, if that's the case?

• 0955

Proof of documents continues to be a problem. I was telling the chair the other day that I turned in my blue passport to the system to get a green one, because I wanted a green diplomatic passport. They wrote back and said they couldn't give me a green one because I didn't send in a birth certificate. But I'm an immigrant by third generation, actually. I don't have a birth certificate, but I'm a member of Parliament and I just sent in a real, blue passport that's valid.

So there's a good example. If I have problems, I can't imagine what problems people have with documents when they come to this country, can't speak the language, and don't know the culture.

Yes, Mr. Singer, people have spoken loudly and clearly over the past week. I believe the hearing process works as far as this public hearing process is concerned, because many Canadians appeared before us and they do bring their concerns. That's where my confidence ends. I guess we'll see whether the hearings will bear fruit or not. I've only been around four years, and I think the goodwill of the committee is here, as far as this table is concerned—and the chairman, too—to really make some substantive changes to this bill.

You're correct. Immigration is not criminality. It's about the past history of this country, and it will be about the future history of this country. I believe this bill will set the tone and the direction for what Canada is going to be in the next 20 or 30 years. And I agree that the security of our borders should not jeopardize human rights.

We continue to hear from the bar throughout this country, and from others who describe Bill C-11 as un-Canadian, as lacking vision, as not respecting the right to due process. I agree. In fact, I submitted to the system an amendment to put in place an ombudsman. I was then told we don't have a federal ombudsman act in the federal system, so I don't know how that's going to play in terms of trying to make an amendment to make sure there's a vehicle for review.

I agree 100% that all provisions on requests for leave that are in the bill should be taken out of the bill. My question on the legal side is this: If that doesn't happen, where does that put the bill? If the request for leave isn't removed, will this bill be very anti-immigration and anti-refugee in the end?

These are some of the comments I have.

The Chair: I wonder if I could have Jacques or Carole address that particular question, and maybe Mr. Singer also—or anybody else, based on the comments. On that specific question, though, are there any comments, Jacques or Carole?

Mr. Jacques Beauchemin: On the question of the ombudsman?

Mr. Inky Mark: And the request for leave.

The Chair: And the leave provisions of the bill, or the lack thereof.

Mr. Colin Singer: I can comment on the leave.

On the act itself, the minister suggested something during her March 1 presentation to this committee. She incorrectly stated that the delay to file leave currently is 15 days, and it's now going to 60 days. The reason there were a number of judicial review applications is that the delays were so short. When you're dealing with foreign nationals around the world, 30 days is just too short.

But if you increase the delay to 60 days—which is what I'd like to see—then you have time to work things out in a much more reasonable time. But don't increase it to 60 days and put a leave application, because you won't get leave. The Federal Court doesn't give leave except in minute instances.

So keep the checks and balances in place. Allow the leave process to be...take it out of the system, don't introduce a leave process. It's smart to raise the delay from the current 30 days to 60 days. You will reduce the volume of litigation, and only those particular cases that need to be litigated will be done. You will remove the 800 or whatever it is to a much more manageable volume, and you'll keep fairness in the system.

• 1000

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Beauchemin.

Mr. Jacques Beauchemin: Maître Fioré will answer that.

Ms. Carole Fioré: I would like to answer that question. We gave you figures for the number of applications and refusals. There are about 20,000 or 25,000 of them. Eight hundred and fifty six applications are before Federal Court. You were told that in our case, on account of the volume, there was no need for an application for judicial review as well as a judicial review, which is an unnecessary step. Federal Court is not getting bogged down by this.

I remember that our association already discussed this issue with the minister, and she answered that there was some inequality: refugees already in Canada need an application for judicial review whereas people outside do not need one. Our association's answer to that is that people outside have often been waiting three years before getting a decision which is often unfounded, as the Auditor General explained in his report, and now they are asked to apply for judicial review which will increase the waiting time to find out whether there will be any monitoring. Once a decision has been made, if it is favourable to them, they still have to wait for a visa officer to go through their file one more time. This can also apply, for instance, to a refugee who has obtained permanent residency, who is sponsoring his spouse and his children, and whose children have been refused because they are not students or because they are over the age of 19. So they have to wait for three, four, five years. Thus, given the volume, it is not unfair to allow immigrants outside the country to be exempted from an additional application for judicial review.

This is what I had to say.

Mr. Jacques Beauchemin: With your permission, let me add a brief comment.

You know that a judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division does not automatically bring about a suspension when the decision is made. Thus, theoretically, a refugee could be sent back. This will create an overload in Federal Court. There will be many requests for suspension and there will be many files like this, because this involves a person's safety and freedom. Thus, they will go to Federal Court to request a judicial review of the decision. At the same time, within the little time that they have, they will also request a suspension, to ensure that they will not be sent back to a country which is dangerous for them, because of a decision that seems unfounded to them. I think that it is very dangerous to introduce a measure whereby a judicial review does not automatically entail a suspension. This will create a new problem, and we will be hearing the Federal Court judges tell us that they cannot take it anymore.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Prof. France Houle: Mr. Chairman, may I just say one thing, very briefly?

The Chair: On this same question?

Prof. France Houle: No, on one of the other comments. It's a technical remark about the ombudsman.

I agree with their suggestion. It's a very good suggestion. And no, it's not true that it's not possible because we don't have a general bill. The federal government has always worked with specialized ombudsmen, unlike other provinces. We can think of the RCMP ombudsman, for example. They are very specialized in one particular sector of activity. So it is quite possible.

The Chair: Sometimes we can be hung up on terms like “ombudsperson” or “complaints commissioner”. There are a number of ways of achieving exactly the same thing.

Thank you, France. I'm sorry, but I have to move on.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good day, everyone.

I must say that I was delighted to hear the presentations from McGill University and the University of Montreal regarding the real importance of those who basically make the decisions.

We heard a few witnesses question the way in which commissioners are appointed. You have come up with an interesting plan, and I have looked at it briefly. Under the current act, refugees have no right to make a second application. If we are optimistic and if we suppose that your recommendations will be actually followed and that within about a year we would really have commissioners who really have the skills that they need to make good decisions, do you think that we should leave the act as it is now, without allowing for a second appeal, or should we provide for the right to a second application for refugee status?

• 1005

[English]

The Chair: I wonder if I could get Vincent and Catherine to address the question. I know their whole submission was based on the refugee stuff. Then I'll come back to France and Cécile.

[Translation]

Ms. Catherine Gauvreau: You want me to answer that question. Am I right?

The Chair: Yes, you are right.

Ms. Catherine Gauvreau: I think, in fact, that there should be an opportunity to make a second application. Many people might return to their country where political conditions may change, given the very volatile political situations in many countries. They might thus be in a situation where they need protection from Canada. Thus I think that it is very dangerous to prevent people from filing a second application.

The Chair: France, do you wish to add anything?

Prof. France Houle: I agree with what Catherine said. I have nothing else to add. You do mean a second application and not an appeal after the refusal of the first application. Is that what you mean?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I mean a second application for refugees which is not currently provided for in the bill.

Prof. France Houle: So I do not have anything else to add.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: There's someone—I think it is either Mr. Beauchemin or Ms. Fioré—who alluded to a number of international conventions. You were especially glad to see that the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was explicitly mentioned in the bill. What other international conventions signed by Canada should we include in the bill?

Mr. Jacques Beauchemin: You are giving the Refugee Determination Division instruments for a very broad interpretation of human rights issues. Canada ratified a number of international conventions. I am trying to find the list that we included in our brief. Maître Houle, please help me with the exact title of this convention. We have the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights and also the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

There have already been decisions on refugee status that said that the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees did not apply to victims of war. This seems restrictive to me because there really are situations of ethnic war, civil war or war between states. Victims of those wars should be protected by us if they succeed in reaching our territory. They were excluded for what I would say were technical reasons. Applications from those people were referred to the minister and his powers for dealing with humanitarian cases.

If we want to create a tribunal with a broad jurisdiction for protection, we must give it instruments to adequately exercise that jurisdiction. I think that by including other international conventions...

Let us also consider conventions for stateless persons. A number of stateless persons arrive on our territory whose situation cannot always be immediately dealt with by applying the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. There is a convention on the status of stateless persons and a convention for reducing the number of cases of statelessness. To my knowledge, the latter was not ratified by Canada. We could, nonetheless, include it in the act so as to solve the problem of a number of people in this world who have no identification papers, who have no nationality, no citizenship, but who need protection. In my opinion, this would help to implement the jurisdiction of the Refugee Determination Division.

The Chair: Thank you.

I am sorry.

[English]

Cécile, I believe you had something to say.

[Translation]

Dr. Cécile Rousseau: I just want to come back to the issue of skills. Skills must be seen as a starting point. You must realize that the members of the Commission have to do a job and are often exposed to trauma that even well-trained clinicians would have a hard time dealing with. I mean even those clinicians who, work, as I do, day in and day out with cases of torture.

Consequently, you have to look at skills required for selection as a starting point and you must also realize that these skills must be honed through training programs which, if at all possible, should be set up and assessed independently. I think that the issue of skills must be regarded as a necessary part of the selection process. However, that is not the only criteria. Commissioners now have a very heavy workload, and we must make sure that there are at least two of them. We are talking about major decisions here. Job training and support are required to maintain these skills.

• 1010

Consequently, I think that we have to look at the issue of skills as something that is ongoing and we should consider an ongoing assessment of these skills, which if possible, should be done independently.

The Chair: Thank you.

John McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): I think that we are attempting to strike a balance in this bill. On the one hand, we want more immigrants, we also want these immigrants to feel welcome and we intend to take our duties to refugees very seriously. On the other hand, we must protect the integrity of the system, because if Canadians think that we have become a safe haven for the criminal classes, than overall public support for immigration will decline. Consequently, we must strive to maintain this balance.

I have been extremely struck by the witnesses that we have heard here, in Montreal, and in other parts of Canada. I think that we have gone too far in deporting criminals. I think that some parts of this bill are not liberal. When I, as a Liberal, say that something is not liberal, it is quite important.

Consequently, we are going to table a couple of amendments. I have already talked about these amendments. I will be tabling them today. For example, we intend to limit the power of immigration officers in terms of the examination and deportation of permanent residents. That is just one of our amendments.

[English]

So that's my general point of view. I think we've gone too far in the direction of criminality. I think there's a consensus around the table to that effect, and you will see certain amendments that try to redress that balance.

I'd like to raise three very precise questions.

First of all, Mr. Singer, I accept much of what you say, but I must say I don't like what you said in terms of putting all the departmental people overseas in a box and saying bad things about them. I just returned from a trip to Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam, with the minister and other colleagues, and we met many of these departmental officials, including non-Canadians. I haven't a thing against hiring non-Canadians to work overseas along with Canadians. To do otherwise would be prohibitively expensive.

My general impression is that these people are extremely dedicated, extremely hard-working, and trying extremely hard to be fair. There will always be some bad apples, but my impression is that they are generally highly dedicated, committed people. That's strongly contrary to what I took to be the tone of your comment.

Secondly, on the question of an ombudsman, it's hard to object to that in principle, but I don't know how it would work. In my riding, 75% of my constituency work has to do with immigration. For many of the MPs, we are like an ombudsperson in a sense, and the volume of work is enormous. We have 301 members of Parliament. If there were an open-ended ombudsperson for anybody who has a complaint about any aspect of immigration, the volume would just be incredible. I don't know if you would circumscribe this in some fashion, or how else it would work, because the potential is that this would be just a massive operation.

Finally, on the question of the IRB, I'm told the minister has a special committee to determine and ensure that the appointees are competent, that they do exams, and that they don't get in if they don't pass these exams. The chair of the IRB performs evaluations of IRB members.

I guess my question is whether it's as bad as you make it out to be. The follow-up question is whether you think the political nature of the appointments...does that militate against a good system, or can one have a good system given the current, somewhat political nature of those appointments?

The Chair: John, thank you for three questions.

In 30 seconds or less, Mr. Singer, could you say something with regard to the balance in foreign workers?

Mr. Colin Singer: Let me respond that I wish to temper my comments. I do not want to blindly or broadly state that the foreign service staff individuals are not properly appointed. I do want to say that in cutting corners and in cutting costs, it is difficult, and I find it of very great concern when you give the power of decision-making to non-Canadians.

• 1015

You have to understand—and I think you will agree—that immigration is the process of selecting and finding those who will become good Canadians, or economic immigrants, or properly settled newcomers to Canada. It is very difficult for me to conceptualize that a non-Canadian who may have had a two-week training course is going to assess business applications at the Seoul visa office, for example, as is the case.

There are two individuals in Seoul called locally engaged DIOs. One of these particular persons was a former secretary to the former program manager. This person, in my view, would not easily fit the definition described under the national occupation classification of immigration officer. In my view, she does not have the proper training to even have that position.

So what I think you want to do is...yes, to administer the program, overseas offices need to hire locally engaged people. But those people should not be conducting interviews, making decisions, and saying a person is admissible or not admissible to Canada. That's going too far.

The Chair: Good point.

France, on the whole question of an ombudsperson, what would you envision, based on the question that was asked about such a position? I think you tried to address it before.

Prof. France Houle: I think I would rather have Mr. Beauchemin answer this question, because his association worked a lot more on this issue than I did.

The Chair: Well, you addressed it before. That's why I thought you might want to say something. That's fine.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole Fioré: I would like to answer that question.

Firstly, in Quebec, we have an ombudsman who deals with any complaints relating to government. This system works well. Consequently, yes, it is possible. It already exists in Quebec.

Secondly, I think that there have been many requests from Canadians both in your regions and in your ridings. This is because there are a lot of immigration-related problems. Our association met with the minister. We spoke to her about the difficulty in getting answers on files from visa officers outside Canada. She told us that even members of Parliament and ministers were not in a position to get answers either. We are experiencing the same problem. This is why we should not just leave this issue up to members of Parliament and ministers. I am not saying that you are not in a position to get answers, and you must continue your work, but we need more than that. Given all the abuse that we are seeing, I think that it is important that we do more.

The Chair: Jacques.

Mr. Jacques Beauchemin: In terms of this issue, I would just like to add that all that you are doing currently in your ridings is done on an individual, disorganized and uncentralized basis. Setting up an ombudsman would enable us to centralize complaints in one place, to categorize them in order to be able to analyze and assess them, and then to put forward proposals to Parliament or to the minister so that the situation could be corrected. This could be done once or twice per year. That is not important. However, we would see a gradual improvement in the quality of services provided abroad. That is what is attractive about this approach.

I thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Cécile or France, did you want to say something on the question of the IRB and competency, and the other questions Mr. McCallum asked on the IRB?

Prof. France Houle: On the question of this committee making some recommendations to the minister, the criteria being used to make the recommendations are so general that they don't mean very much, as far as I'm concerned. That's the first point.

The second point is that if there's something in the statute, then there's a possibility somehow to contest, or to have a better stand to contest, any appointments that are not meeting these criteria. In this sense, it's much better for the citizens, for their protection, to have something in a statute and in regulations than it is to have an administrative committee working with some very broad criteria.

Also, I suppose you know that this committee makes recommendations to the minister, and the minister can decide to look at this list or not. This minister can send the list to the Prime Minister, who can also decide to choose people on the list or not. So there's a lot of discretion out there that is, I think, inappropriate in our day and age.

• 1020

In the other question you addressed, you said it's not so bad after all. Well, I think our research shows it's not so good after all.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

If I could just—

Prof. France Houle: Cécile Rousseau would like to add something.

The Chair: Excuse me, Cécile, but I can only have the answer of one person from the organization. Perhaps you can tell us if your study includes interviews and talks with IRB members.

Prof. Cécile Rousseau: It doesn't, but we hope a future study will. That's why I think—regretfully, I have to say—we're presenting in a very measured way. We want to establish an alliance with the IRB, and the only way out is to work with them.

If you look at the rates of acceptance between Montreal and Toronto, the difference for the same country in the same year is as much as 40%. From one year to another, in Montreal or Toronto, you have these same kinds of shifts. That fact gives the global impression that the factor of arbitrariness is still too huge. We really have to address that.

The Chair: Which was better, Montreal or Toronto?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Prof. Cécile Rousseau: I wouldn't want to pronounce myself. It's too politically loaded.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Well, we'll look into that, now that you've raised our interest, as to why there's such a discrepancy in those kinds of decisions.

Thank you, Cécile.

John Herron.

[Translation]

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to continue along the same lines as my colleague, Madeleine.

First of all, I would just like to say that I was quite shocked when I saw the initial statement by the Minister of Immigration. She talked about crime before she even mentioned immigration. I was surprised that the party who gave us Laurier, Trudeau and Pearson would issue such a statement.

[English]

Having said that, there was a lot of concern about that initial press release that came out, that it was a chance to be tough on criminals and we would do the immigration thing too. I think that tenor has been shaped a little by all members of this particular committee, and I'd like to pick up on where Mr. McCallum was coming from.

I think we're restoring an enhanced balance in that regard. In fact, I tabled a motion on Tuesday—I almost forget which day it was now—that would buy us some time—at least one week—to prepare our amendments before we have to race to clause-by-clause. The minister herself has sent a signal that she is amenable to that, and the chair has been amenable to that too. It therefore looks like we're not going to hit clause-by-clause until May 15. We didn't even have to vote on the motion, so we're heading in with a better spirit in that regard.

I have three issues that I'd like to approach. First off is clause 25 of the bill. Currently, the minister must hear an appeal with respect to humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Clause 25 has been pointed out by the Canadian Bar Association. The CBA has clearly said the permissive language, that the minister “may” hear an appeal, is wrong, so I'd like to see if we can build some more critical mass. Do you concur? Is this a step backward, as compared to where we are today?

My second question is on the right of second appeal. That's what Madeleine touched upon. I guess 40% to 50% of the second appeals that do go through are approved. If that statistic is correct—

The Chair: Second claims.

Mr. John Herron: Second claims. Right.

The Chair: That's just so you don't confuse our witnesses.

Mr. John Herron: ...of the second claims are approved. That means we risk missing an immense basket of human beings who need to find refuge from persecution. I would say that's not very liberal or progressive, and it's something on which I think we should have to revert back.

The third question is very simple. It would need just a short answer, and I guess it would go to Mr. Singer.

Clause 190 refers to the issue of all existing claims in the queue. They would revert to the new bill, C-11, and not the previous bill. The Canadian Bar Association was essentially saying, we would like anything in the queue right now to stay under the existing piece of legislation. So that sends a signal to me that maybe the existing legislation is better in the appeal process, has better checks and balances than the new bill would have.

• 1025

Those are my three questions, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, John.

Let me thank you, first of all, for pointing out the three great Liberal prime ministers of this country at least. I appreciate those comments, along with—

Mr. John Herron: Those are the only three.

The Chair: I would like to see some balance too. I heard our witnesses talk about American presidents. The fact that a Conservative would talk about three Liberal prime ministers is absolutely fantastic.

So on the first question, clause 25, Jacques or Carole, with regard to the humanitarian and compassionate considerations, may or should, any comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Beauchemin: Our concern is that subclause 25(1) of the bill implies that it only applies to children. The wording of this subclause is as follows:

25.(1) The Minister may, in the Minister's discretion [...] if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to them, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected, or public policy considerations.

I think that there is a problem in the wording here. If this section was intended to apply to everyone, then, I think that the wording should have been different.

Secondly, in terms of inadmissible persons, the minister alone has the discretion to assess humanitarian considerations. I think that past experience has taught us that this is insufficient and that an independent panel, such as the current Appeal Division, for example, should be an avenue that is open to people in this situation. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this, because, in my view, we are challenging the status of a person who has perhaps been living in Canada for many years. We have seen many blatant examples of this recently. You only have to think back to the person who was the subject of the Supreme Court's Baker ruling. That was a blatant case, where the Supreme Court had to intervene to call the immigration official concerned back into line.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

On the question of second claims, refugee claims, Vincent or Catherine, what's your opinion on that one?

Ms. Catherine Gauvreau: It's basically what I said before.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Singer, let us have your remarks on the question of clause 190 and the rules of engagement, as to whether or not, when we move to the new bill, everyone will have to apply again, or which bill will apply, the old or the new.

Mr. Colin Singer: You're dealing with retroactivity, and retroactive legislation is not in the cards, as far as I see it here. Obviously, applications filed will be adjudged and assessed under prior legislation. That doesn't imply that the new one is better or worse, it just means that historically, retroactive application has not been the rule. The department has in fact been fair in assessing a failed application that's under the old system. They will give it a chance, look at the new rules, and see if that person can fit the new model. So I don't think you should make any clear decision or conclusion that the new legislation is better because the bar has said, let's keep the applications in the queue under the old legislation, because, of course, we are not dealing with retroactive legislation.

The Chair: I'm sure the committee will get clarification when we meet with the minister and the department when we get back to Ottawa.

I must move to the next question. Yolande. None?

Vincent.

[Translation]

Mr. Vincent Valai: I think that my colleague has already replied to this question.

Ms. Catherine Gauvreau: I would say exactly the same thing to you that I said to your colleague. You will put forward even stronger arguments if 40% are accepted on their second application. I would just like to reiterate what I have already said. I believe that people should be able to apply a second time.

I think that Mr. Rousseau would like to add something.

• 1030

[English]

Prof. Cécile Rousseau: I should mention that granting a second claim is not always a gift; it can also be reparation. I'm presently following a family who had been sent back to their country after being reviewed the first time. The woman was raped. Three kids and the man were subjects of aggression. They're all very traumatized and they're in a second claim process. So sometimes we also, as a society, have to repair some of the mistakes we inevitably make.

The Chair: Inky, I know you wanted to follow up with a question.

Mr. Inky Mark: I just wanted your response on the comment I made about determination now going to a single member panel. I would like to hear your comment on whether that's a good move.

The Chair: Cécile, that one is meant for you, I'm sure.

Prof. Cécile Rousseau: I do think it's a psychological burden hearing very difficult and traumatic stories all the time. They hear stories three weeks in a row, morning and afternoon, and then they have a one-week break to write.... It's an enormous burden. Usually in trauma counselling and trauma clinician teams it is strongly recommended not to work alone, but to work in a team, in order to share the burden of the work. Here not only do you have the burden of hearing the stories, but you have the burden of a decision that could mean life or death for the claimants. This is a huge burden. I don't think we should force board members to bear it alone.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jacques, quickly.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Beauchemin: As Ms. Rousseau was saying, with regard to this issue, I feel that it is important that there be a two-person team so that they can support each other in considering and more effectively assessing files. One person might be a legal expert and the other could be someone who is trained in immigration and refugee-related issues.

In terms of a second application, there are many examples of this. Recently, I had a file which was accepted by the Convention Refugee Determination Division. This was the file of a person who had been sent back to her own country and who had been imprisoned on arrival there. Happily, she was released and she took advantage of this opportunity to flee the country, because she had been released on parole. An alien smuggler and another person helped her to get to Canada, where she was finally given refugee status. She was accepted on the grounds on which she had been refused the first time, because her arrest in her own country showed that the initial panel had made a mistake. Consequently, we should not close the door on a second application. I believe that there are serious cases which must be considered. The 40% figure speaks for itself.

In terms of retroactively applying the new act and regulations to old files, we have seen cases in the past, in particular in Quebec, where when regulations were amended, the best of the two solutions was applied to pending applications. Therefore, some people would fall under the old legislation and, if the new legislation was better for the applicant, they would be given a headstart. I think that that should be reflected in the wording of the bill.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

To Vincent and Catherine, in Toronto we had an invitation to attend a detention centre, and unfortunately our time prevented us from doing so. You talked a little about some of the stories in the detention centre. I know you said it should be only in exceptional cases. Perhaps you could expand upon that, because as you know, there was a reference made to the Chinese boat situation out in western Canada, where 19 months later we still have some people, albeit only five or six, still in detention. It's unconscionable to accept that one should keep anyone in detention for 19 months. We may or may not get the opportunity, even after the bill, of visiting some of these detention centres.

When you say exceptional, especially in light of what children may be subjected to, how do you think we might change the particular clause with regard to detention, or should we just scrap it altogether? What's the necessity?

[Translation]

Mr. Vincent Valai: You are talking specifically about minors, aren't you?

The Chair: No.

• 1035

Mr. Vincent Valai: In general?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Vincent Valai: In our opinion, in a free democratic country, detaining someone and depriving that person of his or her freedom has to be an exceptional measure. I can well understand that Canada must strive to protect itself from terrorists and major criminals etc. However, that does not give Canada the right to immediately detain someone just because we do not have enough information on that person. Detaining must be a last resort. This is why we think that detention is an exceptional measure, especially for minors.

You have referred to international treaties that Canada has signed onto. The Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that the best interests of the child must be upheld. I do not believe that a detention centre is really the best place for the intellectual, physical and other areas of development of the child. If I am not mistaken, the United Nations High Commission of Refugees directives state that minors should not be detained.

Consequently, we should endeavour to find other possible alternatives before taking the decision to detain a person.

Ms. Catherine Gauvreau: I would just like to add one brief comment. People are not aware of the impact that detention has on people. The people in question have very rarely been accused of a crime and they do not understand why they have been detained. This situation causes stress and anxiety. They do not know how long they will be detained. The fact that they are in detention also complicates their application for either refugee status or to return.

The Detention Centre is situated in Laval, 45 minutes from Montreal. Almost no lawyers go there. There are no interpreters. I am a member of Montreal Action Réfugiés, which is the only organization which visits detainees. It's a very complicated process to get access to papers and information, and detainees are distressed.

If you would like to come to the Detention Centre one day, please do so. It would be my pleasure to take you there. You must understand the impact that detention has on peoples' lives when you take the decision to detain them.

The Chair: Thank you everyone.

[English]

Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, we're way over time, but you know by the questions that your input has been most valuable to us and has helped us understand the pros and cons of particular sessions. So I want to thank each and every one of you for the hard work you do each and every day on behalf of immigrants and refugees. I look forward to working with you in the future.

We now want to proceed to the second panel, colleagues: the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress, the Centre Justice et Foi, Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network, Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec. Could all of you come forward, please. Thank you.

• 1038

• 1050

The Chair: Good morning, and thank you to our next panel of witnesses. You have my apologies for being a little late.

As some of you were here in the first round, you will know that committee members have an awful lot of questions because your interventions and your briefs are very good. We want to test your premises as to why and how we should change our legislation. Let me thank you each in advance for taking the time to come before our committee to give us some suggestions and input as to how we can create the best immigration and refugee protection bill we can for the years to come.

I want to introduce the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress, and we have Eugene Czolij. Welcome.

Mr. Eugene Czolij (President, Ukrainian-Canadian Congress): Thank you.

The Chair: Go ahead. Please limit yourself to five minutes if you could.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Eugene Czolij, and I am the president of the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress. Joining me today is Mr. Rick Mantey, our Canadian issues consultant.

The Ukrainian-Canadian Congress, also known as UCC, is the national coordinating body of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Since 1940 the UCC has been an active player in the development of national policies and programs that impact not only on Ukrainian-Canadians but on Canadian society as a whole.

The UCC has submitted position papers concerning Bill C-11 and its predecessor, Bill C-31. We welcome the opportunity today to highlight our recommendations regarding Bill C-11 to this standing committee.

As we embark upon the 21st century, Canadians understand that many of the unique characteristics that have made our country one of the most envied in the world result from the important contribution of immigrants to the development of our social, cultural, political, and economic structures. In defining an immigration policy for the new century, the Government of Canada must ensure, therefore, that it be fair, balanced, and transparent.

It is also critical that people immigrating to our country clearly understand that we are a multicultural society, which enables Canadians to be sensitive to different points of view and to appreciate cultural diversity. This dynamic reality Canadians have created for themselves needs to be one of the continuing objectives a renewed immigration policy must enshrine.

Therefore, the UCC recommends that paragraph 3(1)(b) of Bill C-11 be amended by including the word “multicultural”, so the objectives of the act will be:

(b) to enrich and strengthen the social and cultural fabric of Canadian society, while respecting the federal, bilingual and multicultural character of Canada;

Although the government has made some positive changes in Bill C-11 relating to the issue of permanent residence, the UCC wishes to remind the standing committee of the very serious concerns raised by the national citizenship and immigration law section of the Canadian Bar Association with respect to this bill. These concerns were with respect to clauses 15, 16, 55, and 128, which deal with the powers of arrest and compelled examination; subclause 19(2), clause 27, and paragraph 31(2)(b), which deal with processes that will restrict permanent residents who are overseas from returning to Canada, even to participate in proceedings to determine their status; and clauses 44 and 64, which deal with the removal of the guaranteed role of an independent tribunal to supervise government's enforcement powers.

Therefore, the UCC recommends that these sections be modified to ensure that basic rights of permanent residents are protected and that access to our courts to review government's enforcement powers is guaranteed.

Under the current Immigration Act, applicants must obtain the court's leave or permission to seek a review of a decision rendered in Canada. Clause 72 of Bill C-11 extends this requirement to decisions rendered outside Canada. The UCC believes that government should strive to improve the decision-making skills of visa officers instead of shielding their decisions from legal challenges.

• 1055

Our concern with the leave requirement is compounded by the following statements of the Auditor General of Canada in his April 2000 report concerning the fairness of the decisions of visa officers:

Acceptance rates can be one indicator of consistency in decision making. We noted significant differences in approval rates among officers processing similar cases in the same office. ...we also found that acceptance rates for nationals of the same country varied by more than 40 percent among certain offices. The lack of an appropriate quality assurance framework for decisions leaves the Department open to criticism.

In addition, the Auditor General noted that cases brought to the Federal Court revealed some problems with procedural fairness in assessing the applicants' language skills. Therefore, the UCC recommends that applications for judicial review of decisions rendered inside or outside Canada should not be subject to any leave requirement.

In addition, clause 49 of Bill C-11 should stipulate that a removal order comes into force when it becomes final and is no longer subject to any appeal or judicial review.

Finally, although Bill C-11 includes some provisions that were initially to form part of the supporting regulations of Bill C-31, it nevertheless encompasses very broad regulatory powers in several key areas. In view of this, the UCC recommends that this standing committee be presented with the complete regulatory scheme being proposed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration before completing its consideration of Bill C-11. This is to ensure that legislative powers affecting basic rights of individuals are part of the bill and that all regulations fully comply with the objectives of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In addition, new regulatory initiatives should be reviewed on a timely basis by stakeholders and parliamentarians.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress considers balance, fairness, and transparency to be the key elements of a sound Canadian immigration policy for the 21st century.

We thank you for your attention and welcome your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Eugene.

[Translation]

We now have Élisabeth Garant, Dominique Boisvert and Fernand Gauthier from the Centre Justice et Foi. Welcome.

Mr. Dominique Boisvert (Collaborator on the Refugee Task Force, Centre Justice et Foi): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am Dominique Boisvert. I was a lawyer for 20 years and I was a member of the federal government's Advisory Committee on Refugee Status for three and a half years, in the late 1980s.

With me today are Ms. Élisabeth Garant, who has worked in Japan, Haiti and in Quebec. She is in charge of the Vivre ensemble division at the Centre Justice et Foi. Also accompanying me is Mr. Fernand Gauthier, who is a social psychologist and a professor at the University of Montreal. He was also one of the most respected members of the Immigration and Refugee Board throughout the 1990s.

Mr. Chairman, members of Parliament, the Centre Justice et Foi is a social analysis centre founded in the early 1980s by the Jesuits. It publishes the Relations newsletter and has, over the past 15 years, developed expertise in immigration and protection through its Vivre ensemble division.

The Centre Justice et Foi has submitted many briefs to both the federal and provincial governments, on a whole gamut of issues relating to immigration, refugees, cultural coexistence, etc.

More recently, we produced a discussion paper, entitled “Pour une nouvelle protection des réfugiés”, as well as a paper on the underlying trends in international migration over the coming 15 or 20 years. For these reasons, we thought that we could make a useful contribution to your work on Bill C-11.

• 1100

This bill is very important for the future of Canada, not only because it is the first in-depth review of the act since 1976, 1977 and 1978—a quarter of a century—but also because it is designed to define the foundation of Canadian immigration policy for the 21st century. This review is taking place against a backdrop where immigration and protection issues are taking on increased sensitivity and significance worldwide.

Unfortunately, the committee has chosen to fudge a public consultation and in so doing, has made it completely meaningless. The Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, spoke at length about democracy at the recent Summit of the Americas, but if democracy is to be anything more than a meaningless slogan, those members of Parliament who were elected to represent Canadians must have a genuine and not just symbolic role in the legislative process.

If the representations made by this committee and members of Parliament to government are to be anything more than a sham, two things must happen. The government must be genuinely committed to listening to what you have to say and you as a committee must have undertaken genuine consultations with those people you were elected to represent.

During the debates over globalization and on the FTAA project, we have expressed our deep concern over the gradual loss of political authority of individual states to major economic interests. We also expressed our concerns about the ongoing shift of legislative authority—your power as members of Parliament—to the executive authority of the government and the Cabinet.

The consultation that you are holding today is, in our opinion a tragic example of this. The whole process is taking place as if the federal Minister of Immigration, who has indeed clearly said so, intended, to all intents and purposes, to push Bill C-11 through unchanged. She believes that there has been sufficient debate on the bill already. What is the purpose of representations from the legislative authority, from a committee like yours and what is the purpose, therefore, of public consultations which are specifically designed to assist you in developing your representations?

This is probably the reason why these consultations were developed in such an absurd way. Since they are nothing more than window-dressing, it was possible to form a panel made up of a large number of representatives, who often have nothing in common. This also made it possible for all representatives to have an entire five minutes to put forward their point of view.

When will this sham of democracy end? Unfortunately, this is the main question that many of us asked ourselves when we received your invitation. In the majority of public consultations, each group normally has around 20 minutes to present its brief, which is often several tens of pages long. Attempting to give one's brief in five minutes is tantamount to intellectual gymnastics or an advertising slogan. How do you expect us to sum up genuine comments on such a fundamental subject in three sentences or in a 30-second clip?

Fortunately, all the work that we have done over the past few months, at the Centre Justice et Foi and with our task forces on Bill C-31, which has now become Bill C-11, has not been a complete waste of time.

We produced a brief of some 30 pages, entitled Perspectives d'avenir pour dépasser une vision défensive de l'immigration et de la protection. In this brief, we lament the mainly defensive attitude which underscores the government's approach in the new bill. We illustrated the shortcomings of the new bill. We placed Canada's immigration and protection choices in the fairest international perspective and we set out a series of specific recommendations and conditions to make the bill's monitoring provisions acceptable.

In light of the fact that we are unable to adequately set out our stance in five minutes, we hope that you have at least carefully read our brief prior to this session, and we are available to answer any questions that you might have. Indeed, it is for this reason that we decided to come to talk to you this morning and to make ourselves available to you rather than just turning down your invitation as the Quebec Bar Association chose to do.

Although we may not have contributed to improving Bill C-11 with our intervention this morning, because we were pressed for time—five minutes—we hope that our intervention at least contributed to giving democracy some of its original meaning.

We hope that the public hearings that we will attend in future will have, by then, regained a minimum of this meaning.

Thank you very much. We are available for your questions.

• 1105

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Boisvert, let me address a couple of issues. I'm personally offended by what you said and I'll tell you why.

First of all, you spent seven and a half minutes talking about a public sham. Not once did you talk about what's in your brief.

We have 154 witnesses. I've not heard one complaint from across the country. People have come. We've taken an hour with witnesses.

I may ask you to summarize what we have in front of us. Some of us do read, study, and know a little bit about what we're talking about. Therefore, we want you to summarize, as opposed to reading word for word what was in your brief. It is a waste of time. We do read our submissions. We want to interact with you. I hope you're not offended by the fact that I put you along with some very distinguished people.

You may have your opinions about how good this government is, how bad this government is, and whether or not you like the democratic nature.... That's not what this committee is about.

I would have hoped you would have spent seven and a half minutes telling me what was in your brief, as opposed to spending seven and a half minutes telling me about how much you don't like the process.

I'm sorry, this is not window dressing. I take my job, and the members of our committee take their job, very seriously. I want to tell you that we do want to make sure we have the best bill possible. We do appreciate public participation.

I'm sorry you feel that way, sir. You're the first person who has said coming here is a sham, you don't have anything to say, and this is all window dressing. I would have hoped you would have spent seven minutes telling me about what's in your brief, because I intend to ask you about your brief.

Thank you.

The next one is Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network. Alana Klein and Alex Adrian, welcome.

Ms. Alana Klein (Research Associate, Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. On behalf of the Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network, I'd like to sincerely thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions for the improvement of Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

My name is Alana Klein and this is Alex Adrian, one of our members and a public health expert.

We hope our input will help Canada build better immigration laws that reflect the core values of Canadians and promote respect for human rights and human dignity. I'd like to begin by expressing the HIV-AIDS Legal Network's support for some key improvements in the Immigration Act, some things we're very pleased to see.

First of all, we welcome the proposal contained in subclause 38(2) of the bill to exempt certain family class immigrants and persons in need of protection from medical inadmissibility based on excessive demand on health and social services.

Under the current legislation, a lot of people are eventually granted permanent residence despite the fact they're considered medically inadmissible. Those people will either be granted permanent residence after successful appeals to the immigration appeals division or following five years on minister's permits.

We recognize this advent of granting permanent residence directly will be much more efficient, more transparent, and fairer. It will reduce a lot of the arbitrariness that exists under the current legislation. We're glad to see that.

Also, we're glad to see that refugees, both inside and outside Canada, will be exempted from medical inadmissibility based on excessive demand on health and social services. It's consistent with the humanitarian reasons of why we allow refugees to be exempted in the first place.

Second, we're pleased to see that clause 25 would allow the minister to grant landing directly to otherwise inadmissible persons with compelling compassionate and humanitarian reasons to be in Canada. This would be an especially significant improvement if it replaced the current system of allowing people to stay only on minister's permits unless they have a right to an appeal and are successful.

People who are on minister's permits generally don't have access to provincial health care and, in addition, the permit can be revoked at any time. It's very uncertain. We hope this new provision, clause 25, would avoid those problems.

Third, we support the proposal in clause 12 of the bill to expressly allow common-law partners, both opposite and same-sex, in the family class. We have some concerns about that as well, but we'll mention those later.

First, I want to go through some of the more important concerns the network has about the new act, about Bill C-11.

• 1110

First of all, and this is a minor point, we notice that the language in clause 38 has become a bit more vague and refers to “health condition” rather than directly to the individual being assessed. We just hope this won't be any derogation from the principle of an individual, case-by-case assessment, that is, we hope it won't be seen as a reason—and I know this government doesn't intend to—by future governments to exclude people simply based on the fact that they have a given health condition. We hope they'll continue to be assessed in light of all their personal circumstances and the circumstances of their condition. I know that's what the government has said are its intentions, but we just want to reiterate that this is very important to us.

The next issue that is perhaps the one that we're most concerned about is the issue of how excessive demands are going to be defined under the new act. We know that something is going to be in the regulations, and that the purpose of this committee is really to deal with the legislation itself as framework legislation, but nonetheless we think it's important that the committee make recommendations on this, because it's very central.

So first of all, we are very glad to see that there is going to be a definition of excessive demands in the regulations. However, we notice that the period over which demands are to be assessed is going to be five years or, in the case of chronic diseases, that you plan to extend that up to ten years. We have very strong concerns about that. The network submits that a ten-year period is inappropriately long. It would be almost impossible for projections of costs to be at all accurate by that stage. Given rapidly developing treatments, and also given that the costs of the treatments are changing so much over time, we really feel that a ten-year period is inappropriately long.

Furthermore, we are very strongly opposed to the plans to define excessive costs only in relation to the demands a person will make on health and social services. The UN and the World Health Organisation have said that when people are excluded for excessive demand reasons, the contributions they expect to make to Canadian society and indeed through their taxes to the Canadian health care system should be taken into account. Demands should only be considered excessive when they outweigh the contributions that the person is expected to make.

Furthermore, the network also submits that non-economic contributions should be factored in, in determining whether costs are excessive. Recognizing the full range of contributions that immigrants are likely to make recognizes their inherent moral dignity as persons, rather than viewing them as valuable only insofar as they are cost effective. So we would hope that the definition of excessive demands be modified in order to take into account the important contributions that immigrants make to our society—both economic and non-economic.

Next to last, we do have a couple of concerns about the proposed exemption under subclause 38(2). First of all—and I know others might have mentioned this to you—we notice that it does include members of the family class who are common-law partners, and we welcome that advent. However, we do have some concerns that same-sex common-law partners who are unable to live together would be unable to meet that requirement. I know you're aware of that and have heard extensive submissions on that from other members. So we want to reiterate our support for those.

Also, right now, people with HIV are not considered to be excludable as threats to public health. We strongly support that policy, but last year, as you probably know, there was some talk of introducing public health exclusions for people with HIV. The Legal Network is against that. We don't believe persons with HIV are in and of themselves threats to public health. Nonetheless, if it were considered that HIV was a threat to public health, then those people who would benefit from the exemption under subclause 38(2) for excessive demands would cease to benefit from the exemption. We would hope this would be remedied under the new act.

Finally, I refer you to our brief for more details, since I know I'm running out of time. But the network is strongly opposed to the introduction of mandatory HIV testing, which we know is one of the things that's being considered in the implementation of the new act. We know that mandatory HIV testing is only useful insofar as it serves a valid and important purpose. We would argue that mandatory HIV testing doesn't serve any valid public health purpose. People with HIV are not themselves a threat to public health. If we instituted mandatory HIV testing, claiming that it was going to serve some sort of public health purpose, it would give people a false sense of security and make them think they were somehow protected from the measure, and it would then work against their taking their own protective measures themselves. It would run contrary to the general policy that Canada has taken with regard to HIV and AIDS.

• 1115

In addition, while it might identify HIV-positive immigrants for more informed assessment of cost and contributions, we feel that benefit is marginal and not worth the drawbacks of mandatory HIV testing. If mandatory HIV testing were introduced, immigrants would be the first group in Canada to be forced to submit to mandatory HIV testing. We feel it's discriminatory, since it singles out HIV when other more expensive conditions are not tested for. In addition, we feel tests are carried out in the country of origin that have poor standards for consent and pre-imposed test counselling. It would also stigmatize immigrants and person with HIV generally. So we're opposed to testing.

Sorry, I've gone over time. Thank you very much for hearing us. We hope you'll listen to our suggestions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Alana, for your comprehensive review of the legislation and the regulations that we had asked the minister—or the discussion paper on regulations, which are very important as you know. A lot of the implementation is in the regulation.

On that note, I just want to tell you that this committee is determined to make sure we have the regulations brought back to us for full public input, which is rather unique in terms of committees getting involved in regulations. We all know that the devil is always in the details, and we're determined to make sure the regulations get it right. Thank you.

Right now we'll go to the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec. We have Roger Nicolet and Michel Dagenais.

[Translation]

We wish to welcome you.

Mr. Roger Nicolet (President, Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, let me first thank the committee for allowing us to voice our concerns regarding Bill C-11. And let me introduce the colleague who is with me, Mr. Michel Dagenais, the Director of Admissions and Registration of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec.

The Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec shares the government's objective which is to make the rules for choosing immigration candidates more transparent. We also share the government's interest in fostering prosperity in Quebec and in Canada, especially by giving competent manpower access to key jobs so as to improve the economy.

However, this bill raises some issues regarding the professional system, and more specifically in engineering. Some of the statements in this bill are based on premises that we find very questionable. The amendment to the federal bill would abolish the system of selecting candidates in the economic component. It also provides for setting up organizations for evaluating skills, in parallel to the already existing professional system.

Before going further into these topics, let us give you an overview of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec. It was founded in 1920 and currently has more than 43,000 members. It was constituted under the Professional Code and the Engineers Act. Its mission is to ensure good quality engineering practices in the public interest.

In countries where this profession is not regulated, anyone can be called an engineer. Experience has shown that immigration candidates coming from such countries expect to be quickly admitted to the profession when they arrive in Canada. When the time comes for them to apply for membership in the Ordre, these people suddenly notice that Canadian and Quebec requirements are high and that they do not have the needed qualifications to be admitted into the profession. This is a source of frustration for these candidates, who do not understand why they were not informed about these requirements before they arrived in Canada.

Besides, a thoroughly informed candidate might have even more difficulty getting in. As he wants to become an engineer, he naturally makes efforts to do so and then he realizes that the road to his objective is longer and more difficult than he expected it to be. The amendments in this bill are based on the following hypothesis, namely that if a prospective immigrant learns that he cannot be an engineer in Canada only once he has arrived in this country, he will settle for a job in a similar field.

• 1120

This hypothesis was not borne out by our experience in Quebec, nor by that of our sister provincial associations in other parts of Canada. The precarious and questionable nature of this hypothesis has been proved by the many legal appeals it has engendered.

The connection between a prospective immigrant and regulated professions must be maintained in some way or other. This link between immigration services, candidates and professional orders should even be strengthened. There could easily be a better exchange of information at the time when the candidate applies for immigration to Canada.

If the amendments in this bill were adopted, they would have an impact on the profession, and especially on the implementation of the mandate of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec as the organization that controls this profession. These amendments could also have an impact on public safety. The Ordre deems that the proposed regulations could lead to more illegal practice of engineering by encouraging candidates to come when they do not have the qualifications to work in this profession according to North American standards. Such candidates will try to find a job in what they believe to be their speciality, they will work as engineers and call themselves engineers. Further, candidates who, rightly or wrongly, believe that they have the right to work as engineers will apply pressure to have admission standards changed to their advantage. This kind of pressure is not in the public interest.

Moreover, the complete elimination of any reference to occupation in the list of selection criteria may jeopardize processes that have proven to be sensible and effective.

Here are a few examples: the increased pressure on professional orders and the resulting reduction in admission requirements to become a professional engineer in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, despite the potentially negative consequences for public protection; the expansion of illegal engineering activities, since candidates for immigration may be tempted to work as engineers illegally because they do not realize how important it is to have an engineering licence; and the elimination of any tie between potentially eligible candidates and the professional order concerned.

In closing, we will make three recommendations that do not clash with the government objectives and initiative. In fact, we believe that these proposals will maintain greater transparency where immigrants are concerned and that they take into account difficulties that immigrants may face.

Our first recommendation is to maintain communication between the professional orders and immigration candidates. Communication between the professional orders and the candidates must be maintained when the immigration application is made. That can be done in two ways: either the candidate can submit a preliminary notice application for a licence application, or the candidate can apply to join the professional order.

Second, the role of the professional orders must be preserved. The Quebec Order of Engineers must do the professional qualification assessments on immigration candidates. The order's involvement in this way can only increase the consistency of candidate assessments and uphold the credibility of the agencies involved in immigration procedures.

Third, the professional orders need to be supported. It would be helpful if the government were to create immigrant integration programs in co-operation with the professional orders and teaching institutions. On its own initiative, the order has taken steps to help candidates to qualify, even though this is not part of its mandate. The order is trying to help them to acquire the minimum qualifications to be eligible. Moreover, some immigrants may have difficulty integrating into society, and these difficulties go well beyond the need to be recognized by a professional order. We would therefore like to see support given to professional orders that are trying to help candidates integrate into the labour market.

On behalf of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to this aspect of the matter.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Roger and Michel, and all of you, for your great input and insight into the bill, and now we'll go to questions.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank you for taking the time and for the work you've put into your submissions. I just want to make a comment and then I'll ask questions.

My comment is that even though we appear to be a fairly open society when it comes to immigration, I think our history reflects the fact that we're really not. The bleak moments of our history are about immigration. I would say at this point that the Emergency Measures Act, which was received very negatively in this province, was first exercised during the First World War on Canadians of Ukrainian descent. That's the reality of immigration.

• 1125

It's only in the last 30 years that immigration has been relatively open to the reunification of family members. I said to the last group of presenters, I'm a third-generation immigrant only because the rules of the game were such that I had to come here to join my family in 1955. I think this bill needs to learn from the history of this country to ensure that we do have a balance.

From what we've heard from the witnesses all week, I sometimes wonder whether the contents of Bill C-11 reflect the title. We all know what the title is. It's about the protection of refugees and immigrants in this country.

To the people from the Centre Justice et foi, I have not read your brief because we received these briefs this morning. I agree we need more time and perhaps a different forum. Our witnesses take their work very seriously. Not to be partisan, but I must say that until the governance model of this country changes and we add more checks and balances to the system, we'll always repeat, even though we're very committed in this committee to making changes to this bill, including the chair. As to how far it gets us, I guess we'll find out in the next few weeks.

My question is about the Security Intelligence Review Committee. We've heard differing opinions on that. My question to you is, should that committee's decisions be binding on CIC?

The Chair: Inky, are you directing that question to Dominique? Dominique, do you want to try to answer that question?

Mr. Dominique Boisvert: I'll try to answer based on my experience with Bill C-24 in 1976-77.

[Translation]

If you do not mind, I will continue in French.

I was very actively involved in the debate when the act was completely revised in 1976-77. There was a long debate precisely on the issue of Canada's security measures in connection with the Immigration Act. Members of Parliament at that time, in particular Mr. Fairweather, who was then a Conservative member, made the departmental officials admit that a significant portion of the information used in Canada for security purposes came from our allies, that is, the Americans.

Most of the decisions were outside the political process, and so it was difficult to get information. We tried to bring in reforms, for example, by creating a security review committee, but it is certainly of ongoing concern that Parliament, that is, the representatives of the Canadian people, have very little to say and that everything is still basically in the hands of the security committee. All it generally takes to get a security clearance is the signature of two ministers.

That was a concern expressed by most of the human rights groups in 1976-77, and it remains a concern in 2001.

[English]

The Chair: John McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to use my five minutes to comment mainly in response to Mr. Boisvert.

First, I'd like to make a very small point. As an economist, I couldn't agree more with Alana Klein that projections of cost or anything else over a ten-year period are extraordinarily suspect and unreliable.

[Translation]

Mr. Boisvert, I would say that

[English]

the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Translation]

I agree with our chairman as to the comments that were made. You will see the amendments that we put forward and if they are not sufficient, then you might be right, but if they are substantial, then you may be wrong.

• 1130

I would like to say a few words about some of our amendments. The first one is quite similar to what Mr. Czolij was suggesting and deals with the third section, on the nature of Canada as a federal and bilingual country. One of my colleagues, who is not with us today, will move the amendment that you suggest, that is, to add the word “multicultural”. It would then be known as a federal, bilingual and multicultural country.

Then, as I have already said, I will move amendments to limit the powers of immigration officers to deport permanent residents and to examine their files. We will also try to limit the scope of some regulations and, as the chairman has just said, to maintain a role for this committee in examining the regulations, so that the minister may table in Parliament not only the immigration standards but also information relating to the waiting lists, etc. And there will be others.

I think that I have said enough. I would simply like to add that personally, I don't think we should be sending people back to countries where they will be tortured. We have head a number of very moving stories about people, especially women, who gained entry to Canada after a second application for refugee status. Had their request been turned down, some of these people would have been sent to places where they would have been executed. That is a very difficult situation. I would agree that what one should have a second chance to file an application.

Those are some of the amendments. We cannot guarantee that the government will accept all of these amendments, but I can tell you that we are serious. Finally, I might point out that no one around this table likes to hear the term foreign national to describe permanent residents. On that we are all unanimous. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Dominique or Elisabeth, do you have any comments on the proposed changes we're considering?

[Translation]

Ms. Elisabeth Garant (Officer in Charge, Secteur Vivre ensemble, Centre Justice et Foi): These are undoubtedly useful changes. However, I think there are other basic elements to keep in mind. It is not enough to simply examine the regulations. I would like to come back to one of the points that you and the chairman, Mr. Fontana, discussed. I am delighted to see that you are taking a close look at the regulations. It is important and I am pleased to see it happening.

Moreover, we must also be aware that putting everything into regulations rather than the bill could eventually cause Parliament to lose a certain level of control. I would refer those of you who have not yet read our brief to read page 9, where we ask that certain provisions that have not been included in the regulations, according to the documents appended to the bill, be transferred to the bill itself in order to ensure that the stated principles and willingness be truly reflected in the bill.

It is obvious that all of the regulations cannot be included in the bill, but there are some things that cannot be limited to the regulations; for example, the will to reunite families. That has to be mentioned in the bill. I quote that example, but you may want to examine other proposals. I believe that the principles should be expressed in concrete terms. Otherwise, it will be impossible, in five years, to ensure that our decisions made in 2001 will be faithfully implemented by the officials and governments of the day.

• 1135

There is something else that I believe is important but was not raised. I agree on adding the term “multicultural”, which reflects diversity, and I believe it is very important to eliminate the term foreign national. This language is used neither in French nor in English. The language in the bill itself gives the impression that we are dealing with criminals. Our brief suggests that the UNHCR terminology be used, so as to eliminate any derogatory meaning or any impression of criminal intent. For example, the expression “unauthorized entry” is much more neutral than the terminology that is used in the bill.

I think that is part of the role that should be played by a standing committee, something you yourselves can do. We are not the only ones to have said this. It was mentioned at other hearings and in other briefs. I believe these things are basic.

There is another fundamental point, namely, the difference between protection and immigration.

We make a number of recommendations to that effect. The bill is clearer than the previous act, which is a step in the right direction, in distinguishing immigration clauses from those dealing with protection. There remain a number of elements affecting the lives of refugees that are included in the part dealing with immigration.

In our brief we ask that these elements be adapted to the reality involving protection. We cannot manage, examine or respond to the need for protection in the same way as it is done for immigration. You may refer to the brief for more details on these matters.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Eugene, did you have a comment?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: First of all, I was very pleased you announced, Mr. Chairman, that regulations under Bill C-11 will be the subject of public consultations before the standing committee. I encourage you to do so prior to the adoption of Bill C-11. As you probably know, the Parliamentary Research Branch, when commenting on Bill C-31, stated that a reading of the bill does not provide a complete picture of the immigration and refugee program and that regulations would therefore have to be analysed. I'm pleased they will be. I'm encouraging you to do so before the adoption of the bill.

I would also like to thank Mr. Mark for having raised the issue of the internment of Ukrainians during World War I. As you know, over 8,000 residents of Canada were interned. This is not only a dark period of Canadian history, but, unfortunately, it's also an unresolved issue. I certainly hope the Government of Canada will resolve this issue in conformity with a unanimous resolution of Parliament in 1991 directing it to do so.

[Translation]

I am particularly happy with Mr. McCallum's confirmation that Canada's multicultural reality will be mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(b) of the bill, so as to encourage your colleagues to adopt this amendment. I would remind you that clause 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for any interpretation of the Charter to coincide with the objective of promoting and enhancing the multicultural heritage of Canadians, which justifies the fact that the bill includes the reference to both a bilingual and multicultural country.

As to the amendments to restrict the exclusionary powers, I believe that the Canadian Bar Association and a number of other witnesses stated that it is important to restrict these powers in order to ensure that the act will be fair.

The Chair: Thank you, Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will make two comments and ask two questions. My first comment is to Mr. Czolij.

It is clear that a bill like Bill C-11 must clearly reflect reality and a willingness to be open, in Canada as well as in Quebec. For that reason, the term “multicultural” will be added. That is implicit at all levels. We know that people come from throughout the world because this is a country where, somewhere, one can live well.

• 1140

Moreover, you have seen that a large number of your other suggestions have come very close to being endorsed by the committee.

Mr. Boisvert, even if I understand my chairman's disappointment, I can also understand yours, and I want you to know that. In life, a number of things remain unsaid, and I am grateful that you have had the courage to say them. There. Now on to my questions.

Ms. Klein, you spoke of excessive demands, and I agree when you say that the term can be both meaningful and empty. Do you think that the definition of “excessive demand” should be included in the act? There have been a number of comments to the effect that definitions would be included in the regulations and some witnesses expressed reservations about this.

In the case of “excessive demand”, if you had a recommendation to make, would you recommend that it be included in the act or in the regulations?

Ms. Alana Klein: I think it is always better... May I speak in English?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, of course.

[English]

Ms. Alana Klein: I think it is probably better generally if a definition is included in the legislation itself. I think it would then be more likely that future governments would implement it and still follow the same definition. Therefore, in order to maintain governmental control...the definition would probably be better maintained if it was in the legislation.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

My other question, Mr. Chairman, is for Mr. Dagenais.

We have heard representatives of different professions express the difficulties, both for their particular field as well as for people living in Canada, who are often disappointed.

I have a question for you. Do you think that, in the regulations, we should make it compulsory for immigration officers to inform the professional bodies as soon as an application for immigration is made by Mr. X, from a given country, who is applying to immigrate and who is an engineer, doctor or whatever, so that these bodies might contact the individual in order to give that person firsthand information? It is very frustrating to come to a country where one believes that one can be of service and to then realize that, in spite of one's qualifications and one's good will, there are certain national or provincial criteria that cannot be met.

Mr. Michel Dagenais (Director, Admission and Registration, Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec): I agree that contact should be maintained between the future immigrant and the professional bodies, in particular the Order of Engineers.

We have a process at this time that we call a non-official evaluation. An immigrant with training in engineering who wants to settle in Canada can apply to the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec or to The Canadian Council of Engineers for other provinces, for an evaluation of his qualifications so that he might know before arriving whether or not he is eligible and what conditions would apply. Would he be required to pass any exams? Or will he be turned down because his level of training would require too great a number of exams? This is how we operate at this time, but there is always room for improvement. We could also have, as has been suggested, a duly completed application form with an unofficial evaluation. We must keep the lines of communication open between the professional bodies and future Canadian citizens.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I believe Dominique and Eugene had something to say.

• 1145

[Translation]

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Ms. Dalphond-Guiral, of course, any witness is happy to hear that the committee endorses most of the recommendations by his organization, and I am obviously pleased by what you have said.

However, you say that the fact that the country is multicultural is implicit. We know that the legislator has chosen or will choose, in passing Bill C-11, to mention what seems to me to be just as implicit in paragraph 3(1)(b), namely, that this is a federal and bilingual country. If we take the trouble to state that the country is federal and bilingual, I think we should also state its multicultural aspect.

With respect to another amendment, I would simply like to point out that we have, in our comments on Bill C-31, stated that we must distinguish between foreign national and permanent resident, as was done in Bill C-11. What surprises me, however, in reading the French version of Bill C-11, is that it is not included. There is a definition of the permanent resident, but no definition of foreign national even if, in clause 2(1), it states that “permanent resident means a foreign national who has acquired permanent resident status and has not subsequently lost that status under section 46”. I believe that this shortcoming must be corrected and the equivalent to foreign national must be defined in the French version of the bill.

[English]

The Chair: We're going to get rid of that term “foreign national”, guaranteed. We've heard enough, so we'll get rid of it, and I'm sure everybody will be happier.

Yolande.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our committee. It is quite sporting of you to agree to this barrage of questions, which, of course, is supposed to be a dialogue.

I would first like to make a comment on a point raised by the Centre Justice et Foi. You said that a committee like this one brought together a number of people who had nothing in common. I cannot agree that you have nothing in common with each other. We have been speaking to Canadians since Monday, and you would be surprised to see how much the various groups from one end of the country to the other think alike. Therefore I would say that you have a great deal in common.

I would like to deal with the recommendations that you make, which I find quite striking. You recommend that the government set an annual immigration target equivalent to 1% of the Canadian population. I think you already know that that is the objective. However, I wonder about your proposal that 20% be set aside for humanitarian immigration. I find that type of provision a little frightening. I would hesitate to impose such rigid guidelines on the immigration officials. I don't agree with it. What would happen if, during a given year, because of a conflict somewhere in the world, Canada were to welcome more than 20%, whereas, on the other hand, there might be fewer applications for immigration? I wouldn't feel comfortable putting that in the act.

I'm now addressing the Ordre des ingénieurs. Your second recommendation, if I'm not mistaken, was to maintain the role of the Ordre des ingénieurs concerning our bill. I don't fully understand. Would you wish to see that in the regulations or is it simply that you'd like your good relationship with the department to be ongoing? Could you elaborate?

Mr. Michel Dagenais: I think that...

• 1150

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, but the chair chairs the meeting.

The first question was to Dominique, with regard to the 1% and 60,000 as a minimum for refugees. We'll then go to Michel on the second question.

[Translation]

Mr. Dominique Boisvert: We're quite happy to see that the minister, having received the brief we tabled on Bill C-31, in her comments and reactions before introducing Bill C-11, chose to say more clearly that the intent of the present federal government was to try to reach 1%.

Actually, our proposal in our brief simply repeated the Liberal Party program. We didn't invent it. We're happy to see that the government decided to make it into a more precise objective.

As for the 20%, there are many reasons for that. Of course, we have absolutely no objection at all that the 20% might not be imposed some years because the needs are there. To my knowledge, the 20% was never reached at the federal level. For years now, we've been at around 12% or 13%.

The reason we hope the government's humanitarian immigration target is 20% is because we can see an extremely strong trend at the Canadian government level and from other governments around the world to be favourable to essentially “elitist”—if you'll pardon the expression—immigration, in other words the best, the cream of the crop, those that all countries want to have to contribute to their economy and so forth, with all the brain drain and wealth sharing problems that entails. However, that's a whole other debate.

If we at least say that our goal is to have one immigrant in five coming into this country through humanitarian immigration, that's already broad enough because this isn't only people chosen abroad at UNHCR's request; that can also mean people claiming refugee status here and so on. It's one way of counterbalancing the very, very strong trend of admitting only the best, only the cream.

We should remember that immigration, in Canada, was made up of all kinds of immigrants, people with little schooling as well as doctors in all kinds of disciplines and that often those who were the most loyal to our country are the small people that Canada accepted to admit and not the people that everyone wants for themselves, who come here for five years and then go work elsewhere because they're being paid more. That's something very important.

I'd like to tell the members of the committee that if you wish, before the end of this period, to put any questions to us on the matter of the commissioners' competence, that's a question that we worked on a lot. Two of us worked together for some 15 years, under two different models of commissioners, looking at requests for refugee status here. We could tell you very concretely how things actually happen, especially concerning the competence of the commissioners because we had the opportunity to participate in choosing the others and so on. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. In fact, Dominique, if you could provide us with any additional information, with all of that hard work that you've done with regard to the competency of commissioners and so on, that would be very good.

Michel, go ahead on the second question with regard to regulations.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Dagenais: I think the link between the future Canadian citizens and the professional orders, especially for engineers, must be maintained so as to maintain a quality of intervention and to ensure credibility. I don't think that should be in the legislation. I think it should actually be in the regulations. We should insist on keeping that because over the years, the Ordre des ingénieurs and the Canadian Council of Engineers, which is the federation of the provincial associations of engineers, have developed expertise and evaluated some 1,400 engineer-training institutions in approximately 300 different countries.

Also, through the Canadian Bureau of International Affairs, we tried to come up with reciprocity agreements with different countries that have training evaluation and monitoring systems for their professions that are similar to ours here and that is an ongoing process.

I think that the engineers were the first group of professionals to come up with an agreement in principle concerning the NAFTA between Mexico, the USA and Canada although there are delays in implementation. It's not Canada's fault because all the provincial or territorial Canadian associations have already signed that agreement in principle, but the two other countries are delaying their signing.

• 1155

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Michel.

John Herron.

[Translation]

Mr. John Herron: First, I'd like to say a word about a specific person.

Mr. Boisvert, you mentioned Gordon Fairweather. I am the MP for Fundy—Royal and I met Mr. Fairweather about this bill. I am proud that you... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... Mr. Fairweather.

Madeleine stole one of my questions again.

[English]

Ms. Klein, on one of the issues you flagged in your brief, I just wanted to say that I think there's consensus on this committee with respect to the bracket definition with respect to common-law partners, be they same sex or opposite sex. I believe you will see an amendment proposed. I think there's a consensus to clean that progressive amendment up.

With respect to definition of excessive costs to health, that was my question that Madeleine advanced for me. Perhaps it would be better to have that in the actual bill.

My questioning goes a little bit like this. You mentioned that it was wrong to have mandatory testing for HIV. Would we go as far as being able to say we shouldn't have mandatory testing for any particular disease? Right now, I think we only test for tuberculosis and syphilis. Those are the only two we do test for, and that's a very small list. Should that request for medical testing be removed altogether if we only do the two and if we're not going to do HIV? Otherwise, what should the parameters be for medical testing?

The Chair: Alex or Alana.

[Translation]

Mr. Alex Adrian (Member, Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network): Thank you for your question. It's a very important one for those people working with HIV-AIDS. To date, you're right. Diseases that are transmitted in the usual ways or that are transmitted through airborne organisms, like tuberculosis, are systematically screened for in persons making a request to immigration.

The network's position against screening for HIV is rather clear. There's no common measure between tuberculosis, which is transmitted by air, and a disease transmitted by behaviours. HIV is a disease found in people with high-risk sexual behaviour or who inject themselves with products.

So the position of the network is that we have to treat both major disease categories differently and that the perception or the information that seems to be coming from the department, which is to put HIV in the same category as those other diseases, does not appear to us to be based on a public health perspective.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: My specific question, though, is whether we should be testing at all, since we only test for those two.

[Translation]

Mr. Alex Adrian: That's a very broad question. In the brief we gave you, we say that the potential diseases of people making an immigration request must be considered globally, as a whole. We use a striking example. If you figure that a person over 50 years of age, for example, can develop cardiovascular diseases that will cost Canada too much, we should also consider that category of people as a separate category, on the one hand.

On the other hand, if we consider that HIV is a disease that is as contagious as it is said to be, why do we take that into account only in the case of immigrants? Why not take that into account for tourists or people who do not fall under the purview of this legislation?

So, to our mind, there is total inconsistency in the way HIV- AIDS is considered to impact on public health.

[English]

The Chair: Is there anything further to add to what Alex said? Okay, Alana. You're part of the same organization, but go ahead.

• 1200

Ms. Alana Klein: With regard to your comment about defining “excessive demands” in the legislation itself, again I just wanted to reiterate that the most important thing for us is what the content of “excessive demands” is. It should include contributions that are both economic and non-economic. That's really the most important part. We would love to see that included in the legislation itself, and we'd like to see it included in that manner.

Thank you.

The Chair: A number of organizations have indicated that.

If I could, just before I thank you all, Dominique and Elisabeth, I did read your report. Of the 25 recommendations that you've put forward, I can agree with 92% of them. To tell you the truth, a lot of the same suggestions have been made by representatives from across the country, so there is commonality of concern, questions, and approach, especially on the vision statement.

I agree with you totally. I don't know how we moved to talking about criminality, when we ought to be talking about pro-immigration, pro-refugee, our long history in this country of immigration and protection. In fact, countries around the world look to Canada's immigration policy and our refugee policies to emulate them, because we're one of only four countries in the world that actually accepts refugees. So I believe we're starting from a strong point, and not only in our current legislation, and we obviously want to make it better.

I have one question as it relates to one of your recommendations as it relates to the family class. You indicated that, in legislation, we ought to add to the family class. As you know, we've already indicated that we intend to add to the family class in terms of spouses or mothers and fathers. I'm just wondering whether or not you think we ought to increase it to brothers and sisters, to siblings. We all have heard, from everybody across the country, that family structure is very important to integration, to viability, and to social, economic, and even humanitarian development. How far should the definition of “family” go, in your opinion?

[Translation]

Mr. Dominique Boisvert: In fact, that is part of the points we think are positive in Bill C-31 which has become C-11, this matter of broadening the definition of family. To be quite honest, I must say that we consulted quickly and I am not sure we're in the best position to tell you that we should add brothers, brothers-in-law and so on. I don't know exactly where we should stop.

The work we've done over the last 15 years, at the centre, has more to do with broad principles, orientations, the vocabulary and the fundamental needs Canada and the international community must face in matters of immigration and protection. That is the direction of our brief and of the work we have done on protection, in particular, and on international immigration in a medium and long-term perspective for the next 15 to 20 years. So our expertise is located more in that area. That's why we elaborated on that in our brief rather than on very specific questions concerning the family.

I'll let Elisabeth wind it up. Our expertise is mainly in that area.

Ms. Elisabeth Garant: The only principle I'd put forth is that we have to see to it that the immediate family is preserved at all costs. There's a recommendation concerning people who have less income, concerning that part.

As for broadening the scope, there would have to be some flexibility and we raised that question in other briefs. I won't say where we should stop, but I think that the fundamental criterion this committee should be putting forth is not to rigidify this act in the area of reunification but to allow that, in certain circumstances... I know that the Canadian Council has named a few and it seems to me very necessary to take that into account.

You mentioned the concern of getting away from a criminalizing debate to go towards a broader debate. I'd make a link with what Ms. Thibeault said before. The 20%, representing 60,000, is a way to translate one's will into something concrete. We can't say that we're open, that we want to welcome people if we don't take concrete means to do so. And 20% isn't even what Quebec is doing right now. It's doing more than that. I think we have the means to give the population the information needed for it to give far more support to this matter.

• 1205

People have to understand that it's necessary to protect refugees. They have to understand that Canada is making all efforts internationally and that the last resort for many is to come here. When they understand that, it won't be impossible to increase the proportion to 20%, in my opinion.

So those are doors. You have to find concrete means. For example, we're talking about making monitoring methods credible. If you don't say anything about the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, if you don't question the process for appointing the members—a lot of criticism has been made in that area—I don't know how you're going to be able to make the process credible.

We're expecting you to come up with concrete elements to go from one way of saying things to another.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Again, thank you all for your excellent submissions, your ideas, your recommendations, and your input. I can assure you that at the end of the day this committee is determined to make sure that we get a better bill and that we have a better immigration and refugee policy, one that will keep us a world leader in terms of immigration and refugee protections.

Thank you, each and every one, for your hard work.

Could we please move forward quickly because we're about an hour behind, unfortunately. Committee members, if you would, please sit down and stay in your seats. I know that you might want to have a bladder break or whatever, but we need to move on to the next round.

Could I call together the Canadian Bar Association, Quebec Division; the Table de concertation de Montréal au service des réfugiés; the Committee to Aid Refugees; and the National Association of Women and the Law to the table, please.

• 1206

• 1210

The Chair: To our witnesses who were supposed to be on at 11—now 12—I want to express my apologies that we're running a little late. As you've probably heard and witnessed, there seems to be great interest in having a discussion about the briefs and recommendations. That's an indication of how much we appreciate the hard work you've put into your briefs and your suggestions, which is why the committee wants to ask some questions of you too.

We've received your briefs. I would ask that you take five to seven minutes to give us an overview or summary of what's in your briefs so we can ask you some questions.

I will start with the Canadian Bar Association, Quebec Division. We have Chantal Arsenault with us.

There you are, Chantal. Welcome, and go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Chantal Arsenault (President, Immigration Section, Canadian Bar Association, Quebec Division): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having me here today.

You've already heard a number of my colleagues from elsewhere in Canada this week, which was certainly a very heavy one for you in terms of travelling and time spent holding these hearings. Although many concerns have been voiced here today, I would still like to do a bit of a summary here.

As you've already noticed, concerning the Canadian Bar Association, we've taken the trouble of dividing up our concerns so that we don't repeat the same thing each and every time. Today, I'd like to say something about the matter of monitoring and questioning and I will express our concerns in this respect.

Bill C-11 has many provisions concerning monitoring that must be interpreted in conjunction with one another. Attentive reading of clauses 15, 16, 17, 40, 44, 127 and 128 would lead you to the following conclusion.

An official with reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be inadmissible—the French expression being interdit de territoire—may proceed with an examination even though no request has been made to the department. This examination makes it an obligation for a non-citizen, including a permanent resident, to answer the questions and provide documentation, otherwise there's a risk of having to pay a fine that could go up to $100,000 or be imprisoned for a period of up to five years or to be declared inadmissible. In those circumstances, the permanent resident does not have the right to remain silent as this silence or refusal to answer a question is enough to justify a fine, imprisonment or inadmissibility.

In addition, permanent residents have no protection against self-incrimination, because remaining silent or refusing to answer a question, even if their answer could result in their criminal liability, is enough to justify imprisonment, a fine or a ruling of inadmissibility.

As drafted, Bill C-11, opens the door to abuse, to a violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of permanent residents and non-citizens in the country other than permanent residents. Was that the government's intention when it drafted the bill? You have been told, and the department repeated this week, that the intention was not to violate the rights and freedoms of these individuals. However, is that the effect obtained when we combine certain clauses in the bill as drafted at the moment? We submit that this is the case.

There is still time to change this; hence today's consultations. There is still time to ensure that the fundamental values of the people of Canada are reflected in the Immigration Act. That is why we suggested the amendments that you have already seen, and that I will not repeat, but that we could talk about if you have any questions on them.

• 1215

Before closing, I would like to come back to a point that has been mentioned a number of times. There has been a great deal of talk about the term “foreign national”. Everyone agrees that they do not like it. I come back to the translation of this expression with the word “étranger” which, as one of my colleagues said earlier, is not defined in the current act. The term “étranger” as such has a pejorative connotation that is disturbing.

Like the current Immigration Act, the new act will probably be with us for a long time. It is essential that we make sure we can be proud of it as a society. This act will be our basic instrument, our window on the world. If one of its objectives really is, as is stated in clause 3 “to permit Canada to pursue the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration,” the Immigration Act, regulations and policies must establish a just, fair and efficient system.

Since time is short, I will stop here. I am available to answer any questions you may have. I would be pleased to talk about my experience and knowledge of the immigration system in Quebec, which is different in some ways. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Chantal. That was very well said.

Now from Project Genesis we have Richard Goldman or—

[Translation]

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld (President, Table de concertation de Montréal au service des personnes réfugiées immigrantes): Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask you... We have discussed this among ourselves, and we would like to change the order of the presentations so that you would hear from the National Association of Women and the law before the Genesis Project, because we think this will enhance your understanding of the two presentations.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I think it is within our mandate to tell you that it was not just the Centre Justice et Foi that protested about the way in which the hearings are being held. We are not challenging your authority, but we would mention the fact that...

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I wonder if you—

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: But wait. I have a mandate from everyone—

The Chair: Excuse me—

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: —to tell you, just to say that—

The Chair: No. Excuse me. I know that you want to be my co-chair, and that's perfectly fine because I'm amicable with everyone. You will have your opportunity to say whatever you want to say. Thank you very much for assisting me with regard to some of the discussions you've had as to who will make their presentation and when.

I will go to Andrée Côté and/or Marlène Dubuisson-Balthazar with their presentation. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlène Dubuisson-Balthazar (Lawyer and Board Member, National Association of Women and the Law): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Standing Committee. I have with me Andrée Côté, the Director of Legal Affairs at the National Association of Women and the Law.

The National Association of Women and the Law is a feminist, not-for-profit organization whose objective is to promote social justice and the right of women to equality, through education and law-reform activities. The members of our association include lawyers, judges, women who are law professors and students and other individuals interested in promoting the rights of women.

In addition to the organizations involved in drafting the brief, two other groups, the Legal Education and Action Fund of the west coast and the Ontario Francophone Immigrant Women's Movement, recently gave us their support.

In view of the time we have today, we would like to draw your attention to three points in our brief that we consider extremely important. First of all, we would like to emphasize how important it is that the bill guarantee respect for and promotion of the human rights of all immigrants and of all refugees; to deal with the issue of individuals in the family class; and to raise the issue of female domestic workers, which seems to have been forgotten in Bill C-11.

We are pleased to note that Bill C-11 refers explicitly to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, we deplore the fact that no reference is made to Canada's international obligations or to the international instruments to which Canada is a signatory.

We feel so strongly about this that we recommend that Bill C-11 include an explicit reference to Canada's international obligations in the area of human rights and that subclause 3(3) be amended to specify that the act is to be construed and applied in a manner that complies with the international standards on human rights and the international instruments that Canada has signed.

• 1220

We will now talk about family reunification as a fundamental right. In subclause 3(1), the bill states clearly that the main objective of the Act is to see that families are reunited. On its own, this subclause does not foster effective recognition of the importance of family reunification as a fundamental right, as it appears in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

For this reason, we recommend that family reunification be expressly recognized as a fundamental right in accordance with the international instruments on human rights; that the sponsorship system be defined so as to facilitate this reunification and the settlement of new immigrants in Canada; that the family class be given priority and promoted within Canada.

The bill also recommends that foreign nationals be allowed to be considered as part of the family class on the basis of their relationship with a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident. However, we note that the term “family class” is not defined anywhere. Rather, there is a reference to the regulations, which state that spouses, fiancees and parents may be included in this class.

Our Association and its partners recommend that the term “family” be defined more clearly in the bill and that sponsorship be broadened to include the extended family: grandparents and other individuals who are important to the sponsor; that the main characteristics of the system be defined in the act and not relegated to the regulations and left up to the discretion of immigration officers.

We would also ask that individuals who belong to this class be exempt from medical requirements. We recommend that all the clauses regarding the sponsorship system be combined in a single division of the act.

In our view, the bill and the regulations put forward by the government force sponsors to meet the needs of the people they sponsor for 10 years. We recommend that Bill C-11 specify explicitly that individuals who immigrate to Canada with a view to joining their family be entitled to permanent residency in Canada; that the support obligation be considered a family obligation, that the respondent's ability to pay be considered throughout the sponsorship arrangement, and that this support obligation not extend beyond three years in any case.

With respect to the sponsoring spouses, we think that the fact that the essential needs of the sponsored individual, generally the woman, must be assumed by the spouse creates a sort of dependency and subordination, which only exacerbates marital relations. That is why we recommended the status of permanent resident be granted to all individuals who immigrate to Canada so as to join their spouse without requiring that they be subject to the sponsorship undertaking.

The bill also prohibits people on social assistance from sponsoring a spouse or children, and requires people with low incomes to post a guarantee bond. We believe that this constitutes discrimination on the grounds of social conditions, something that should not be accepted in a free and democratic society. Thus, we recommend that the bill be amended in order to allow people on social assistance or with low incomes to sponsor members of their families, of course within the framework of the Family Reunification Programme.

We are also especially concerned about domestic workers, who seem to have been forgotten in Bill C-11. Yet, domestic workers face specific problems and live in precarious conditions, such as no or inadequate pay, unpaid overtime, lack of a private life and independence, and enormous vulnerability to sexual harassment.

We therefore recommend that domestic workers be allowed to submit an application for permanent resident status in Canada after one year of continuous work, pursuant to authorization for temporary employment, and that they be authorized to bring their children and members of their family to Canada; that their temporary employment authorization be based on their employment and not on their employer; that they not be obliged to live in their employers' home; that their working conditions be studied and monitored; lastly, that training be provided to families who employ such domestic workers.

Thank you. Ms. Côté will now speak.

• 1225

Ms. Andrée Côté (Director, Legislation and Law Reform, National Association of Women and the Law): If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should point out that we have tabled with Mr. Lahaie, the committee clerk, a report published today on the impact of sponsorship on the rights and equality of immigrant women. I supervised the preparation of this report, which was produced for the Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale de l'Ontario. I have brought a copy for each of the parties. Additional copies can be obtained. I did not bring them now because I was unable to carry them all; they were too heavy. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much for the presentation, Andrée.

Congratulations. There's been a lot of discussion on the impact of sponsorship and on the equality rights of immigrant women, and this is very timely. While we have obviously not had the opportunity to read it, I'm sure it will be a very useful guide for all of us in government committees.

Thank you and your organization very much for doing a great piece of research.

Now we're going to Mr. Goldman of Project Genesis.

Mr. Richard Goldman (Legal Services, Project Genesis): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I'm a lawyer with the community group Project Genesis, which serves the very multi-ethnic neighbourhood of Côte-des-Neiges, one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Quebec. More than half the residents of Côte-des-Neiges are immigrants, and they're our clients.

With me is Jill Hanley, a member of our board and a doctoral candidate in social work who recently participated in a study on human trafficking.

I'll be speaking about the part of our brief that deals with access to the refugee determination process, specifically the eligibility clauses and what can happen to someone if they are not considered eligible.

In order to illustrate things more clearly, I've produced a flow chart of some of the more common situations we're likely to face. I hope all of you have copies; if not, I have more copies. In order to highlight three possible situations, I have literally highlighted them in green, yellow, and red. I chose the colours deliberately because the green is the “go” scenario, the red is the “stop” scenario, and the orange is the “stuck-in-between” scenario.

We'll start with the green example, starting here. This is the case of a woman who was active in a peaceful pro-democracy movement in her country. She received death threats a few months ago, and she came to Canada and claimed refugee status. While she was awaiting her hearing here in Montreal, free elections were called in her country, and she returned home to participate in the democratic process. Unfortunately, she was very disappointed with the outcome because the military government refused to accept the results of the election. She was detained and tortured, but she managed to escape, and she came back to Canada to claim refugee status.

I'd just like to mention that since a number of you have said that up to 75% of the work you do is on immigration matters, maybe you can imagine this woman coming to see you in your constituency offices.

Now, she starts out in this box here. She is, as I mentioned, on the green line, and you might want to circle “withdrawn” in the green box because that shows what part of the box she's coming from. As we see, under Bill C-11 she is not eligible simply because she made a prior refugee claim and withdrew it. She has complied fully with Canadian refugee laws, she's broken no law so far as we know, yet she's ineligible.

Following along the green line, we see that the next question you would ask her in your office is whether she's been outside of Canada for more than six months. The green line, the “go” line, says she has been, so if she has been outside of Canada for more than six months, she's still moving along.

The next step for her, since she's not eligible to go to the IRB, would be the pre-removal risk assessment. She would be reviewed under all the criteria as a refugee claimant as well as a person at risk. What does this mean for her in practical terms? She will not meet with anybody at any time to discuss her claim. Since she won't be able to go to the IRB, she'll have to submit something in writing. She has no right to an oral hearing, and immigration officials rather than IRB members will have to make important findings about her credibility based on those documents. She has no way of answering their questions or answering their objections.

I'd like to point out that this process looks an awful lot like the refugee determination process that was struck down in 1985 by the Supreme Court in the landmark Singh decision for being in violation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and specifically the notion of fundamental justice.

• 1230

I'd like to direct you to page 3 of our brief, at the bottom, and I'll just read to you section 7 of the charter:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I think we can all agree that refugee claims almost always have important questions of credibility involved, and therefore I'd like to quote to you from the Singh decision itself, on page 4 of our brief, where Chief Justice Dixon, as he then was, stated:

In particular, I am of the view that where a serious issue of credibility is involved, fundamental justice requires that credibility be determined on the basis of an oral hearing.

I would like to ask the members, if you needed in 1985 an oral hearing to determine if someone is credible, why we do not need one in 2001 to determine if someone is credible? Because on this green line, this woman, who has complied always with Canadian immigration laws, would not be entitled to an oral hearing.

If anything, the Supreme Court has been going in the direction of greater strictness with the notion of fundamental justice. So if you're thinking maybe in 16 years the court is moving away from a strict interpretation, it's the opposite. I'd like to point out, still at page 4 of our brief, that just a few months ago, the Supreme Court issued the Burns and Rafay decision in the very closely related area of extradition. Although it was believed—this is a bit technical—that since the Kindler decision of 1981 only violations of fundamental justice that shocked the conscience were intolerable, the court clarified—and I have an excerpt there—that any violation of fundamental justice, not just one that shocks the conscience, is intolerable.

And while we're on the topic of shocking the conscience, let's look at the red line of the chart. This is the same case. The refugee claim was withdrawn, but now you ask her how long she's been outside Canada, and she says less than six months. So we go to the box, following the red line for the less than six months, and we see that she has the right to no risk review at all, not the PRRA, nothing, as the law stands. I ask you, what could be more shocking than returning somebody who faces a risk of torture, persecution, possibly death, to her country with absolutely no risk review? That is exactly possible under Bill C-11 as it stands now.

Finally, let's look at the orange example, the “stuck in-between” case. We'll change the facts just a bit here. We'll say, to simplify things, it's her first visit to Canada, you talk to her about her participation in the recent elections in her country, and she mentions that for the first time, during those elections, she joined a political party, which had previously been a rebel group, but laid down its arms to participate in the democratic process, such as the now ruling party in South Africa, the ANC, or, for example, the FMLN in El Salvador, which now holds many seats in congress and many mayoralties. You would then have to tell her that it's very possible she will be judged now—the second box with the orange line—ineligible for security reasons, because she is a member of a group that had engaged in terrorist activities, even though she joined it after it had renounced the violence and even though she had never done anything violent herself. Following along this orange line, she would have the right to only a partial pre-removal risk assessment; she would not have access to the refugee claim criteria, just the person-at-risk criteria. And even if she were found at risk, she could get, at best, a stay of her removal order, but not access to landing.

So this example, the orange one, is at least as problematic as the first one, the green one we looked at. Not only would she have no oral hearing, but she would be subject to different criteria and to a different result, even though she's done nothing wrong. So there's a quality issue there under section 15 of the charter.

• 1235

Just to wrap things up, many groups have come before you to say that the eligibility provisions of Bill C-11 are much broader than the refugee convention, so I'm not going to go into that. I'm here to add that I believe they are also on a collision course with section 7 of the charter and the notion of fundamental justice, and possibly section 15 of the charter and the notion of equality.

As one last comment, you have sitting with you in the House of Commons, and for those of you who are Liberal members, in your very own caucus, one of the most distinguished constitutional scholars in Canada, Mr. Irwin Cotler. Mr. Cotler has gone on public record saying that he would not serve as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Immigration, because he could not shepherd a bill through Parliament that he could not support, meaning this bill. I would ask you to consider writing to him or asking him to appear so as to get his opinion on whether Bill C-11 meets the requirements of fundamental justice in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Ask him if this bill complies with the refugee convention and Canada's other human rights obligations.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Richard, for those concrete examples. Sometimes a picture says a thousand words. As for Irwin Cotler, he's a very hard-working member of caucus. The Liberal caucus has a committee on immigration. They are essentially doing what we're doing here. We're doing it publicly. We're doing it as a caucus. At the end of the day, we both have the same objective, and that's to achieve the best bill we can. I'm sure Irwin would have been here had he been able to be. He's fully involved, I can assure you. Thank you.

Next we have the Table de concertation de Montréal au service des réfugiés. We have Stephan Reichold and Rivka Augenfeld. Welcome.

[Translation]

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Rivka Augenfeld. I am the president of the Table de concertation de Montréal au service des personnes réfugiées immigrantes. The people who prepared your list did not include our name, so I'm giving it to you. We are a group of 129 organizations across Quebec, this is a Quebec-wide group, which is a member of the Canadian Council for Refugees. We endorse their brief in full.

Our brief is fairly short, and though it deals with a number of topics we will cover only one of them here. We entirely support everything put forward by the Montreal Action Refugees group, the Centre Justice et Foi, lawyers François Crépeau and France Houle, Professor Cécile Rousseau, the AQAADI, and the Genesis Project. We would also refer you to the press release we issued yesterday, which has just been distributed to you, in which we express our protests against this process.

We know that you have received a letter from the Quebec Bar, which has refused to appear here today. In that regard, the Centre Justice et Foi is not the only organization to note that the process is inappropriate. The problem does not lie with you Mr. Chairman, or with your members. We believe that you, Mr. Chairman... That is the main thrust of my remarks.

[English]

The Chair: You're wasting your time.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: I am not wasting my time, because I am going to get to my point to tell you

[Translation]

that we believe you, members of Parliament, are engaged in a process where many of the things we have to say will simply not be taken into account.

The section of our brief prepared by the Committee to Aid Refugees will be presented by Ms. Hoori Hamboyan. Her contribution is also included in our brief.

Mr. Chairman, our group has over 20 years' experience. I myself have been working within the process and at this job for over 25 years. What we are trying to say is that we do not wish to see this bill repeat the errors made in previous years.

We were involved with Bill C-84 over 25 years ago, then with amendments to C-55, C-84, C-86 et C-44. Each time, regulations followed and received very little attention. What we are really trying to say is that you should not vote for this bill without seeing the regulations first.

I would like to talk to you specifically about the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA, or ERAR in French). Clauses 112 to 114 are very worrying. To understand those provisions properly, we should also refer to clause 101, which deals with organized crime. Those provisions and clauses lead to enormous confusion.

• 1240

Subclause 112(1) says: “in accordance with the regulations”. However, Mr. Chairman, the regulations are far from ready. We are told that department officials have as yet produced no concrete regulations on the section, though for other parts of the bill some of the regulations are far more advanced. But there is nothing on the removal list, which—as Mr. Goldman pointed out—could be an issue of life or death for some people.

In subclause 112(2)(c), delays can often be a problem. Mr. Chairman, when someone has appeared before the IRB and is faced with removal from Canada, he has to wait for three months after the IRB has refused him refugee status before he can have access to a PRRA, since only changes in circumstances will be taken into account. We might say that, in the case of someone who has appeared before the IRB and been denied refugee status, a three-month period might be a reasonable time to wait to see whether there is a change in circumstances. However, has Mr. Goldman said, for someone who has never had an IRB hearing and has never presented his case, is it reasonable to request a waiting period? What of changes in circumstances could be taken into account if there has never been a hearing? Hence, the PRRA, which deals with changes in circumstances, cannot really exist if there has been no hearing prior to it.

Moreover, the regulations in their present form are not clear on who has access to what type of hearing.

There are also cases excluded by the IRB. These are cases where the claimant has appeared before the IRB, but has been excluded by reason of one or more grounds for exclusion. In other words, the IRB did not ever rule on the case, and has never had to strike a balance between the grounds for exclusion, in other words the reason for which the person has been excluded, be it criminal activity or something else, and the fate which awaits the person if he or she were to return to the country of origin. With the bill before us, this is not clear. If the IRB does not seek that balance, how can we take a PRRA into account for a case that was never heard by the IRB?

There are also provisions dealing with major crime. Section 37 stipulates two-year sentences for major crime. I would point out that sentences of 2 years can be handed down without the offender having committed that serious a crime, a crime that is far less serious than death threats or torture. The same goes for organized crime. Someone can easily find himself mixed up in organized crime if he bought a false passport to save somebody's life. One can easily find oneself charged with a serious crime.

Mr. Chairman, I will stop here to give you a chance to ask questions, and to ask you again... I don't know whether this is true, Mr. Chairman. But we were told that you would take a day for clause-by-clause study of this bill when you return to Ottawa. If this is not true, we would appreciate being reassured on that score, because we do not see how you can...

A little while ago, someone said that 75% of your work as members of Parliament involved dealing with immigration cases. May we ask why? We do not believe that immigration cases should take up 75% of your time, but we are saying that, with the provisions in this bill and regulations to follow, which you do not yet know, you may find that up to 90% of your time is taken up with immigration cases.

I would ask you and all other MPs to test these provisions against cases you know. All your offices have been contacted with requests for assistance from people that you firmly believe deserve attention and acceptance. Look at those cases, for which you have fought, and ask yourselves whether those people and those families would be accepted to this country under the new bill. If the answer is no, ask yourselves why.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Augenfeld. Whoever told you we were going to do clause-by-clause in a day, I don't know where you get your information. It may very well take us a week, it may take us two weeks, I don't know. I don't prejudge anything until we actually get down and do the work. So this misinformation you're getting on that and a lot of the other things is unfortunate. Perhaps you should just give me a call and ask me what I think. I would give you the right answer.

• 1245

We'll now move to the Committee to Aid Refugees, Hoori Hamboyan. Welcome.

[Translation]

Ms. Hoori Hamboyan (Interim Coordinator, Committee to Aid Refugees): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Hoori Hamboyan. I represent the Committee to Aid Refugees, a non-profit organization particularly involved in defending the rights of refugees.

All too often, I meet refugees who are in despair, who feel betrayed by the system because they were not able to testify well during their hearings because of trauma, because of racism and stereotypes, because of the commissioner's lack of knowledge about the situation in their country, or because they were poorly represented by a consultant. In other words, despite the goodwill of your committee and the skills and knowledge of some IRB commissioners, errors are made, and the system has no reliable way of remedying those errors, that can make the difference between life and death for human beings.

Instead of telling you what I see, I would rather give the floor to a gentleman who is here beside me today. He's from Congo-Brazzaville, and will spend a couple of minutes telling you about his current experiences. After that, I will take a minute to conclude our presentation.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. M. (Appearing as an Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For security reasons, I will not reveal my identity. I apologize for that.

I was an officer in my country's armed forces. If I'm here today, Mr. Chairman, it is because I did not want to kill. I did not want to turn my weapons against the people whom I had sworn to serve to the last drop of my blood. I was to serve those people by fighting the enemy from outside. The major mistake I made about my fellow citizens, and my fellow soldiers, was not to speak the same ethnic, tribal and regionalist language that they did.

I swore to serve the people. A president of the Republic who is elected must serve the people. He is there to serve the people. I told my colleagues that we were like the peoples' guard dogs. Our duty was to watch over the people. The result was that death threats were made against me. Because of that, I left my country. I chose Canada because it was one of the countries that ratified the Geneva Convention.

Forgive me, I am somewhat stressed. I have been waiting a long time for this opportunity.

I have been here a long time. I have been here for five years, one month and several days, struggling all the time. I am always being pushed from one side to another to another. I had a wife. I don't have her anymore. I had four children. I don't know where they are. This is a photo of my children. This is the last photo I have of them. I don't know where they are. I don't know my little girl, the youngest, and she does not know me either. I don't know where they are. My wife was raped before she was killed. I learned that from a reliable source. I cannot get in touch with my country because I'm afraid that those who are still alive could be persecuted or killed. I have two young cousins who were killed. My nephew lost part of his leg to shrapnel. Mr. Chairman, this is all very painful.

I come here, and I find myself persecuted. Today, even as we speak, I have a letter in which I'm being asked for the second time to leave Canada. I think I will have to leave in two weeks. That is nothing. The person who saw me said that I would have to leave this time, because it was the second time that Canada denied me acceptance. I will be delivered to the authorities of my country. That is an extradition. I thank the Canadian authorities very much for that.

I will go, but I will ask to be killed in front of witnesses, in front of my family and in front of journalists. That way, at least, they will bear witness for future generations. I am not talking here for myself today. I am just one sample out of a given population. I'm talking to you on behalf of all those who have the same fate as myself, and on behalf of all those who are at risk of having the same fate as myself. I am not here to speak on my own behalf. I am almost dead already. That's not a problem. I'm speaking to you in order to save those who will come after me.

You see nothing. Things happen within the IRB. In this pamphlet, I read:

The IRB is the largest administrative tribunal in Canada. Its decisions directly affect the lives, liberty and security of the individuals who appear before it.

• 1250

This is a farce! Many people have died, and I also agree to die so that I can bear testimony. I will not take up any more of your precious time, but I would like to know what will happen. I came here, and I have been conned by legal advisers and immigration lawyers. I know how difficult it is, but I have a great many problems.

In this room, there is a lady who represents the UNHCR, Kim Mancini. I have cried in her office twice, but she cannot do anything. None of this is her fault: she is also subject to the rules.

The appeal system is almost non-existent. There is really no appeal system. You, Mr. Chairman, must learn to listen to those who are in direct contact with you: they are your ears, they are your eyes. They hear better and see better, and then they are no longer in close contact with you. If you do not listen to them, you throw us straight back into the ocean, straight back into the jaws of the sharks.

That is all I have to say. I had a great deal to say, but I cannot talk anymore. I have left this country many times. And these are my memories, my trophies. That's it. These are prison plates that I took. These are what I will give to my children, if I even find them alive somewhere.

I have written to President Jacques Chirac; I have the evidence with me. I have written to the UNHCR in Geneva; I have the evidence with me. There is nothing more I can do. I think that all I have left to wait for is death.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, sir. I know how difficult it must be for you to have to tell us this story. In fact, we've heard some very tragic stories in the past week of how the system either works for them or fails them. I don't want to get into your own personal case, because I don't have all of the information. I don't know why you were rejected the first time or the second time. I can understand your frustration, your fear. The system is supposed to work for people like you.

I came back from the Sudan myself about a week and a half or two weeks ago. I know that's not the Congo, but I understand the issues in Central Africa are of immense proportions, and I feel for what you have gone through. I hope and pray your family is well. I hope and pray that maybe there's a solution for you. I can't give you one right now.

All committee members are in the unfortunate position of only being able to hear of your story, a tragic story, and we really feel for you. We don't know about your individual case. I don't know whether or not you've talked to a member of Parliament about this matter. It's unfortunate that there are those people who would prey upon you, such as consultants and others we hear about. We're also looking at that.

So bear with us. I'll take your letter of rejection from the IRB, if you want to give it to me a little later. I'd be more than happy to at least look into the matter for you, if I can.

That said, we now have to move to questions, and I'll tell you why. I have people in Halifax waiting to talk to us too. We want to take the time to ask you questions, but we have some technical issues that I need to deal with too. Unfortunately, that's part of the problem of time. But we now have the opportunity of asking you some questions, as we did with the other group.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of you for being here today and presenting us with your comments and your statements. There's no doubt that we want to seek a balance and legislation that's pro-immigration. This is the second time we've heard that this bill has the potential of creating, or will create, a two-tier refugee process, which is un-Canadian, as told to us.

• 1255

As a former educator, when the system has problems...sometimes I wonder whether it's the system that needs fixing, in terms of human capital. Perhaps what we need to deal with is an educational or cultural change. I'm going to ask you whether the IRB, the whole board system, is flawed.

This morning, professors from the University of Montreal and Quebec gave us some advice that we should change the selection process, make it transparent, so that we know who's doing the selecting, what their functions are on the board, and who they're accountable to. Maybe it's time we did that, because it seems at this point, because of the old patronage system we're coming from—we're trying to change that—there's nothing on paper. The chair seems to be able to determine the way the system works.

So my question to you is, is the Immigration and Refugee Board the cause of a lot of these things we hear are occurring today?

The Chair: Who did you direct the question to? All of them?

Mr. Inky Mark: Sure, the lawyers.

The Chair: Stephan or Ron, anything to say?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: I would like to say, in response to Mr. Mark, that we completely approve and support Professor Crépeau's and Professor Houle's recommendations. We've been supporting them since 1998. They were presented to Madame Robillard. They've been presented several times, and we feel it is a proposal that merits serious attention.

Some people in this new bill will have very few steps. Some people get a lot of steps, but if the steps are administered by people without the proper competence and without the proper accountability—and accountability is a very important word—then it doesn't even matter. We have problems for people.... If you were to read some of the transcripts of some of the cases, the decision-making—and it's not even a question of whether the person, yes or no, is at risk, but based on what reasoning certain decisions were made.... For example, for certain countries, where there is a brutal dictatorship, you start with a general statement, “Well, democracy is now at work in this country.” You have a problem. How can you possibly do this?

We have problems, and we believe that Professor Crépeau's and Professor Houle's recommendations merit your serious consideration. I think we would all gain from it, and Canada, which wants to be the best country in the world, would certainly gain from it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Richard, any comments?

Mr. Richard Goldman: I'd like to say that I think the idea of the board is excellent—to have an expert tribunal that deals with the matter. I think the problem with Bill C-11 is the two- or multi-tiered system that has been created. Our recommendation, and that of many groups, is certainly not to scrap the IRB but to give the IRB jurisdiction over all admissibility matters, not senior immigration officers or adjudicators, and to restrict the eligibility clauses to the same ones as the refugee convention—but still with the IRB, and again supporting the comments of Professors Crépeau and Houle about the competence of the members.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for having left for several minutes. Some things leave us little choice.

I would just like to make a comment, since this will be almost the last opportunity we will have to comment on this bill in public. In my view, all committee members, regardless of their political stripe, are clearly committed to making major improvements to this bill, which everyone perceives to have significant deficiencies. Clearly, your testimony and your experiences, as well as the fact that you are our ears and our eyes, as the gentleman said—is very important to us.

That said, I would not like you to think that the process will be an easy one. Indeed it will be a very difficult one. But as committee members we will do everything we can. We will have to monitor developments.

• 1300

I have a question for you. It is not on the training or selection of commissioners. I think that the point was raised in a very convincing fashion, particularly this morning.

I would like to hear your views on the greater role given to immigration officers under Bill C-11. For all practical purposes, they will have enormous freedom. Would anybody like to comment on that?

Ms. Chantal Arsenault: As you probably know, the Canadian Bar Association has already put forward its position. Immigration officers will have disquieting powers. Under Bill C-11, they can make decisions that cannot be reviewed by an independent tribunal, as the bill now stands. This is very worrying indeed; we are all human beings, and cannot necessarily control all those who have access to people coming into the country. Under the bill, reviews would not be possible. But if this committee or those responsible for applying the legislation have good intentions, could they not ensure that those intentions are applied by people at the decision-making level? These powers worry us a great deal.

Ms. Hoori Hamboyan: If I might add to that, immigration officers made a very bad decision in the case of Mr. M'Barek, who was deported in spite of evidence that he would be tortured and ill-treated, or imprisoned. In spite of the evidence, immigration officers made the very bad decision of deporting him. He is now imprisoned in Tunisia, as we sit and discuss the system around this table. Very probably, he is being ill-treated and tortured. I have the press file, if you want to take a look at it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Goldman.

Mr. Richard Goldman: No.

The Chair: John McCallum.

[Translation]

Mr. John McCallum: I think I can save you some time, Mr. Chairman. As I have already said, I have been very enlightened by everything said around the table this week, including today, and we will all act in good faith by tabling the amendments I have already mentioned, and will not go through again.

I would just like to thank you for having come here today. I should also tell Mr. Goldman that I knew Irwin Cotler quite well, because I was at McGill University with him for seven years. We are now colleagues in Parliament, and I will certainly speak to him. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

John Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do appreciate Mr. Goldman's connection with the fact that Canada has signed on to a lot of international accords related to our human rights responsibilities. He even mentioned the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I know McGill claims the author, John Peters Humphrey, who is a native of Hampton, New Brunswick, my hometown, in the riding I represent.

Having said that, let's get down to business.

When we established the IRB, what we decided to say as a society is that when we're making decisions about people's lives and whether they will live or not, merely looking at a file wasn't sufficient. We had to look at human beings to be able to ask questions on the broad array of evidence and circumstances that are in play. What I'm shocked about is that this bill has taken us back decades in one aspect with respect to oral hearings.

• 1305

In the case we just heard about from the gentleman right now, we must be honest. If we had a file before us we would say, gee, that's a pretty tragic situation, but when you're put in front of a human being whose life is affected by it.... I would say that this committee really has to look very, very, very seriously at ensuring from the appeal processes that do remain in the bill—some have been lost...that they have to be not done in an antiquated way; they're going back to files.

Immigration and refugees' rights are human rights, and they're about people. So my comment was that I know you wanted a little bit more time to add something, so I might have about a minute and a half left. It's yours, if you want to add to this particular aspect.

The Chair: I'm in agreement totally with what you said, John, but whom are you asking?

Mr. John Herron: If Mr. Goldman wants to add something after...but I know there was a moment where you wanted to add something, and I'll let you take my time, even though it may just be short.

The Chair: The chairman has been very, very generous all week with regard to time and everything else. We've never been on time—ever—which is an indication that I'm very, very flexible in terms of hearing testimony.

Hoori, please.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

Ms. Hoori Hamboyan: Thank you for your generosity and for the committee's generosity.

What I wanted to add really was that I had more witnesses, and I think you would have also been very touched by their testimony. Two of them are sitting in the room with us today, one of whom is an Algerian who came to Canada and was recognized by the IRB as being a refugee. He has been awaiting for years the reunification of his family. He hasn't seen his son since he was an infant. His son is now nine years old.

I know there is une volonté on the part of the new bill to improve family reunification, but we're wondering how, practically speaking, the situation of this gentleman and all the others who are blocked, who are stuck, who are waiting for their family's arrival—how is that going to be improved?

The second thing I wanted to briefly mention is that another witness I have sitting in the room with us today is a Catholic Pakistani who was persecuted in his native country, and he has a deportation date now for May 8. He was refused by an IRB commissioner who is Pakistani himself and who has a strange pattern of refusing all the Pakistanis before him.

After having seen this pattern, we—the community organizations, lawyers, the refugee claimants—start wondering about the credibility of the IRB member and the fact that the refugee claimants—unfortunately we go back again to the problem of the appeal system—have no way of correcting clear errors that are being made in the judgments.

Thank you.

The Chair: Can I just make one comment? A lot of the members around this committee have been here for quite some time. In fact, we did a pre-study on the refugee determination system before this bill, and some of us, believe me, have very sad stories in every one of our communities. We've even met some refugees who have successfully gone through the system and who are waiting to successfully go through the system this week.

I can tell you that we've also attended IRB hearings, and in fact IRB and the government.... I would encourage every one of our members of Parliament to go to IRB hearings to see for themselves how the system works, what improvements can be made, the very thing about the competency of people, and everything else. But at the end of the day—and that's what this bill is all about—you talked about the reunification of family members that in fact have been given refugee status. We've heard about people in limbo who for four or five or eight years are still waiting to get their paperwork so that they can get their children and themselves into school.

Believe me, there's a lot in this bill that in fact is going to improve the present situation, and there are a lot of concerns, and that's what we're hearing—concerns. We want to hear about the concerns, but unfortunately, when you start talking about the negative aspects of one bill, one seems to forget that there are an awful lot of positive aspects to this particular bill that I think are very, very important.

I want to ask a question to Mr. Goldman. You've given us a very good diagram of how that system is either getting more complicated or less multi-tiered or single-tiered. In your estimation, based on our present law, with regard to the refugee determination system and some of the other improvements in Bill C-11, what would be your solution to ensuring that we have the most fair, equitable system of making sure people can go through the IRB as they do now; that they may have an opportunity for a second claim; that there are appeal mechanisms, oral and otherwise, built into the system; and that there's a protection that we won't send people back to a place where in fact their life will be in danger by virtue of our support of the convention against torture?

• 1310

That diagram was very useful and constructive. What would be your diagram? What diagram would you put before us, as someone who is very experienced in the thing, as to something that we should adopt?

Mr. Richard Goldman: Well, there are probably five or six very fundamental things that could improve about 90% of the system.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Richard Goldman: First of all, restricting all non-eligibility matters to the ones that are already covered in the refugee convention, placing the determination of that in the hands of the IRB, improving the quality of the selection process along the lines of what Maîtres Crépeau and Houle have suggested, a full appeal on the merits with a right to an oral hearing, and for everyone who is refused a full review of the risk based on all the criteria, with all evidence—not just new evidence or some of the strange rules that are in there; all evidence available—being able to be presented.

The Chair: And should there be a PRA?

Mr. Richard Goldman: Yes, there should, but everyone who.... First of all, everyone should get to go to the IRB, okay, and everyone who is refused should have access to a full PRA, based on all the criteria—person at risk and refugee convention.

The Chair: Who should do the PRA? CIC or IRB?

Mr. Richard Goldman: Ideally, the IRB.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much for those.

Yolande.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I would like to make a few comments before we go. We have just spent a week travelling across Canada, as you know, and I would like to make a few remarks to the National Association of Wowen and the Law.

Ladies, I would like you to know that your demands are not falling on deaf ears. If there is one thing I have understood this week, it is just how disadvantaged women are under our current immigration laws in Canada, particularly domestic employees.

This may be the point that illustrates what's going on most clearly. Women must be part of a program that is fairly repugnant, because it is the only way they have to immigrate to Canada. Generally, a single woman or a woman with children and no husband, except in very rare cases, simply does not have the money to immigrate to Canada.

So rest assured that... Did you send us this? Thank you. Please rest assured that we will read it carefully and use it.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead, Andrée.

[Translation]

Ms. Andrée Côté: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Thibeault, I was very pleased to hear your comments. I think that, in the past, we have tended to overlook the situation of immigrant women. I hope that the government will take its domestic and international commitments seriously, and review every aspect of the final legislation from the perspective of women's status. It has committed to conducting gender-based analyses as part of its domestic and international programs. In my view, this is urgent.

In respect to the sponsoring of immigrant women, you will see in the report... This is the first broad-ranging report on the issue prepared in Canada. We have conducted a socio-anthropological study. We have interviewed sponsored women. We have worked a great deal with women's groups. We have done legal searches that showed how the system exacerbates the historical inequality of women within marriage.

In some cases, the system even introduces inequality into the heretofore sound and egalitarian relationship of a couple. When a woman is sponsored by her husband, it is as if she provided him with a lever, a tool he can use to abuse his power. The result is extremely negative. That is why we recommend that spouses do not sponsor each other. The sponsorship issue is redundant; there are family obligations between spouses, and the sponsorship mechanism need not be used. Sponsored women—and you will see testimony to that effect in the report—feel they are second-class citizens, and say so very clearly. They are vulnerable to abuse, and the sponsorship constitutes a major obstacle to their equality.

• 1315

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlène Dubuisson-Balthazar: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to share the concerns of the multicultural community.

We have a problem. Young people who come here at the age of 5 or 6 are educated in the Canadian system. Then they are deported to their countries without that fact being taken into account.

We would like to ask you to consider this issue. Even though they may not be threatened with torture as such in their country of origin, it is still inhuman for mothers and fathers to see their 15, 16 and 17-year old children return to their countries when they have committed a crime that carries a two-year prison sentence. We would therefore ask you to consider this issue and amend the bill accordingly. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. I see no other questions. Oh, yes, Chantal.

Ms. Chantal Arsenault: I would just like to make a general comment for the whole process.

I think as Canadians we've always been very proud of our reputation on an international level, being a country of rights, being a country open to multiculturalism. But I think it's our responsibility, as members of Parliament and the society itself, to keep up with the reputation, and that's what we're asking to be done with the Immigration Act right now.

The Chair: At the end of the day, this is exactly what this committee wants to do. We want to make sure that we are very proud of the new immigration and refugee bill that we will pass. I think, as I've said before, that we have a proud history around the world in terms of immigration—one of the most generous in fact on a per capita basis around the world, and also on a refugee.... Where we want to go, now that we have the foundation, is to build a better home and a bigger tent for everyone to come into at night.

I can tell you, from what we've heard from across the country...it's not so much that I heard about the fact that we ought to worry about the .0001% criminal, but in fact we ought to celebrate the fact that 99.9999% of the people who come here by choice, by immigration or because they want protection, in fact want to celebrate the fact that they're coming into Canada. We as a country want to celebrate that too.

I want to thank each and every one of you for your input. The fact is that we have heard from everyone who has asked us to be heard from Montreal, and this committee will continue in the next weeks to go through clause-by-clause.

Thank you very much. I now have to get connected to Nova Scotia, if we could, so thank you all for your hard work and input.

The meeting is adjourned.