CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 3, 2001

• 1400

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My apologies for being a half hour late, but we were an hour late from the morning session.

Thank you very much for taking the time to send in your briefs and attend with us this afternoon. We'd ask you to give us a five- to seven-minute summary of what's in your brief so that we can ask you some questions.

We'll start with the Windsor Refugee Office. We have Helen Petrimoulx.

Welcome, Helen. Go ahead.

Ms. Helen Petrimoulx (Refugee Coordinator, Windsor Refugee Office): Thank you.

I represent the Windsor Refugee Office. Our mandate is to assist refugee claimants and convention refugees. It's sponsored by the Roman Catholic Diocese of London. There are only three organizations in Windsor that have funded positions to help refugee claimants, for a total of two and one-half positions.

Windsor is a major point of entry for refugee claimants.

I want to focus initially on the bill, which eliminates the possibility of a second claim.

I was here this morning and heard some sympathy within the committee for hearing a second claim. But I also realized that there is a lot of criticism of what is termed Canada's “revolving door” of the second claim. I propose that in responding to that criticism, what this bill does in order to respond to abuses of the revolving door is eliminate the door entirely.

I hope to give you some profiles of people, actual people I know, who have made second claims.

Circumstances may change in people's lives, and this is a rationale that presents new grounds and a genuine need for protection. Country conditions can change and place people in need of protection, and thus there is the necessity for a new claim.

As well, the elimination of any possibility of making a second refugee claim will harm women in particular who didn't have an opportunity in the first claim to explain their persecution because their spouse was the principal applicant. You might say, how can this happen? It does happen, and frequently. This can occur simply because they are not asked by the lawyer or the IRB if they have their own grounds, or they are not taken into a separate room by the lawyer and asked if they have their own separate grounds, or because they are intimidated or traumatized due to cultural factors.

The first standing committee was originally slated to appear in Windsor in the fall, and at that time I had a refugee claimant who was successful in his second claim, who was willing to appear before the standing committee. His full-time employer will not allow him to come all the way to Toronto, so I bring you his story.

His name is Guillermo. He's a refugee from Colombia who received a positive answer on his second claim. His claim is based on perceived political opinion, death threats, and extortion from FARC, the guerrilla movement.

When his first claim was denied, he returned to Colombia. Back in Colombia, he was in the same danger from FARC. He fled Colombia again and returned after 90 days—which is supposed to be eliminated—with a document from the ministry of the interior in Colombia confirming that he was pursued by FARC and that the Colombian government was unable to protect him. At his second hearing, he was granted convention refugee status.

• 1405

This man was lucky indeed on two counts. Not everyone who flees their country has the time or the opportunity to receive such a document from the government, as he did, confirming his persecution. Not everyone succeeds in fleeing from the guerrillas a second time. He knows he's lucky.

He asked me to convey to you today the following quote from him. He would have said it much more passionately than I:

Without a second chance to make another claim, I would be a dead man today. Please do not take away the opportunities that refugees have now to make a second claim.

In my second example, a Muslim woman from Lebanon and her 18-year-old daughter were refused refugee status. Her claim was gender persecution from a husband who is a militant extremist. While waiting for the answer from the IRB, her 18-year-old daughter was married in Canada to an Iraqi Christian. Word got back to her husband in Lebanon what his daughter had done. The husband sent threatening letters, including a fatwa, as to what he would do to his daughter and wife. After 90 days in Detroit, following their departure order, they made a new claim based on this additional information.

When I asked her what she would say to the committee today, her message was:

They didn't believe me the first time because all I had was my word and my story. What will happen to people now if things get worse? They won't be able to come back to Canada and be heard again.

The first case was the same basis for refugee claim; he had to go back and suffer again. The second one is new information. They don't all fall under the same category.

Some might say when you debate this in Parliament, well, we have the pre-removal risk assessment and that will take care of returning refugee claimants who want a second claim. But they are not eligible even for the pre-removal risk assessment until return after one year. Guerrilla movements and danger do not work within those tidy timelines.

As well, the PRRA cannot be a substitute for a second hearing. It's on paper only. You cannot judge credibility, suffering, and persecution on paper, and the risk assessments will be evaluating the same risks as the IRB.

In terms of family reunification, which is the last point in my brief, I would like to speak to the fact that the bill proposes to bar from family sponsorship people who are on social assistance. I maintain, and so do many organizations, that family unity is a basic right, and it needs to be ensured in the bill. Women, more than men, are single parents and are in situations where they have to rely on social assistance.

In Windsor, the day care waiting lists are prohibitive. As well, subsidized day care is but a dream.

Ironically, this regulation would in some cases prevent people from becoming economically established in Canada were their spouses able to join them. So the very thing you want to attain is being countermanded by this section of the bill.

As well, many refugees who come here are fleeing persecution, and they arrive not knowing one of our languages, English or French, or without a skill that's translatable right away to the Canadian workplace. So they are put at a disadvantage to qualify.

I've finished.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Helen, and thank those two refugee claimants for us for fortunately enough being able to tell us their own story. Originally we wanted to be in Windsor, when we were planning under Bill C-31. But convey our best regards, and thank them sincerely for telling us their stories through you.

• 1410

Ms. Helen Petrimoulx: Thank you.

The Chair: Now we'll move to the National Association of Career Colleges, Paul Kitchin.

Welcome, Paul. Nice to see you again.

Mr. Paul Kitchin (Executive Director, National Association of Career Colleges): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank you and the committee members for the opportunity to participate in the round table today.

I must first apologize for not having a written brief for you, but we will be submitting one shortly with all the elements we'll be discussing today.

A prime concern to our association and our members is the issue of international students. I'll go back and talk about our association and who we represent, and then I'll come forward again to this issue.

The National Association of Career Colleges is a non-profit organization that was established about 105 years ago, in 1896, to represent private post-secondary educational institutions in this country. We now have close to 500 members that provide post-secondary programming, primarily to Canadian students. They are extremely interested in international students, and many are actively engaged in trying to recruit them.

These institutions are private enterprises. They do not get subsidies from any level of government for operating or capital costs. They are quite unlike public community colleges or universities.

They offer programs at the post-secondary level, career-oriented programs that lead to diplomas and give graduates the full set of skills they need to enter the careers of their choice. These institutions and their programs are registered, licensed, and regulated by provincial acts and regulations, and they're required to put up annual consumer protection bonds. So the sector I'm talking about is very heavily regulated.

As I mentioned, the students at this time are primarily Canadian. More than 100,000 students a year are trained through the private post-secondary sector, so it's a fairly significant part of our post-secondary system. Recent numbers from the Canada student loans program indicate that 30% of their new applicants and recipients are attending private career colleges.

At this point, we estimate that about 3% of students attending career colleges are international students. We believe there's an incredible potential for growth in that area and that we have the ability to attract more international students to study in Canada.

That brings me to the specific issue I want to discuss. I know you've heard from other witnesses about the issue of processing time for student visas and medicals, etc., so I won't get into that. But back in 1988, the government put a measure in place that allowed international students studying in Canada to apply for three types of employment validation exemptions.

The first would allow international students to work on-campus while they're studying, and the second would allow the spouse to work while his or her international student spouse was studying in Canada. The third, which is probably the most important to our sector, allows graduates of a program to stay in Canada for one year after graduation to work in an area related to their area of study before going back home. Currently that measure is available to international students studying at community colleges and at universities, but unfortunately, it absolutely excludes students attending career colleges.

So this sets up inequitable treatment of a sector of international students, and it also clearly puts the important sector of post-secondary education in Canada at a competitive disadvantage, both with our own Canadian public institutions and, probably more importantly, with public and private institutions from other countries, such as Australia or the U.K., which are recruiting international students very aggressively.

• 1415

I think this flies in the face of some of the department's stated goals. In the past they've said they would like to have consistent service and to eliminate unnecessary barriers that impede the marketing activities of Canada's post-secondary institutions.

This also contrasts with the equitable treatment our Canadian students receive from public and private institutions, and with the practices of some other federal departments. For example, students attending certain programs at designated private career colleges can apply for Canada student loans. And the recent millennium scholarships are available to students at career colleges.

We've been asked to be involved in a number of national committees that involve both public and private institutions, so there seems to be a level playing field in a lot of those areas. Industry Canada has invited us to participate in the world education market event in British Columbia later this month. And last November, we were invited to be part of the Canadian village at the commonwealth conference of education ministers in Halifax.

But for some reason, a policy does not exist on international students and their right to stay on in the country to get the experience they need to go back. So we are seeking your support and assistance to see that this policy gets changed—to allow for equitable treatment of international students, and to allow our sector to be able to compete on a level playing field in the market for international students.

I'll conclude my remarks there, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul, for those comments. Your association deserves our gratitude and congratulations for providing those young people with the opportunities they want and need to achieve their full potential. Thank you for your good work, and your association's.

For Neighbourhood Legal Services, we have Marnie Hayes. Welcome, Marnie.

Ms. Marnie Hayes (Community Legal Worker, Interclinic Immigration Working Group): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you very much for inviting us here this afternoon to share our views with you.

I actually represent the Interclinic Immigration Working Group, which is a group of legal clinics that meets in Toronto. But a number of clinics around the province do systemic advocacy, education, and representation in the area of immigration and refugee law.

We are also members of the Coalition for a Just Immigration and Refugee Policy—you have our brief. If anybody doesn't have it, please let me know. This is a grassroots community-based coalition of more than 75 groups—I have a list of those groups for your information.

The Chair: It was provided to us yesterday.

Ms. Marnie Hayes: Good. As more groups read the brief, more people are signing on. So we can send you the new list as it's updated.

What I want to focus on today, as I've been asked to by the lawyers and legal workers at the Interclinic Working Group, are the humanitarian and compassionate provisions in Bill C-11. I'll explain what happens under the agency and why we're concerned.

I'll touch on that briefly, and also on the provision that people on social assistance will be barred from sponsoring spouses and dependent children.

Because I'm a community legal worker in a neighbourhood-based community legal clinic, I see immigrants and refugees on a daily basis. I'm an advocate for immigrants and refugees, handling hundreds of cases a year. In our clinic, one of the things we do a lot is to represent people, make applications for landing, on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

• 1420

I'm just going to explain briefly what that is.

As you're aware, normally the 200,000-odd immigrants per year who come to Canada—whether family class, independent, or entrepreneurial—apply from outside the country. The rule is that you apply from outside and you're given a visa to come inside.

Well, the humanitarian and compassionate provision is an exception to that rule. Currently, it allows the minister to consider applications to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It's not an easy test: applicants have to prove that if they're removed from Canada, or have to leave Canada and apply from outside, they would suffer great hardship.

Anybody who's in Canada can apply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds: refused refugee claimants, for example, or people who missed the deadline for the risk assessment, or people who were refused at the Immigration and Refugee Board. Perhaps they appealed, but as you're aware, only 10% are given leave for judicial review.

So these people have somehow fallen through the cracks here, but there's still a risk to them if they go back to their home countries. As Helen said, maybe the conditions have changed and they can't leave to make a second claim, but they really do face a risk. They can apply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It's the last kick at the can for them. A number of my clients have applied and been accepted, because theirs have been very compelling cases.

Further, the decision in the 1984 Supreme Court case of Jiminez Perez said that the minister is under a duty to consider all these applications. This is what we're concerned about.

Let me get to the crux here. Our brief quotes clause 25 of Bill C-11, where it says:

The Minister may, in the Minister's discretion, examine the circumstances concerning a foreign national

—I understand you object to that term as well—

who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements

Now we are extremely concerned that the section begins with the words “the Minister may, in the Minister's discretion”. On the face of it, it looks as if this interpretation...given the fact that there are no regulations in place, we have no idea what they will say or how they will be interpreted.

As well, you may recall that the 1998 white paper stated that the government's proposal was to limit humanitarian and compassionate applications. For example, refugee claimants who were refused would only have a 30-day window to apply. That was proposed back in 1998 and hasn't been mentioned since, but we're concerned that it could come back to haunt us. Because of the broad regulation-making power, anything could go in there.

So the wording of the present act, and the Jiminez Perez case I mentioned, mean that everybody currently has the right to have access to the minister's discretion. But now that could change.

There's already quite a low success rate for humanitarian and compassionate applications, and we submit that any further restrictions could result in very deserving and legitimate cases being denied the right to be heard. As it stands now, our agency process is designed for people who don't fit into any category, who have fallen through the cracks. As I said, this is their last kick at the can.

We want to make sure the Immigration Act has a human face, that it's not just categories of people, but that there is a mechanism requiring the minister or immigration officer, by law, to consider these cases at his or her discretion.

Our recommendation, as we mentioned in the brief, is that the current application should not be limited or reduced in any way. It wouldn't be hard to redraft the bill; you'd just have to take the “may” out. Instead of “the Minister may consider”, it should be changed to, “the Minister shall consider”. That would have the same effect, as I've said three or four times now, as the status quo.

• 1425

The other thing, just for your information, is that it costs $500 for people to make an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. That, for some people, can be extremely limiting. We want to recommend also that this fee be reduced.

Very briefly, with regard to the way in which the bill is drafted, speaking on the positive side, there are, besides “The Minister may, in the Minister's discretion”, good things about that clause. The effect of the wording is that anybody who's inadmissible will now not be forced to apply for a minister's permit, but the minister, in her discretion, may actually land somebody. So that's a good thing. There are a couple of other good things about that clause, but I'm just pointing out the discretionary nature of it.

Finally, one of the good things that could be made better concerns the reference to considerations relating to the “best interests of the child directly affected”. That's good, but it doesn't say the primary interest of the child, or that the rights of the child should be of primary consideration in all decisions. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child does say that in all government-related things concerning children, children's rights shall be the primary consideration. So I'd ask you to consider redrafting the bill to add that it be of primary consideration.

Those are our comments regarding the humanitarian and compassionate process. I'll leave it open for questions at the end.

I also want to briefly touch on the issue of family class sponsors on social assistance. This is another area. We could have talked about many things on the bill, but we had only five to seven minutes. H and C and this other issue are of extreme concern to us.

As well as having in my drawer dozens of files of humanitarian and compassionate applications, I see many people who call me and ask for advice and representation, or some people—not many, but some people—who are on social assistance and want to sponsor a spouse or a child. There are situations where that happens.

I want to tell you that currently it's not an automatic right for them to sponsor their spouse or dependent child. It's very discretionary. An officer has to look at the application and decide whether or not there are adequate settlement arrangements for the sponsored immigrants. It's discretionary on the part of the officer and in many cases it may be turned down. It may be accepted, though, because of the factors or the circumstances of the case. It's looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Further, if the officer refuses this application, the applicant, or the sponsor, has the right to appeal the decision. At the appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, there are cases where, because there are good, compelling, humanitarian, equitable considerations, or other considerations, these cases are overturned. But it's a step-by-step, case-by-case process. It's not an automatic right. As a mechanism, I think it's very important.

For example, I have a client right now who is a convention refugee. She's here with her daughter and her husband is in Sri Lanka. She did not choose to have him concurrently processed as a convention refugee, as is her right. She took him off the application—she was given bad legal advice, basically—and she was landed. Now she's applying to sponsor him as a family class sponsor.

She's on social assistance. He's the main breadwinner. She has some real problems around stress and depression, etc., psychological problems. She's sick. She can't work. Currently, she could apply to sponsor him, and that case may be accepted at the end of the day. He would come here, he would get a job, and she'd get off social assistance. That's the way the system works now.

Well, if it's by rote law that, no, nobody ever can apply to sponsor a close family member—a spouse or a child—who is on social assistance, that will close the way to the maybe few people who have to do it, and cause great and terrible hardship for some people. I just want to flag that issue for you and ask you—beg you—to consider changing that, because you would further alleviate some suffering that could take place.

Those are my comments. I'm being cut off, so I guess my five minutes are up.

• 1430

The Chair: It was more like ten minutes, Marnie.

Ms. Marnie Hayes: Sorry about that. Thank you very much for listening.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Fred Franklin, welcome.

Mr. Fred Franklin (Member, Toronto Refugee Affairs Council): Thank you for having me appear. My name is Fred Franklin. I'm on the executive of TRAC and I'm the coordinator of our detention committee.

TRAC, very briefly, was formed in the early eighties to be a forum for exchanging information and promoting cooperation. TRAC is today an umbrella organization of approximately 24 community-based agencies and legal clinics. It organizes seminars and workshops, co-chairs IRB-NGO sessions, and runs our detention committee, which supervises Chuck, a part-time worker at the immigration holding centre. I'll restrict my remarks to mostly detention matters.

We are also members of the CCR and the Coalition for a Just Immigration and Refugee Policy. We would concur with many of the issues there. Many of the things that Marnie states we can simply reinforce.

I base my presentation on our written submission before you. Some of the local background is contained in our newsletter, which I've attached. It gives a lot of local context in terms of what's happening around the jails here.

Our submission states our general concerns—I'm sure you have heard these before—with regard to the spirit of the bill, which we say contradicts Canada's claim and historical reality of welcoming and integrating newcomers from very diverse backgrounds. The bill reflects an unhealthy preoccupation with criminality, etc.—you've heard this before—and a suspicion of people from other countries. We look at people, those who are in detention and otherwise, in the eye, and we see them as human beings. They're in a predicament. Not everyone wants to take advantage of Canada. Most people don't. The occasional one will.

As well, it seems to ignore that Canada is a country of immigrants, and new Canadian immigrants have helped build this country. Somehow that is lost in this preoccupation with criminality.

But enough of that. I want to use the time with you to convey items of direct personal experience related to detention issues. Two areas have direct bearing on the bill.

On page 2 of our submission, we urge you to recommend that immigration powers to detain not be widened. We have seen that detaining can skew or adversely affect the Refugee Determination Board or any other process subsequently. That's putting the one detained in an undeservedly disadvantaged position.

I've said many times that, once detained, it's a strike against the person. He or she cannot properly prepare his or her case, etc. That in itself is negative. So we urge you not to widen those powers.

We give some examples in our brief of using these powers at the airport to extend the initial interviews. This has happened. Certain SIOs, senior immigration officers, get carried away and conduct a quasi-hearing. It's supposed to be just an initial interview but goes on and on. People have gone to Celebrity, but because they didn't get through in time, they are brought back again the following morning in handcuffs, the works.

It's just one of the things that happens routinely there already. They don't need extra grounds to be encouraged to do that. Their job is to do an initial interview. And that's just one example. They have all the power they need under the present act, and they don't need any more.

• 1435

The second recommendation coming out of the long experience of myself and my colleagues is the pressing need for an independent complaints mechanism that the detainees can turn to without fear of reprisals. We have asked for this before, but it has never happened.

I say here in my brief that investigation by Immigration of the conduct of some of their officers isn't very satisfactory. It's much better to clear the air by having an independent, outside investigation of the matter.

I cite a number of incidents, things that we've observed in detention. I am very close to that, and the stories of people in detention are quite helpless. At Celebrity, where we are, we are a presence and we try to provide orientation about their situation in the process, about detention reviews, etc.

In the jails, we are very thin. We try to help the most desperate cases, and they are people at the end of the process. I say here—I'm off my text, but this is on the second half of page 2 and on page 3 of the submission—that there are all kinds of reasons in the jail to say people are at Celebrity, at the immigration detention hotel. But many are in provincial jails, mostly at the West Detention Centre, and lately, unfortunately, also in Millbrook. Because Corrections did not want to vacate the space for almost a hundred people on immigration hold, forty of them have gone to Millbrook—you see that in my newsletter—where they are quite out of touch with their support base group. We are very concerned about their right to due process, to legal assistance. It has been very difficult to do that. I have managed very few.

Also, abuse has occurred at Millbrook. I don't have it in my brief, but one person died, although we still don't know quite how. Two people I know personally have been beaten up. There are very few coloured people in that area, so it's a novelty. Racism is allowed, and there is no comeback for that.

For all those reasons, we urge for some such mechanism.

I'm just highlighting the examples, so I'm jumping around. I'm now on the top of the third page.

I've just been in touch with a person in jail who is Salvadoran. He was landed long ago, before 1998, and he has suddenly been accused of having committed crimes—God knows what—in El Salvador. He didn't know about this. His lawyer is not very competent. I'm just trying to see if he can get any support to defend himself. If he cannot pay for an experienced lawyer—legal aid is very unlikely at this point—he will have the greatest difficulty gathering any material to defend himself. That's just the latest example.

There are many people quite abandoned in there who are in real danger should they be returned. That is why we keep on repeating, along with the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees and the Canadian Council for Refugees, that there must be some way they can get redress.

In most cases, deportation is not the solution. We know of forced deportation attempts in which the victim, scared out of his wits, struggled or attempted suicide, and in which the airline pilot finally refused to fly him. It is in these cases that we feel there must be a process so that this does not happen.

• 1440

I've included the original report from one of those group deportations that happened two years ago.

Another one occurred from here just recently—of three people. I knew them all, one in particular. They're not all criminals. They weren't in the first transport.

If you have anything to say, urge the department not to use that method. We don't do that in Canada—torture people like that. There must be ways of checking.

These and similar occurrences in other centres or prisons—and this is not the only one; I've mentioned two, and also in Montreal—have moved some of us to ask for an immigration ombudsman.

I ask again at this time that an independent ombudsman position or complaints bureau be established under the act. This is a new thing, but we urgently need it for our own self-respect, I think—a place where detainees can turn without fear of reprisal. In jail, if you complain, you get beaten up some more. Also, they don't dare complain to an immigration officer. That is all I want to say—to urge for the establishment of some such mechanism.

Finally, and this is not useful right now, Toronto West Detention Centre is quite close to here. I was hoping maybe I could invite some of you for a site visit, because it is right around the corner, to talk to some of the people, which would be much more effective than any of my talking. But there doesn't seem to be time. But, as you know, MPs are entitled to visit these institutions anytime.

The Chair: Fred, thank you for the offer. It's unfortunate that we have to move on to the next city to hear.... Perhaps some members of the committee may very well take you up on your offer. So thank you, Fred, for your presentation.

Now we'll go to Devashish Wadke.

Mr. Devashish Wadke (Individual Presentation): Thank you, members of the committee, for having me speak here. I'd like to just go over the one-page summary, so we will keep it short, to within about five to seven minutes. I have the detailed brief submitted as well.

Basically, as an individual Canadian permanent resident, I have some concerns about some of the sections of this bill. What I'd like to do is summarize the clauses and the concerns.

First, subclause 15(3), which is titled “Inspection”, should be amended to allow an officer to carry out pre-arrival examination of Canada-bound individuals in a foreign country to determine admissibility to Canada. This will actually grant statutory authority to the officers already placed in some of the countries and will assist twofold. First, it will assist genuine asylum-seekers to enter Canada. It will facilitate their entry. In addition, criminal elements from a foreign country can be stopped in that foreign country itself.

The second suggestion is that subclause 15(3) again, titled “Inspection”, be amended to create an exception from inspection for passengers in direct transit to a foreign country through a controlled transit zone in Canada, subject to the foreign country providing similar measures to passengers destined to Canada.

This has already been signed and assented to in Bill S-22 on June 17, 1999, in agreement with the U.S. This will eliminate a costly waste of manpower resources for inspection, baggage handling, and the like for individuals who are not entering Canada but merely transiting. It will provide a faster, efficient, and effortless transit, not only to individuals transiting through Canada, but also to Canadians returning home and transiting to the countries with which there exists such a reciprocal agreement. Such a project is presently being carried out as a pilot at Vancouver International Airport for the benefit of U.S.-bound passengers, but to my knowledge there is no such reciprocal project for Canada-bound passengers.

My third point is that a new criterion for compliance of permanent residency obligations be added to subclause 28(2), basically stating that a permanent resident who is outside Canada for the purpose of full-time study or practical training in his or her profession be deemed to comply with the residency obligation. This will allow permanent residents to seek the quality education they would like to have and that will eventually benefit Canadian industry or government service.

• 1445

My next point is that a new criterion for the compliance of permanent residency be also added to the same paragraph, 28(2)(a), stating that a permanent resident who is outside Canada for the purpose of specialized medical treatment, which is not available in Canada, or for the treatment of a spouse, child, parent, or sibling be deemed to comply with this residency obligation.

The next point is that a new criterion for compliance of permanent residency obligations be again added to the same paragraph, 28(2)(a), stating that a permanent resident who is outside Canada for the purpose of employment with an international organization, as defined in the regulations, and of which Canada is a part or which Canada actively supports, be deemed to comply with the residency obligation. So permanent residents who work for organizations such as the United Nations or the World Health Organization should be exempt. This is similar to what the U.K. presently has in their immigration act.

My next point is that clause 42, titled “Inadmissible family member”, be revised to state specific grounds of inadmissibility that apply to the accompanying or non-accompanying family member. The wording in the clause is so vague that it can create cruel and unusual punishment in certain cases. I've listed three examples. I'm going to state just one.

Consider hypothetically, for example, an individual arriving as an immigrant for landing who's accompanied by a sibling who merely wants to visit Canada, help the immigrant settle, and then return home. If the visiting sibling is deemed inadmissible, then under this provision the immigrant is deemed inadmissible as well and cannot seek permanent residency through no fault of the immigrant.

My next point is that paragraph 72(2)(b) be revised to change the time limit of 15 days for the filing of an application for judicial review for a matter arising in Canada to at least 20 days. Judicial reviews are serious issues, and in some cases 15 days may be too short a period.

My next point is that paragraph 78(j), allowing a judge to admit evidence that is normally inadmissible in a court of law, should be deleted. In all fairness, this paragraph should contain those established legal principles followed in a court of law, which should also be followed at a time of judicial review.

My next point is that the language in subclause 122(2), titled “Proof of offence”, makes a person, in absence of evidence to the contrary, guilty of intending to contravene the act if he or she possesses an altered document. The language here should be clarified to exclude documents altered by a competent authority. This will eliminate an individual from being punished for possessing a document—for example, a badly made foreign passport—that was altered by a competent authority of the issuing foreign country.

As an exhibit I have my own issued passport, which is pretty bad. If you can see, on the last page the passport-issuing authority has made errors and corrections under my father's name. It's been scratched and rewritten under Madhukar Bholanadh Wadke. The “Bho” has all been scratched out. Such a document under this act would make me guilty of trying to contravene the act.

My next point is that a new criterion be added to subclause 148(1) to require the transportation lines to electronically or otherwise transmit passenger arrival, departure, manifests, and lists in advance to CCRA—Canada Customs and Revenue Agency—and CIC. This will speed up the inspection, enable officers to run the database checks that they normally do, and will basically expedite the process.

My next concern is that the types of removal orders, which are similar to the current act, should be spelled out in the new act and should not be left open to the regulations. Removal orders are an important, serious, and life-impacting issue and should be under the purview of a full parliamentary and public review, not simply left to an agency's rule-making. What disturbs me is that a lot of issues have been left to regulations and should have been spelled out in the act, and removal orders comprise just one of them.

• 1450

Besides the comments I have made so far, there are some minor ones that have been included in my brief, and I suggest that the members could review them. With this, I would like to conclude my presentation.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your input and your proposed amendments. You've obviously done an awful lot of work on this. As far as that Indian passport is concerned, maybe you should get them to correct it legally.

Mr. Devashish Wadke: I asked, and they said, sorry, we've issued it, we can't do it. That's why I was asking about the exception here.

The Chair: And Inky can't even get another one, because—

Mr. Devashish Wadke: No, because it's issued for ten years.

The Chair: No, I'm talking about Inky. He was telling me he can't even get his own redone, or whatever—but I'll let him tell the story.

Anyway, we'll go to questions. Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't talk about passports. Anyway, thank you for appearing here today.

I just want to read the title of this act, because I think it's important that we talk about it. It's called “an Act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger”. From all the evidence and all the witnesses we've heard over this last four days, I wonder if we're talking about the same document. I seriously mean that. The concerns are basically all the same. I think a lot of the things in here really don't do much to protect the refugees. It is supposed to protect our borders and make them more secure.

Anyway, what I want to say further is on the issue of international students. I think this country needs to realize that students are an asset. We've heard a number of presentations talking about how international students are really sold short. They are a $4 billion industry in our economy.

I certainly support independent complaint mechanisms. I tabled an amendment to look at an ombudsman provision. I think that needs to be in all legislation.

My question is, if you could make one change to this bill, what would it be? Maybe we could do a quick round-up here.

Mr. Devashish Wadke: Make it fair for some of the refugees—you've heard a lot about this in the last two days.

Mr. Inky Mark: We need you to be more specific in respect of the legislation—one point in the legislation.

The Chair: Helen.

Ms. Helen Petrimoulx: I would say ensure that the appeal process and the pre-removal risk assessment are clear protection. The process as written does not ensure protection. They're both on paper only. They're very vague in regard to protection, and they don't give me any assurance that people will be caught where bad decisions have been made at the IRB, that they will be ensured protection by an appeal.

The Chair: Marnie.

Ms. Marnie Hayes: It's very hard to say just one thing, and I almost want to say nothing, because I can't make a hierarchy of needs. But if I were going to tell somebody tomorrow what is really awful about this bill, what comes to my mind first is the fact that a refugee claimant only has a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make a claim. That's a very scary prospect. But there are lots of other extremely scary things. The things I addressed are concerning...and there are a number of other things in the bill. So please don't put me on record as putting forward a hierarchy of what's important.

The Chair: Sure.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Okay.

I have a couple of things. Mr. Kitchin, you are probably aware that at some point I was involved with the accreditation process at the national career colleges. I'm wondering if acknowledging those colleges that have accreditation would be a first step to recognizing graduates of career colleges. How would your organization respond to that?

• 1455

Mr. Paul Kitchin: In some respects it's a good suggestion. I guess the catch-22 in it is that the accreditation process you're talking about is a very good institutional process, but one of the problems is that it hasn't been picked up widely, because at some point government hasn't put, I would say, a hook to it, to say only accredited schools will get this benefit or that benefit. So at this point there's not a large uptake. Some schools that were accredited five or ten years ago—it is a five-year accreditation—have let that lapse, because they've gone through the process, they've made improvements in their organizations, but there's not the incentive to continue. On the other side, it would be a wrong conclusion to say that simply because the school is not accredited, it's not A quality.

It's tough. We support the idea of accreditation, but we would certainly need some buy-in and some kind of phase-in time, I think, if we were going to go that route. But I'd certainly like to explore that.

The other way of looking at it is that the federal government has already recognized some institutions, as I said before, in designation for Canada student loans. Some of the other things I didn't mention before are that students are eligible for education deductions on their income tax; they're allowed to claim tuition on their income tax. So there are some mechanisms where the federal government has already said, for Canadian students, let's have a level playing field, an equitable treatment. Yet in the same institutions, the same programs, for some reason, with the provision I talked about for employment for international students, there's a line drawn.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

Ms. Anita Neville: I understand the problem, and I am wondering if in fact this might be the hook you talk about in respect of the accreditation process and giving it some validity and credibility. You don't have to answer me—let's think about it and pursue it perhaps at another point.

Mr. Paul Kitchin: In some of the discussions I've had with people in the department, where they've talked about problems perhaps with international students, they've been quite clear in saying it has not been with the career college sector. It may have been some other sectors where they are unregulated, and that's been a problem. Having said that, I do support the accreditation process and would like to pursue that with you further.

Ms. Anita Neville: Okay, thank you.

My understanding, on the issue of sponsorship for persons on social assistance, is that Bill C-11 will not bar refugees in Canada from bringing in their spouses or their children, even if they are on social assistance.

Ms. Marnie Hayes: Let me clarify that issue. If a person is accepted as a convention refugee in Canada, they then apply for landed status. Their family overseas is processed concurrently with them. It's not a strict family class sponsorship. So that's a separate thing. What we're talking about here is family class sponsorship, a landed immigrant or Canadian citizen who wants to sponsor their spouse or their child. They may be a convention refugee, but didn't go through with that process I just described.

Ms. Anita Neville: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Thanks for that clarification, both Anita and Marnie.

Ms. Anita Neville: Just before you move on, Mr. Chairman, I have to leave shortly to catch a plane, so could I reiterate my intent to table? We don't have a quorum here, but I have three amendments that I will be tabling next week on clause 3, clause 42, and clause 26.

The Chair: Committee members have been so hard at work that even when we're not meeting, they're thinking, they're moving amendments, inspired by our witnesses—and I'm talking about people from all sides of the House, because I've heard proposed amendments from even John Herron of the Conservative Party and that's absolutely positive.

I think I'll go to Madeleine.

• 1500

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Chairman, let's hear from John.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, John, you're on.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Am I?

On that note on amendments, I want to let the room know that we will pursue the same avenue with respect to clause 25, on “may” versus “shall”. I think there's a lot of consensus in all parties beyond just the Progressive Conservatives. My friends here from the New Democratic Party are on board on that one as well.

An hon. member: You're not writing us into your press release.

The Chair: It's amazing the alliance that has been forged at this table.

Mr. John Herron: It's largely due to the fact that we're going backwards, because it's going back from where we currently are. We think it's the minimum that we deserve.

I'll keep my comments short. But I want to let my honourable chair friend know that, yes, we're thinking of amendments as well.

The Chair: Of course.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I have a couple of questions for Helen and anyone else who might want to respond. It's what I put to other front-line workers about the danger you might be putting yourself in by helping refugees at the border, given clause 117 of the bill, which says that anyone who helps migrant refugees cross the border could be fined or put in prison. I wonder if you think we should amend that to ensure that genuine refugees and those who help them are not penalized.

Ms. Helen Petrimoulx: Definitely. I can think of many situations where I work with Freedom House in Detroit, and Freedom House helps people to apply at the border to become refugee claimants, and I assist Freedom House. Yes, it does catch people in a broad sweep that I'm not sure the bill was intended to catch. It's alarming.

The Chair: Okay, Yolande.

Oh, you have another question. I should have guessed.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have one more quick question.

I read your brief, and I have no problems with all the amendments you suggest. I'm just trying to sort out what a previous witness we had, from Fort Erie, Mr. McDowell, said, that if there was one thing he would want to see done in terms of changes to the bill, it would be to delete clauses 103 and 104. I'm still trying to digest that and what it means, and I'm wondering what you feel about those two clauses and what priority you would put on amendments under the refugee section.

Ms. Helen Petrimoulx: Clauses 103 and 104, being the eligibility?

The Chair: Clause 103 is the elimination of the refugee second claim.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Suspension and termination.

The Chair: Suspension was clause 104.

Ms. Helen Petrimoulx: I can't speak of eliminating the whole thing. I think you're going to be asked about second claims and how to fix it so that there aren't abuses. I didn't really fully understand what he was getting at by completely eliminating that, so I can't really speak to him, and he's not here.

The other person asked a question about refugees being able to sponsor. It's not always neat and clean. When a woman, for example, is ready to become landed with her children, the whereabouts of the husband is not always known, because he is fleeing. There are many other situations in which people on social assistance would be affected and would not be able to be reunited with their family. I was speaking to those types of situations.

The Chair: Yolande.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Joe.

I would like to offer a comment to Mr. Wadke. I think this will come as good news to you, and it directly addresses your first recommendation, regarding pretrial examination.

I was in Paris about two months ago visiting with the immigration personnel there. I learned that there are agreements, or agreements in the making, between different European countries to implement just such a control.

Mr. Devashish Wadke: Oh, thank you.

• 1505

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: The way it works is there is a control agent right at the gate of the plane as you board. Obviously, Canada could not have control agents at every major airport and port and all that. So the agreement is that French people will do the control for the Canadians and we will do the control for the French. It seems to be working very well. So I think you have your answer right there. It's already there.

Mr. Devashish Wadke: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Fred has his hand up.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Fred. I like to cut off committee members but not witnesses.

Mr. Fred Franklin: I would just like to reinforce the comments on that once-in-a-lifetime thing, and Helen has referred to it. That has to be changed. Previously, 40% to 50% of the people who came back after 90 days were successful. The appeal process we have now is a little better, but it still does not allow people who should have been accepted to have a proper appeal. So that is the most serious thing, that in some way people can reapply. We described why that may be necessary, especially for women. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you, Fred, Helen, Marnie, Devashish, and Paul, for your input. Let me at the same time tell you and the others who have made presentations in the past day and a half here in Toronto how appreciative we are of your fine work, your representations, and your input.

It started with your city government, which wants more immigrants and wants to be more welcoming to organizations such as yours, which are on the front lines trying to help people.

I want to end by saying thank you to Toronto, the immigration capital of Canada, of course. Tomorrow we're going to visit another one, Montreal.

I just want to say that the intent of the government is to build a better bill. There's no doubt that at present we have a great immigration and refugee protection bill, which has served this country very well for 25 years. In fact, other countries of the world want to look at our immigration and refugee policies. Obviously, we want to improve the bill. In no way, shape, or form do we want something worse than what we already have. We're trying to build on our strengths and on what we've learned during our proud history of welcoming immigrants and protecting refugees. I know that in the spirit of wanting to improve a piece of legislation, sometimes we lose sight of the fact that we already have one of the best in the world. Where we go from here is building on it and making it better.

In that spirit I want to assure all of you that we're all going to work as hard as we possibly can in a very non-partisan way so that the Parliament of Canada can make sure that at the end of the day we have a very good immigration bill, one that Canadians will be proud of and that will in fact signal to the world that we're very much pro-immigration and pro-refugees; in fact, the more, the merrier. This country has been most appreciative of what they've done for us in the past hundreds of years.

Thank you all very much. The best to all of you, and God bless you for all your hard work.

Ms. Marnie Hayes: Could you tell us what's going to happen with the bill? Would you mind?

The Chair: You as a lawyer should know.

Ms. Marnie Hayes: I'm actually a community legal worker.

The Chair: Okay. As you know, our public hearings end this week. We will meet next week with the minister, the department, and the IRB to get further clarification. The committee will then turn its attention to a clause-by-clause review of the bill and the proposed amendments, which the members of this committee will be submitting. We will try to improve this bill. The bill is then reported to the House of Commons, which will have a debate on the amended bill. Once the House of Commons passes the bill, it then goes to the next stage, which is the Senate of Canada. They deal with it, and then it will be proclaimed.

• 1510

Then the regulations come, which we will be very much a part of. We want to make sure the regulations are right, because we've heard loud and clear that too much in regulation could potentially be problematic.

So that's the process of how we get to a new law and a new approach.

We're hoping that this bill will be passed by the House by the time we're out in the middle of June and that the Senate will deal with it. We're working toward that timeline. You never know what may happen, but that's the timeline.

The meeting is adjourned.