CIMM Committee Report

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the need to improve border practices. However, such changes, like the ones we targeted in the debates on bills C-36 and C-42, must not flout Canada’s and Quebec’s fundamental values and principles, particularly with respect to the rights and freedoms of each citizen. The Bloc Québécois has a duty to point out that our laws must be dictated by our priorities and our values as set down in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

For Quebeckers, control of immigration is an essential tool for Quebec’s development and prosperity. We believe the Quebec government must participate actively in any negotiations with the United States on immigration practices, because our ability to manage our own immigration, and thereby the development of our society, are at stake.

Recommendation regarding a safe third country agreement with the United States.

In the Global Consultations on International Protection report on asylum processes, recommendations were made regarding the concept of safe third countries:

"Ultimately, the effective operation of such mechanisms is dependent upon closer harmonization among States parties in the actual application of asylum policies and procedures, as well as on equitable burden and responsibility-sharing mechanisms."

Such an agreement would inevitably imply harmonization of our refugee policies with those of the United States. Despite the fact that both countries have signed the Geneva Convention on Refugees, our policies differ fundamentally from each other, as the Chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada pointed out when he appeared before the Committee:

"The IRB Chairperson, Peter Showler, appeared before the Committee and addressed the differences in the Canadian and American refugee determination systems. Beginning with the observation that the American asylum system is considerably more complicated than ours, Mr Showler noted that:

• People may prefer to claim refugee status in Canada for personal reasons. For example, they may have family here or they may be Francophone.

• More claimants are detained in the U.S. than in Canada.

• The American hearing process for asylum claims in the immigration court is an adversarial process; that is, a lawyer appears on behalf of the government to oppose the claim. In Canada, a refugee hearings officer appears at the hearing to question the witnesses and assist the decision-maker, but our process is considered to be non-adversarial."

A number of countries, despite their respect for human rights, have neither the same criteria nor the same approach when it comes to refugee selection. A safe third country agreement could pull the rug out from under the feet of a number of refugees seeking asylum in Canada or Quebec who had had the misfortune than to pass through the "wrong" countries on their way here. We may well wonder about the repercussions of such agreements on the compassionate values so dear to Canadians and Quebeckers.

Harmonization of Canadian and U.S. visa requirement policies.

While harmonizing visa requirements is desirable, this cannot be done without including the elements that justify the existing rules. In our opinion, the process cannot be undertaken without a comprehensive review of visa delivery policies in the two countries.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the recommendation "That the governments of Canada and the U.S. be more proactive about encouraging the flow of information and the coordination of intelligence efforts at all levels. If privacy and disclosure laws prove to be impediments to information flow, the countries should consider amending the legislation in question and/or negotiating new bilateral agreements to facilitate information sharing."

We are justifiably concerned about the proliferation of legislative measures giving the Minister excessive powers to control information, without due regard for privacy.

From the very outset of the debates on bills C-42 and C-44, the Bloc Québécois has deplored the absence of guidelines governing what information can be disclosed to foreign governments. Although the nature of the information is governed by regulations, we feel the need to voice our deep reservations with regard to the authorities having access to this information, and its possible uses.

The current legislation and certain agreements already permit the sharing of information pertaining the security of the governments in question. However, it is important to point out that privacy and disclosure laws are not "impediments" to security; they are a fundamental right of every citizen.

Therefore, the last sentence of the recommendation should be deleted. The recommendation should end with "[…], in compliance with the Privacy Act".

We find several other recommendations to pose problems in terms of their wording.

The expression "flights identified as problematic" in the recommendation concerning disembarkation teams should be replaced with "where deemed necessary".

Establishment of longer-term detention facilities

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the detention of refugee claimants in the same place as common-law criminals. It is therefore important to find a location where refugee claimants alone would be detained.

However, we believe that a refugee claimant’s detention should not exceed the time required for the inquiry, and that the expression "longer term" should be deleted.

More staff

The following recommendation should be included:

That the government hire IRB members using a transparent process and that the candidates be selected on the basis of their skills and abilities.

The Bloc Québécois considers that any changes to the refugee claim procedure must be aimed at guaranteeing the integrity of the refugee determination process. It must be borne in mind that obtaining refugee status is sometimes an issue of life or death for the claimant. It is therefore essential that the practice of making political appointments to the IRB be ended and that a transparent appointment and renewal procedure be followed ensuring complete impartiality and a decision based on the candidates’ professional experience and expertise, not on their political affiliations, as is frequently the case at the moment.