CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 22, 1998

• 1542

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)): Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I'm calling the meeting to order for the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today we will continue with our quest regarding our recommendation 155. But before I officially carry on with the meeting, I would like to introduce to all those who are present, especially the members of the committee, someone who has been for many years very actively involved in the House of Commons on this particular committee in dealing with immigration issues.

We're fortunate tonight to have as a guest Dan Heap, who has been with the New Democratic Party for a great number of years and is still, even though he's not in the House of Commons at the present time, heavily involved as a volunteer in providing services for the new Canadians who come to this country in terms of guidance and leadership and in hopefully offering a warm hand in greeting our new Canadians. Thank you very much for appearing.

The order of the day is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of recommendation 155 of the report of the advisory group entitled “Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration”, particularly issues relating to removal and detention.

Before we go ahead with our witnesses, I understand that Mr. Ménard has a motion to table.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): We won't debate the motion at this time because we agreed to give prior notice. Therefore, I'm simply going to read and table it.

[English]

The Chairman: All right, Mr. Ménard, is it written in two languages?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. All we can do today is give it to the clerk so that it could be translated officially into two languages. It should be ready as quickly as possible. Then, when it's ready, you will distribute it to the parties.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I will, however, read it.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes. Regulations state that—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Did you read your translation?

The Chairman: I understood a few words that you said, but we need to have it in two languages.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There are many documents circulating that have not been translated into both languages. In any event, I want committee members to be apprised of the subject matter of this motion which we can debate at our next meeting. I will read it slowly:

That the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration call the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration before the committee to provide a status report on the Ramon Mercedes case and in particular to explain the inhumane treatment to which he was subjected.

I propose that we discuss this motion at our next meeting. Knowing you as I do, I'm sure you will support me on this.

• 1545

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, we're accepting the motion to be given to the clerk. Do you understand? Then you will have to reintroduce it when it's presented in two languages, officially.

The clerk will look after that.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): We would give consent to take the motion as it is. We read it and we got the translation.

The Chairman: But yet we don't have a quorum to vote on a motion of that nature.

Mr. Réal Ménard: They have a quorum, but you don't have a majority. That's a different thing.

The Chairman: The important people are here, aren't they, Mr. Ménard?

Mr. John Reynolds: A quorum is five, isn't it?

The Chairman: All right, we'll continue with our consideration of recommendation 155. We're very fortunate to have representatives from the ministry back with us again today. From Citizenship and Immigration Canada, we have: Greg Fyffe, the assistant deputy minister, policy and program development; Neil Cochrane, who's a director of case presentation, enforcement branch; Susan Leith, director, investigation and removal, enforcement branch; and Mr. Cyr—I understand that you are also with the enforcement branch. Are you stationed at the detention centre in Toronto?

Mr. Norm Cyr (Regional Work Process Manager, Detentions and Removals, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): No, I'm not at the detention centre per se. I'm the regional manager of detentions and removals.

The Chairman: Oh, I see. Thank you.

Welcome to all. I understand there will be a short presentation both by Mr. Fyffe and Mr. Cochrane. Is that correct?

All right, proceed.

Mr. Greg Fyffe (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Chairman, my presentation is very brief. I simply want to say that officials from the department have been here a number of times in response to requests with respect to detention and recommendation 155. We're happy to be here again and to have the opportunity to comment on some of the things that have been said.

Particularly, we note there has been testimony by some of the NGOs about aspects of detention and removal. We're not in total agreement with all the policy statements and statements of circumstance that have been said by the NGOs, even though we share some of their perspectives and we acknowledge, as they do, some of the problems in the system. We welcome the opportunity to give the committee a reflection on some of those.

Mr. Cochrane has a statement on some of the details of how our system works, but we asked Mr. Cyr to be here as a representative of an Ontario region so we could deal with some of the detailed questions about how the system operates at the regional level, where most of the action takes place. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Cochrane.

The Chairman: Just a moment, please. We have some visitors, young people from across Canada who I believe are just dropping in. If you can find some seats around, just settle down. This is the immigration committee meeting in session. Make yourselves at home.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You can ask a question...it's a joke.

The Chairman: Fine, you may proceed.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Are any of these young people French-speaking?

[Translation]

Do any of you only speak French? Do you understand English, Sir?

A voice: I speak French as well.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That's wonderful. Then come in and sit down. We're happy to have you join us.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, would you proceed?

Mr. Neil Cochrane (Director, Case Presentation, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you. I'd like to first give you an overview of our detention activities, to give you some context in this aspect of our operations. Then I'm going to cite a couple of examples of the conditions at our two detention facilities, because I know there has been quite a bit of discussion of the measures we have in place at those facilities, and then I'll comment on the discretionary nature of the authority that our immigration officers have.

First, to begin to give you an idea of the trend in detention activity under the Immigration Act, I believe it has been said that detention has been increasing. In fact the number of persons detained under the Immigration Act has been decreasing over the past four years. In 1993-94, just over 9,000 people were detained under the Immigration Act. This number has steadily decreased to the point where just under 6,000 people were detained in the fiscal year 1997-98.

At the same time, over this period, the number of people who have been removed has increased, which suggests that our decisions to detain persons are increasingly focused on cases where there is some prospect of achieving results in the form of carrying out a removal order that has been made under the Immigration Act.

• 1550

I believe committee members know there are generally two types of detained cases: those who are detained because they represent a danger to the public, and those who are detained because there is reason to believe they are unlikely to appear for their hearing or for their removal.

The majority of cases that are detained involve criminality. Right now across Canada we have approximately 360 people who are in detention in accordance with the Immigration Act. Of those, approximately 100 people are being detained whose cases don't involve criminality, and they're being detained on the basis that they are unlikely to appear for a hearing or, more likely, for removal.

Of the other 260 or so cases that involve criminal background, many are being detained because they are considered dangerous, but some of those are being considered on both grounds, that they're considered dangerous and they're considered unlikely to appear. And then there are some who, although their cases involve criminality, they're only being detained because it is believed they're unlikely to appear.

There's been some discussion about the issue of detention of refugees, and I would like to take the opportunity to clarify for committee members that the vast majority of people in our detention are not refugees. There's an important distinction to be made between people who are seeking to be recognized as refugees, people who have been recognized as refugees, and people who have been determined to not be refugees.

Most of our detainees are at the point where they're the subject to a removal order and arrangements are being made for their removal. Several of these may indeed have attempted to claim refugee status and, after the due process provided before the Immigration and Refugee Board, have been determined to not be convention refugees.

Of the 100 people presently being detained because it's believed they would be unlikely to appear for their removal or for a hearing, approximately 15 of these people have an outstanding refugee claim, where we don't know yet if they'll be recognized as convention refugees. And I think you know that currently there are approximately 30,000 people in Canada who have made a refugee claim, who are awaiting either a hearing on their claim or a decision after their hearing has been held.

So we can see that it is unusual for a refugee claimant to be detained, and most of the cases involving a refugee claimant who is detained have circumstances that are unusual.

For instance, one case that we currently have in detention of a refugee claimant involves someone who has been deported from Canada four times previously. Another case involves someone who has used false identity to attempt to make a second refugee claim, using a different identity, but we discovered that it was the same person.

So that gives you some numbers that help give us a little context when we're talking about detention, of the scope of this activity and of the different types of people who are in detention.

I would like to address briefly a couple of examples of conditions in our two detention facilities. The department is committed to ensuring that detention conditions at our holding centres in Mississauga and in Laval meet internationally accepted standards and that we ensure detainees are treated with dignity and that their basic needs are properly met. We recognized that there is a need for more comprehensive standards for our holding centres.

Over the last few months, we have been developing a comprehensive set of standards in consultation with a couple of non-government organizations that have expressed an interest in the well-being of our detainees.

[Translation]

Committee members would perhaps be interested in hearing about some detention conditions. Consider health care, a very important issue. A doctor is on duty at our two detention centres twice a week, for four hours in Mississauga and for at least three hours in Laval. In addition, a nurse is on duty three hours a day, everyday, in Mississauga, and for four hours a day, three times a week, in Laval. Doctors assigned to these centres are on call at all times to respond to emergencies and unexpected situations.

• 1555

The issue of telephone access has been raised. It is important for you to note that persons being detained have unrestricted access to the telephone during certain hours of the day and do not need permission to make phone calls. In Laval, four telephones have been provided for use by these persons to make local calls, whereas two pay telephones are available for long-distance calls. These telephones can be used between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. In Mississauga, 10 telephones are available for local calls, while persons in detention have access for five one-hour periods to two pay telephones. Regardless of the situation, steps are taken immediately to provide persons being detained who so request immediate access to a telephone to contact their lawyer.

We recognize that NGOs provide invaluable assistance to persons in detention. We have taken concrete steps to facilitate contact between NGO groups and detainees. In Mississauga, we have arranged a facility to welcome representatives of the Toronto Refugee Affairs Council who meet with detainees three times a week. We also offered to make a similar facility available to NGOs in Laval, but our request was turned down. If someone is interested, we would be willing to set up a permanent facility on site. The group Action Réfugiés Montréal visits the centre at least once a week. Furthermore, we support this group's activities by refunding the public transportation costs of volunteer workers so that they can come down to our Laval facility.

[English]

You've heard a witness testify here that they had learned through a third party that they had been blacklisted by the department and banned from accessing the Mississauga holding centre. For the record, there is no such list. Despite our best efforts, we're unable to find what this possibly was referring to. Several NGO groups regularly tour the facility, either to visit our detainees or for a general tour of the centre.

Also, I believe you heard one group concerned with the well-being of our detainees mention that they had never seen a senior immigration officer review a detention and release a person within the 48-hour period after their original detention. The act provides that within 48 hours of the person being detained, a senior immigration officer may review that detention and may release the person.

In fact these reviews are common and they take place wherever possible. As examples, in the month of March, 18 people were released by senior immigration officers at our facility in Mississauga within the first 48 hours of their detention. From speaking to the centre on Monday, I learned that three people were released by senior immigration officers over this past weekend, within the 48-hour period.

• 1600

There's also been some discussion here about the issue of the discretionary nature of the power of immigration officers. Of course to a large extent we have to rely on the judgment of our officers. What's important is it has to be understood that the officers must find, first of all, that one of the two grounds that can lead to detention must be present. Once they're satisfied that these grounds exist, the decision to detain or not is a discretionary one.

The courts have indicated to us that detention is to be used, under the Immigration Act, for the purpose of achieving one of the activities, whether it be a hearing or to carry out removal. So when officers establish that there are grounds for detention, they then have to look at the decision to detain or not in the context of the likelihood of one of these activities taking place. The more remote, say, for instance, the removal is, the less substantiated is that detention.

This principle is an important consideration for those cases where the officer finds the person is unlikely to appear. For cases of danger to the public, the emphasis is foremost on the protection of society. The consideration that we may not move forward on the case in the reasonable future is still a consideration, but it's of much less importance where we're talking about a person who represents a serious danger for our society.

We have been developing guidelines for our officers that outline the parameters they have to operate within for detention. They're not dissimilar to what the Immigration and Refugee Board has issued for their adjudicators in making decisions. We're drawing on jurisprudence; we're reinforcing the objectives of protecting Canadian society.

The one issue, though, in issuing any guidelines is that because this is, of course, a statutory authority, we're unable to issue instructions that would clearly set out when officers are to detain and when they are not to exercise their discretion.

Generally speaking, while there may be instances from time to time where, in hindsight, there's a particular decision that perhaps we would think should have been made differently, we're satisfied that our officers are using this authority in a manner that is consistent with the legislation and that furthers the objectives of the Immigration Act.

I have today, and I'll be leaving with the clerk, sample documents of what we provide to detainees when they are being taken into our custody at the Laval centre and the centre in Mississauga. So you'll have an opportunity to see what information is provided to the detainees at that time. I'll leave these with the clerk, as I mentioned.

I'll stop there. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Fyffe, were you going to add anything to this?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: No.

The Chairman: All right, then, we'll go ahead with our questioning. We'll have an open-forum round table, starting with Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you very much for your report, because it does reverse a lot of the things we heard from some of these groups.

One of the things you didn't mention and one of their complaints is that there is little regard for the spiritual needs of detainees. What about ministers coming to the centre to visit people? Do they need to have a name or can they just come in and have access to talk to people?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: For example, at the centre in Laval, there is a mass once a week, and at our centre in Mississauga, there have been regular Bible studies. Any requests for spiritual counselling or spiritual celebration we attempt to accommodate to the extent possible, because we recognize this is important and it is a legitimate need.

Mr. John Reynolds: Are both the mass and the Bible study available to anybody who wants to attend them?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: And they get notice that it's going to be there, so there's no keeping them from something that might be there?

• 1605

Mr. Neil Cochrane: I'm not sure to what extent that everyone is notified of this. Certainly in Laval, I have visited the centre and seen when the mass is and where the mass is, and it's well known. It's just adjacent to the common area.

Mr. John Reynolds: Okay. I have one other question. With respect to the process of transferring people, one of the complaints we had was that children see their mothers or fathers shackled in leg-irons and so forth when they're being transferred to court from outside either one of those institutions.

Mr. Norm Cyr: I'm trying to think of the situation in Mississauga. At the detention centre, when a person is transferred off the premises they are taken down to the first floor through A and D, so I'm not sure of the actual procedure where the children would be. They would normally be on the second floor. I would have to check into exactly who, then, would take care of the children while the mother or either one of the parents is being taken to a detention review or to some other site.

Mr. John Reynolds: The complaint was that they were being shackled right in front of the children. If you could find out for us...that's the only issue I can think of, those two that you didn't answer. If you could do that, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

The Chairman: Next, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: First of all, you have to understand that I am still quite shaken by what happened to Ramon Mercedes. At the very least, Immigration Canada does not inspire much confidence when it comes to upholding the principles of natural justice. However, we will have the opportunity to discuss this case at a meeting devoted especially to this subject.

How do you ensure that detainees, few of whom obtain or are in the process of obtaining political refugee status, have access to a lawyer and to legal services on request and that the principles of natural justice, principles which the Supreme Court ruled applied even to non-citizens, are upheld? The witnesses that have appeared before the committee have asked us this question on a number of occasions. What steps to you take to ensure that detainees have access to legal services, regardless of the circumstances?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: To begin with, each person detained or arrested by Immigration Canada is advised of his right to seek legal counsel. Furthermore, where legal aid programs are in place, we ensure that detainees are given the necessary information so that they can contact these services and benefit from their assistance. According to our procedures, a person still in our custody after 48 hours must appear before an IRB adjudicator to have his case reviewed.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Although we have heard of persons being detained for two years, what is the average length of time a person remains in detention?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: Perhaps we should consider different population groups separately. I can't give you an overall average. According to the data I have, persons who are unlikely to show up for a hearing or for removal are detained an average of 20 days. However, we do see cases at both ends of the spectrum.

Mr. Réal Ménard: An average of 20 days.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: How do you explain the fact that credible NGOs that are well established in the community and that, as you well know, work under difficult conditions in a community setting, pay their workers only modest wages and rely considerably on volunteers, came before the committee and gave us a radically different account of the situation?

They stressed two points, notably the problems encountered in terms of gaining access to detainees. You say that in Ontario and in Quebec, you even make facilities available to them and refund the travel costs of workers, something which amounts to a per diem of sorts. How do you explain the fact that your message is so different from the one we got from them? Has your department drawn up a list of NGOs to which persons in detention have access? Let me tell you that we have heard very different accounts of the situation. People's perceptions seem to be quite different.

• 1610

Mr. Neil Cochrane: It's difficult for me to give you an answer. I admit that we were surprised by some of the testimony that was presented here. We realize that these groups don't always agree with the rulings handed down in immigration cases and that they would like to see improvements in the conditions under which persons are detained for longer periods of time. I have to admit that the conditions are not really very good.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Perhaps I could make a suggestion regarding NGOs. Since everyone is acting in good faith and we have no reason to question what you say, no more than we have reason to question what we heard from the representatives of community groups that testified before the committee, why not review the list of detainees to see who had access to NGOs? Basically, we're talking about a fairly small group, somewhere between 300 and 360 people. We don't need to know their names, but it would be interesting to find out how many of these 360 individuals have had access to NGOs since the beginning of the year. I think this would be rather informative. Would be possible to supply us with that information?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: I don't know whether we can give you that information on persons who may or may not have contacted NGOs.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are a manager, and if you cannot give us that information, how can your department evaluate the availability of NGOs? Something isn't quite logical here.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: As things now stand, NGO groups have access to persons being detained. Perhaps my colleague can tell you what goes on in Mississauga. It's quite possible that detainees have meetings with NGO representatives or receive advice from them without the meeting being documented. If we did keep track of such meetings, then we would have that information.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Before you turn the floor over to your colleague, I want to know if I understood you correctly. You said that procedures are fairly liberal and that this committee has no reason to believe that in Laval and in Ontario, NGOs do not have access to detainees. Basically, that's what you're telling us, that NGOs in Laval and in Ontario have reasonable access to detainees at reasonable hours of the day if they so request it.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: You should known that in both Mississauga and Laval, we have designated an NGO which generally has access to detainees. We have no problem with a detainee meeting with another NGO. We can arrange for that to happen. Representatives of that organization can come and visit with a person being detained during regular visiting hours.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Perhaps we should go and visit that facility together, Ms. Folco.

The Chairman: Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon, I read with considerable interest the paper by the Chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board on detention directives. I found that these directives truly draw their inspiration from a number of basic principles, including the principles of natural law and fundamental justice.

I would like to discuss the practice of detention as such and the use of detention to threaten persons whom the department would like to detain. I know that in the Trempe report, it is suggested that detention be used as a threat or as a means of ensuring that persons likely to be detained uphold the law.

• 1615

However, judging from what some of the witnesses have testified thus far, the practice of detention appears to have the opposite effect. Instead of encouraging people to comply with the law, it tends to compel them to disappear into the wilderness, so to speak. I would be interested in hearing whether in your view, detention has a positive or a negative effect on people's behavior?

My second question is perhaps a little more pointed and I don't know whether you will be able to answer it personally. Have you look at detention practices in other countries, in the United States or in Australia for instance, to see how people's behavior is affected by this?

[English]

Mr. Greg Fyffe: A far as the principle of detention is concerned and the recommendations in the Trempe report, as I think you know, we're studying the recommendations now and haven't come to any final recommendations. We have conversations to have, obviously, with the minister.

I think it's fair to say that particular recommendation is seen in many ways as being problematic for some of the reasons that you outline. We would have to have very strong incentives to substantially increase the amount of detention that was present in the system.

Mr. Cochrane outlined that there are two principal reasons. One is that somebody might not be available when they had to be removed, and the second is that they would constitute a danger.

I think that's still the way we would prefer in sum to go. The idea of going to a substantially increased level of detention I think has many drawbacks. It's something we're certainly looking at, but we are by no means convinced by the recommendations in the Trempe report that this is a direction we want to take. I think at the moment we are more comfortable with a regime in which detention is used where it's necessary, but not on a widespread basis.

I don't believe at the moment we have a universal study of how detention is used in other countries. We have a lot of contacts with Australia. They have a much different system, and they have some problems that are substantially different in nature from ours. For example, one of their detentions is in the north of Australia, where they get a lot of boats that come down the archipelago through Indonesia and so on, and they detain people in that immediate area. We don't really have a parallel to that situation.

I think the Australians are fairly comfortable with their detention regime, but I think there are a number of areas in which our basic attitudes are not similar.

If I could sum up, it would be to say that we don't necessarily agree with the direction the report is taking. We would have to be convinced on the detention issue.

In terms of whether it's an incentive or a disincentive, I think there's a lot of emphasis in our immigration policy on integration. If people are going to come to Canada, we would want them to integrate into the mainstream society as soon as possible, and I'm not sure detention would help us in that. We would prefer, to the extent possible, to rely on voluntary removal and, if necessary, detaining people at the last minute, rather than a widespread regime.

That's where our thinking is at the moment. I don't pretend it's complete, but it is a problematic recommendation from our point of view.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Hardy, please.

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Last month I went to the Quebec facility and they gave me a tour. They were very generous in that, and I met the doctor, who said he had just started there recently.

The impression I got was that they brought the doctor in because they didn't like taking shackled people into the town, and it upset citizens to have to see people shackled and in handcuffs all the time. They did say that they try not to shackle parents in front of their children, which was really good to hear, because I'd heard the opposite.

The fact is, though, that they do shackle them, and they shackle them all the time. What happened was, where these people used to have some access to go into the town, now that is denied. The doctor does come and they provide very good care, but they don't ever get out of that facility because they always have to be in shackles.

• 1620

If there's no suspicion of them being criminals, I question why they should be in there, in a centre. It's called a detention centre, but I've been through a lot of jails, and it's like a jail and it has the same security. It has more security than the jail in the Yukon. So these people are subjected to treatment as if they were criminals, whether they are or not.

The other thing that really hit me was that 98% of the people in there have dark skin. Why is that? Are there no refugee claimants or people with white skin who are suspected, or is it that immigration officials don't ever suspect anyone who's white of maybe not showing up for their hearing?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: As for the latter question, most of our source countries are from the Middle East or from other countries—basically from non-white countries—and a lot of the smuggling of people is from certain countries where unfortunately there are darker skins. I don't think there's anything racist in our policy. I think it's just the geographic breakdown of a lot of our immigration movement and a lot of the illegal immigration movement.

In terms of the other questions, I'll turn to my colleague.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: The practice is that when people are being removed or transported for whatever reason outside of the centre, usually to a hearing and sometimes to removal, they will be handcuffed. It's a recognition that the people are in detention. It's partly related to the safety and security issues. We do have, from time to time, people who do attempt an escape. Sometimes that escape attempt will involve some violence. If we're going to maintain control of the people, we do use handcuffs. We recognize that being detained, which includes the use of handcuffs in those circumstances, is a serious issue.

Normally detention is used when all other options aren't available to us. We do have people who have previously failed to comply, failed to appear, or are unwilling to give us the information we need to feel satisfied that they will be available when we need them.

Ms. Louise Hardy: The other question I have is that they showed me where there had been a fairly recent suicide attempt. The person had been informed that he was going to be deported, and attempted suicide. Would it be possible to put in place, maybe once a person has been designated as going to be deported, closer care and a watch over them, so that nobody has to deal with someone killing themselves? It was only a short matter of time before that person would have been dead, and we would have been responsible.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: First of all, I should state that normally most of the people who are detained are people who are going to be deported, who are under removal order. Where there is an indication that the person may harm themselves, special measures are taken. We do have instructions in place for our guards to watch for any unusual behaviour that might indicate the person is distressed and may commit some acts to harm themselves. We do have arrangements in place for careful watch and close supervision of those people.

Ms. Louise Hardy: As for basing the discretionary decision on the thinking that someone might not return or might not show up for a hearing or for removal, that doesn't seem like a very concrete basis on which to make a decision to detain someone.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: As I mentioned, it is a judgment call, and officers are asked to base themselves on their observations of the individual. Sometimes it's subtle behaviour, or it's their past behaviour—perhaps failing to comply with some conditions such as reporting a change of address. In other instances it's more overt and people will tell our officers quite outright that they will not be appearing and have no intention of doing so. They will do whatever they have to do to not be removed from Canada. So I think you're right to say that it's a difficult judgment to make.

• 1625

Ms. Louise Hardy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have this hopeless mind, which tries to think systemically. First of all, I need to know where you come in. Where does your jurisdiction start?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: Is that with respect to detention?

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: There are a number of points within the Immigration Act where there is an authority to detain a person. It starts at the port on entry at arrival. An immigration officer can order a person detained for deferral of their examination if it's going to be adjourned and then resumed. The senior immigration officer who's reviewing a report that a person is inadmissible has the authority to order that the person be detained.

So we have the port of entry, then we also have inland, where a person is brought to our attention as being here illegally. The person can be arrested and detained.

Mr. John McKay: What's your inventory, then, of removal orders at any given point?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: I'll ask my colleague if she can give you some explanation.

Mr. John McKay: We're studying the big picture. You know what we're studying here. We're studying removals. You people presumably would know what the inventory is of removal orders at any given time. What's the number?

Ms. Susan Leith (Director, Investigation and Removal, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Previously when we appeared, we did indicate that in terms of the inventory of cases we're actively pursuing removal on, this would be in the range of around 6,600 across Canada.

Mr. John McKay: Of those 6,600, which ones have become deportations?

Ms. Susan Leith: In your words, that means deportations.

Mr. John McKay: Okay, the bigger word is—

Ms. Susan Leith: Those are cases where we're actively making arrangements pursuant to removing those individuals from Canada.

Mr. John McKay: So we have 6,600 deportation orders at any given time in Canada.

Ms. Susan Leith: No. We have approximately 6,600 active cases in which we're pursuing removal. There are additional cases in various stages of the process. They have a removal order issued against them, but we're not in a position to remove them.

For example, take persons serving sentences. They would not be people who we are necessarily actively seeking to remove. In terms of someone who's serving a sentence for another seven years, we wouldn't consider them to be an active removal case.

Mr. John McKay: I'm not really worried about those folks. Here's what I'm concerned about. Again, I go back to the same question: what is your inventory of actual cases that are subject to deportation orders, regardless of whether they're in prison or underground of wherever they might be? What's that number?

Ms. Susan Leith: Regardless of any impediment to removal?

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Ms. Susan Leith: I can't give you that number.

Mr. John McKay: You can't?

Ms. Susan Leith: No. The reason I can't give you that number is because the system we have in place for tracking our clients doesn't necessarily give us an accurate picture of every person under a removal order, because they're in various stages.

If you remember a previous appearance, Mr. Borowyk tried to describe that our system, which is called FOSS, records certain events in a person's immigration history that occur, but there are certain events outside the actual immigration parameters that exist that aren't recorded in our system, such as the people serving a sentence.

So I can tell you that we polled our offices in December 1997 and asked them how many cases they were pursuing in which they were in a position to remove the people. The number was 6,600.

• 1630

Mr. John McKay: Let's stay with the 6,600. We know there's quite a bit more than 6,600.

Ms. Susan Leith: Yes. Some people, for example, would still be entitled to a risk assessment before they leave. There's an inventory of those people. We're not in a position to remove them yet; we cannot remove those individuals until the risk assessments have occurred. There are examples where there are either legal or administrative impediments to remove.

Mr. John McKay: Let's just stay with this pool of 6,600 or 7,000, for easy figuring. The previous testimony said about 460 were actually in detention. Are those 460 in the group of approximately 6,600?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: It's actually 360. Many would be in that group, but we are not at the point at which we can carry out the removal of some of the people in detention. Some of them are awaiting the outcome of a refugee claim or an appeal, and those cases wouldn't be in that group either. The majority would be, yes.

Mr. John McKay: The majority would be, and the majority has pretty well exhausted whatever avenues of appeal they have, whether it's humanitarian, compassionate, risk assessment, or whatever. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: Yes, I think it's a fair statement.

Mr. John McKay: Am I wildly out of line to say you've got 300 people in detention at any given time?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: Who are under removal order and awaiting arrangements for removal?

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: I think it would be a reasonable estimate.

Mr. John McKay: The obvious question then becomes: where is everybody else? What's happened to the other 6,300? Are there categories of people?

Ms. Susan Leith: Perhaps I could put it into perspective. In 1997 we removed almost 8,000 people; 60% of those people were refugee claimants. We removed 4,800 failed refugee claimants. If you take what Mr. Cochrane said earlier, that the majority of the people we have detained are not failed refugee claimants—they're a very small number—it might help to put it in perspective that the majority of the people awaiting removal are not criminal cases. I think around 1,200 of those 6,600 would be considered in the criminal category.

Mr. John McKay: It's a little less than a third.

Ms. Susan Leith: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: I'm completely lost, but if I've used up my time, I've used up my time. If we come round in round two, I would like to come back to this. I can't say I really understand the answers.

The Chairman: Ms. Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I start with my questions, maybe I could go to a point of an earlier meeting.

With respect to the 6,600 figure, at I think the first meeting we had, I had asked the chair—and maybe I've missed the information, if it has come—whether we could receive a breakdown of the figure. It would help us understand. We get some people talking about it as 6,600 criminals. Then we are told it's really a smaller number and the rest of them are not criminals.

I had asked for a breakdown of that 6,600 to understand (a) how many of the 6,600 were people who fell within criminality, and (b) how many of them were people waiting for whatever stage. I was trying to get a handle on what the 6,600 caseload consists of, so we could have an intelligent discussion. If we're dealing with a very small number of criminal cases, we shouldn't tar the whole of it that way.

Waiting for people to come out of jail is not the major issue any longer; the issue is something else. I was wondering what's happening to those people.

I'm wondering if that information is coming. I don't think we've received it yet, Mr. Chairman, have we?

The Chairman: We haven't received the final breakdown.

Ms. Maria Minna: This is just a reminder, then, to get it. It would help us in our discussion.

• 1635

The Chairman: The reason I interjected was that there was a request for the colour of the individuals, whether they were Asiatic or—

An hon. member: No.

The Chairman: Yes, there was one.

Ms. Maria Minna: That was later, Mr. Chairman. This was at another meeting. It dealt specifically with the numbers, not with the culture or race of the applicants. That was at a later stage.

I would like to go back to the issue of detention.

During the hearings, both across the country with the minister and around this table when we met with various NGOs and other groups, a number of things came out. One is that in Toronto the detention level is higher than in other parts, say, in Montreal or Vancouver.

I think I've asked this before, but for my own understanding I'd like to know whether it's true and, if so, why. I'd also like to know if that is a different way of applying the policy. What's causing it? I would like to know.

As well, one thing that has come up more than once during the hearings is the issue of the unnecessary detention of people. Sometimes they have referred to it as “lightning removals”.

In other words, a person who has complied with the system all the way through—there has been no indication that the individual has in any way not cooperated, when requested, with the system—is asked to come for an interview. At that interview the decision is made to detain, although there was no indication the individual would not show up for removal, if that is the case.

I'm looking now at the grounds for detention document, a copy of which I have here. I'm looking under item 12.1, which says “Grounds for Detention”. There are two: (1) Does the person pose a danger to the public? Consider medical and all kinds of things. (2) Is the person likely to be available?

Under “available”, the instruction to the officer or person deciding is to take into consideration a number of things. Most of them have to do with having violated their stay, or having lied, or having in some way not shown good faith. Then it says, on the other hand, you look at whether the person has responsible relatives or friends and funds. The other one says you consider whether the person has reported voluntarily to EIC. This would indicate that if they've reported voluntarily, there isn't a reason to detain.

Do you find that the detention directions, as we have them, are not effective enough or clear enough and should we do something to change them? Is that why detentions are taking place in the circumstances I've mentioned, or are they not happening?

I'm trying to get some understanding of the kinds of detentions. Do they occur under the circumstances I just described? If so, it seems to be contrary to the direction here. If that's the case, what would you recommend? Is there a problem with how we're implementing? Is there a problem with the guidelines? Is there a problem with the policy?

We're looking for some direction from you. If we're going to come up with a proposal on detention, I think it would have to be something that's responsible and helps rather than hinders. From the practice I'm getting two messages: on the one hand, we don't detain unless these things...on the other hand, it seems to be happening.

There are a few questions there, but I'm...

The Chairman: Yes, there are quite a few. Would anyone like to handle them?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I'll turn it over to Mr. Cochrane in a moment.

I think the basic point is that most people cooperate until the last moment, and that's where the really critical area is. That's where the judgment has to be made as to whether the person will continue to cooperate. It's pretty hard to put up hard and fast guidelines, but people tend to—

Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could have a meeting for just a few minutes and then afterwards have a consultation. I couldn't hear him.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Many people do in fact cooperate all through the process, until they realize that removal is imminent. That's where the problem is. That's when the judgment as to whether the cooperation will continue through to removal or whether the extra step of detention is necessary will have to be formed.

Ms. Maria Minna: This is important to me. This is a piece I've been missing, I think, to some degree.

I was interpreting it as meaning that if the individual until that point had collaborated, there was no reason to even make a judgment call, that the benefit of the doubt would be to the individual, that the individual would appear for removal and not disappear.

• 1640

What you're telling me is that even in those cases in which people have in fact cooperated, when it comes to what appears to be the final interview, other caution comes in. Am I right? I had not understood that to be the case.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: I would like to mention that we suggest officers consider that factor when determining whether or not they're of the view the person will make themselves available—the factor being whether or not they have previously reported. Experience has indicated that at the point when you're able to remove a person, that person's previous compliance is not a very good indicator.

Ms. Maria Minna: That's what I'm trying to get at.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: At that point it's not automatic they won't be detained because they have previously complied. The officer will conduct an interview, speak with the individual, and often ask how the individual feels about being removed next Friday, for instance. It's at that point in the interview, based on the discussions with the individual, the officer will sometimes form the opinion the person is clearly not going to make himself available.

If the officer has the travel document, flight availability, and if the officer is looking at a situation in which the person has been here several months or more than a year and now a removal order has been issued—perhaps issued the same night the person arrived, and it's taken us this long to get to this point—if the officer can conclude the case, the officer must first believe the person is unlikely to make himself available. That is the requirement. If the officer has that circumstance, yes, he has the discretion to detain the person.

Ms. Maria Minna: A negative action predating that isn't necessarily in the decision. I had missed that. I had assumed if a person had complied all the way through, at that point the benefit was given to the client because the chances were the person would continue to comply.

I understand now that an additional judgment call is being made at the last meeting. I hadn't quite appreciated that the judgment call would be required.

With respect to Toronto...?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: It's difficult. We have not done any detailed analysis of why there is more detention in the Ontario region, but there is.

We have to remember we're detaining for a purpose, and generally speaking the purpose is to remove someone who is under removal order. When we look at the numbers of people removed, there are more removals in the Ontario region than there are in the other regions. When we look at the fact that much of the detention in the Ontario region involves criminality, we also see in removal statistics a large number of cases of removal where criminality is involved.

Ms. Maria Minna: My last question has to do with policy, because that's part of what we're looking at now.

Do you presently feel the current guidelines for detention are adequate, or would you want to see them changed to make the lives of the officers, or of the clients, easier or better?

Earlier, Mr. Fyffe, you said you're not particularly looking to react positively to a recommendation that will increase detentions unnecessarily. I understand that. I think I concur, but with respect to the current regime and the criteria we have, would you want to see them changed in any way? Do you feel there is some need to revamp them to assist our people?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Yes, we are currently looking at the guidelines and are very close to finalizing revised guidelines.

Mr. Neil Cochrane: Are you speaking about the guidelines within the existing legislative framework or about amendments not yet proposed to the legislative framework?

Ms. Maria Minna: Within the existing legislative framework. Would you change them in any way? Would you suggest any changes to how we do detentions, how we make the decisions, how we arrive at those decisions to either make the life of the officer easier or make it fairer to the clients?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: I guess the issue becomes whether we want to increase the transparency of this decision making and have some more objective criteria.

• 1645

The Chairman: Mr. Maloney, please, and he will be the last person in this round. We have some other witnesses waiting to appear before the committee.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I don't want to be picky, but it's Mahoney.

The Chairman: Oh, thank you.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's okay.

Thank you very much. I have a couple of brief questions, one of which is on the NGOs.

You can appreciate a certain sense of frustration if we have people coming forward saying they're persona non grata, they don't have access, etc., and then we hear the opposite.

How would your department define—if that's the right word—or acknowledge or recognize an NGO as being legitimate? And then, beyond legitimacy, what does that give them?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I'll put in a word before Mr. Cochrane directly addresses the question.

Clearly, if we have a situation we view much differently from the way the NGOs view it, there are two necessary responses. One is to come, as we have, and to tell you we see it a bit differently, but the other is to sit down with the NGOs and ask why they see it so differently. In many ways we work with the NGOs. We don't always agree, but we do work together and we would like to work together more. I think there is an obligation on our part to pursue this further and find out why we do have a different perspective on some of these issues.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could we, as members of the committee, expect to get some kind of a report on that?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thanks.

It still seems to me that on the issue of detainees—and there's always a danger—what's implied is that our policies are too tough or that we're detaining people unjustly. The other side of that coin is if you loosen it up, you wind up freeing into the community somebody who shouldn't be freed into the community. You then wind up with a serious problem.

It's important, in my view, that we as members of this committee and as legislators have a good and proper feeling for it. We were trying to get a tour of one of the facilities. I know Ms. Hardy said she had an opportunity to do so, but we haven't yet. I look forward to doing that.

It still seems to me the problems are length of detainment, the individual's access to what we might consider reasonable human services, and that type of thing. It seems like everything within the immigration system is a time problem. We seem to take so long to resolve these concerns. I wonder if you have any comments on whether that's just the perception or whether it is reality.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: If we look at the two kinds of detention, criminal and non-criminal, the intention with non-criminal is that the detention be as short as possible. In most cases it really is to facilitate removal, so there is not a justification for a long detention.

These are different kinds of cases from those we normally deal with when we look at incarceration in society. They're not people who have committed a crime. They're not a danger, but they don't have the right to remain in Canada given our procedures, so we want to make sure we're able to remove them. There is an interest in keeping that aspect of detention as short as possible.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do you have some idea of what that timeframe is? I don't necessarily mean an average, more of a mean time. What's a normal timeframe for someone to be in detention? Is there such a thing?

Mr. Neil Cochrane: I'm sorry, but I don't have a mean or an average time for you.

These figures include non-criminal cases and criminal cases. In the year 1996-97, 6,400 people were detained for a total of 138,000 detention days.

• 1650

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I think you'd probably prefer our coming back with something more—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd throw that in with his figures.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You've got us totally confused.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: We'll try to come back to you with something that gives you more of an average.

The other part, though, is that when we're detaining people who may constitute a danger, it's a different kind of issue. They're not serving a sentence, but they're considered to be a danger. They're in a kind of never-never land. We have to show we are prepared to proceed expeditiously; otherwise, we don't have the right to retain them. But there is a bias to keeping them in as long as it permits, if a danger is in fact perceived. Of course they're in a totally different facility.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: An average is not particularly helpful. The reasons for either shortening or lengthening a particular stay wouldn't show when you give an average time. I'm looking for what's a reasonable time for a person who has access to some kind of legal assistance—perhaps legal aid, perhaps their own attorney—and process. What's a reasonable time to deal with this?

The perception in the community is that they're kept there for years, certainly months. If they don't belong in this country for reasons that have been fairly adjudicated and proven, they should be gone. They shouldn't be sitting here at the expense of the taxpayer. If they've been unfairly detained, it's a violation of their human rights and they should be released.

I know I'm making it sound black and white, and I know it's not black and white, but I think we're all wrestling with the fairness of this detention system.

Ms. Susan Leith: One of the primary impediments to removal is our inability to obtain travel documents. I think we spoke about this on a previous occasion. Therefore, when you have a person, for example, who has been determined to be a danger to the public, we work constantly to try to obtain the travel documents. We try, as much as we can, to keep the person detained, because the person has been determined to be a danger to the public. Unfortunately we're at the mercy of a situation that's out of our control from time to time, because we can't get the travel documents. It could be that the client is uncooperative and doesn't want, for example, to have a photo taken. The person might not want to sign the travel document application, or the country might refuse to cooperate in issuing the travel document.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If they don't want their photo taken, can you take their photograph?

Ms. Susan Leith: We have ways of accomplishing it. I'm saying sometimes it's as simple as that.

The primary impediment to removal when we get to the very end of the process, when they've been through all legal possibilities and we're in a position to legally remove the person, is our inability to obtain travel documents. I think that's in the report.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Mr. Cyr may be able to give you a bit more of an idea by drawing on his experience in the Ontario region.

Mr. Norm Cyr: With that you're going to find that the long-term detainees skew the total report. There's no doubt about it. We have people who have been in jail going on three years. When you factor that into the total complement, it's going to increase the average or the mean time.

The average length of detention at the Celebrity Inn, Celebrity Inn only, is approximately eight to nine days. That's a very short turnaround. Keep in mind that the only persons we put in the Celebrity Inn are non-criminal, non-high-risk, non-medium-risk detainees. Therefore, in the Celebrity Inn we put only low-risk, what we consider flight-risk, people. The average time is eight days.

The minute you keep somebody in there for a period of a year or more—and we have some in the Celebrity Inn who have been there for a year or more, according to what Susan said earlier, given our inability to remove because of a lack of a travel document—it pushes the average up.

• 1655

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We'll have to terminate this part of our afternoon session. I appreciate the fact that you appeared and gave us more information. You've cleared up some of the issues for us, but I'm sure that we have a lot more that are going to be just as confusing as they were even two or three months ago.

Mr. John McKay: Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I want it put on the record that I find the testimony of these witnesses—who have come before us before—frustrating, exasperating and confusing. I've read the material, I've been in the justice system for 22 years, and I still don't feel I'm very much further ahead than when I started.

And I don't know what to do about it. I don't have a good idea as to what to do about it.

But I do want to state that for the record. I don't know whether I speak for other members on the committee as well, but this is like treading in treacle. I have no idea where we're going. I have no idea what the testimony is that these witnesses are giving. I still don't know what the issues are here. And if we have some expectation of making recommendations to the minister, we are in a hopeless position. I say that for the record. Maybe it's a statement of frustration, but I think we had better really start to sharpen up here and get to the point as to where we're going with what's going on.

The Chairman: We'll take that under advisement and use it as a recommendation.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I too would like to state something for the record, Mr. Chairman.

I feel compelled to criticize the departmental officials who testified before the committee. When we asked them for statistics, they had a great deal of difficulty complying. They have computers. Given the relatively small number of people in question, we should be able to obtain clearer answers to our questions.

Unlike my colleague, I know the system fairly well. In fact, I'm a product of the system and I myself have a great deal of difficulty understanding the answers that we are being given.

I'm not criticizing the witnesses personally, but rather the value of their testimony. I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding how this department works and makes rational decisions based on figures and on the number of people entering and exiting the country. The issue is not clear to me. Obviously, I'm going to ask this committee to at least recommend that the data collection system be improved.

That's all, Mr. Chairman. I've said what I intended to say.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Now we will call upon our next team of witnesses.

• 1658

• 1701

The Chairman: For our second session, from the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council, we have with us Marty Dolin, executive director; and from Romero House, Mary Jo Leddy, who is a director of that institution. Suleyman Goven and Sami Durgun are also with us today. We've all heard of Sami Durgun. We're fortunate to have this team before us today.

Who is going to speak first? Marty, go ahead.

Mr. Marty Dolin (Executive Director, Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With your indulgence, we were hoping that I could make an initial statement, Ms. Leddy could make an initial statement, and then we would answer questions from the committee, if that's agreeable.

The Chairman: Fine. Go right ahead.

Mr. Marty Dolin: My statement is entitled “It Is Just the Numbers”, and what I've heard here today—and certainly Mr. McKay made it very clear—hasn't changed my opinion at all.

The enforcement division of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, in my experience, sees its role as keeping foreigners out and, if they manage to get in, as kicking them out. To be most charitable, they could be described as xenophobic; less charitably, they could be described as racist.

Susan Leith, who is here with you today, the director of investigation and removal, reported to this committee that in 1997:

We removed 7,968 persons from Canada...60% or 4,800 persons were failed refugee claimants and 18% (1,267) were criminals.

One wonders who the other 22% were, but they're just more numbers to the department.

I know some of them by name. They were Emmanuel Solis, who came to Canada from Guatemala with his family when he was nine years old. Through an error by his parents, his brothers and sisters were made citizens but he was missed. He's gone. There were Davinder Singh's wife and three children; he's still here but they're back in Singapore.

There is Joe from Liberia. He was living with us in Winnipeg at our reception centre for 18 months, was refused welfare and a work permit, but volunteered as a landscaper for local churches. He went to report to immigration one day and he hasn't been seen since. His clothes are still at our residence and we got a letter from him from Ghana, which said that he's doing okay. His appeal is still pending, but a forgery of Joe's signature by Lyle Moffatt, former regional enforcement manager, got the Ghanaian embassy to issue travel documents so Joe could be removed.

There was Jose Hernandez, a young man who was trying to get to Washington, D.C., in an American railroad boxcar and inadvertently ended up in Canada. He spent over a year in jail, having committed no crime but being declared “a flight risk” by the clairvoyance of the enforcement division. The other prisoners—and we have no detention centre in Winnipeg, we put people in the remand centre with the criminals—waiting for trial for criminal offences in our remand centre beat and stabbed Jose before we managed to get him out on bail. Joe's mental condition is questionable now, but he's gone.

Steven Davis came to Canada when he was four years old. His family and friends are here in Winnipeg, he's now in Jamaica.

And now there's Patricia. She's a 19-year-old with indications of brain damage from childhood malnutrition who is in the Portage Women's Prison for property crime. She was adopted by Canadians from her native New Guinea when she was two years old. She gets out in the next couple of years and enforcement has the wheels in motion to drop her back in New Guinea.

• 1705

Within the last few months the department, in its zeal, has tried to deport Khushal to Afghanistan. Even though there is an embargo on deportations, a local Winnipeg enforcement official, Robert Fontaine, took it upon himself to request a waiver of the embargo, which of course was granted. Khushal was sent from Winnipeg to the Montreal detention centre, and when the court pointed out the department had erred and Khushal should not be sent to Afghanistan, he was summarily shown the exit at the detention centre with no money, no ability to speak French, and knowing no one.

Walter G. was deported to Guatemala recently, before his appeal was heard, and when the court ruled he could remain in Canada he was already gone. Since the department doesn't recognize the fact that it could err, there is no recompense for errors, and we had to lend Sandra, Walter's wife, the air fare, $595 U.S., to bring him home to Canada.

I could go on and on, and I have brought numerous case files here if people want more particulars on the cases. I could tell you about Sikander from Fiji; Felicia from Nigeria; Abdullah from Afghanistan; Solomon from Nigeria, Jorge from El Salvador and Paul from Nigeria, who almost got me into jail with him, and numerous others, but time is limited.

There is, however, one thing that stands out in my experience, a commonality that pervades all of the above: they are all visible minorities.

In the April 1, 1998 issue of the Jewish Post and News, Irving Abella, whom I'm sure you all are aware of, is quoted in regard to Nazi war criminals as saying:

they (the Department) could have gone forward with simple cases of deportations which the judges did not bar...and for whatever reason—nobody knows why, there's really no explanation—they refused until the last year or two to try and deport these people.

I've also been led to believe that all government departments are required to file an annual employment equity report under the recently passed Employment Equity Act. Given the fact that at least in Winnipeg I have never seen a non-white enforcement officer, I think the Department of Citizenship and Immigration report should be scrutinized by this committee. Also, what I saw at the head table here does not change my opinion in the least.

As much as the police might come to view all citizens as criminals or potential criminals, it appears that the enforcement division seems to view foreigners as devious folk trying to take advantage of us and the enforcers as the heroic defenders of the Canadian way of life. I do not believe department officials committed forgery for personal gain. They did it because they are overzealous in what they saw as the performance of their duty. They are perfectly content to throw out the wheat with the chaff and there is no strong voice to tell them to stop.

Evil hides in the dark. It is my experience that almost every case that has come before the public in the media has caused reconsideration and usually compassionate decision making. The press and the public, the civilians, consider people and not just numbers, which appears to be the reason the department tries to keep their decisions out of the light of public scrutiny. This isn't malevolence. It is a belief that the press and the public are too ignorant or naive to understand the real issues that the department sees. Just as there are civilian review boards to review police actions and there are even ombudspeople for the post office and cable TV, there must be a transparent external review of the enforcement division of the Department of Immigration. They have real power over life and death of people: the power to exile, the power to imprison, and they have the power to deny rights and privileges granted to other Canadians. Such power should not go unchecked.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mary Jo Leddy, please.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy (Director, Romero House): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have been living and working with refugees for almost 7 years and in the course of that time have dealt with approximately 1,000 refugee cases. Our work at Romero House is entirely voluntary. We don't get money for it. Our motivation is religious. We are not part of the so-called immigration business.

You've already heard from other presenters on this question, and I would say simply that I concur completely with the recommendations of the Canadian Council for Refugees that were made to you in March of this year. I would only add one point for your consideration. Detention centres are federal institutions. Other federal jails have paid chaplains. I think it's worth exploring, for the quality of climate in these places. I have talked with Pierre Allard, who's the national chaplain for federal prisons, and he thinks something could be worked out that would have chaplains available in these centres, on a paid basis.

• 1710

What I bring on the question of detentions and removals is a certain perspective. I see this question from the ground level, not from the top or the middle, although I could do that as well. I have, for example, visited the detention centres. I have accompanied many people who have been deported, and I have found that very few lawyers—hardly any lawyers—and very few immigration judges or people on this committee have ever seen somebody deported. It's a very sobering experience.

The picture on the cover of this book that I wrote is a picture of a woman being put into a security van as she is being deported from this country. She has disappeared. She is one of the disappeared, and I will not forget her. That is the perspective I bring.

In this book, At the Border Called Hope, I have written many stories, many of them hopeful, but there are stories of detentions and removals.

There is the story of the deportation of two families who were removed while their file was on the Prime Minister's desk. I reminded the officers of that fact and of his concern, and they said, “Who cares?”

There is the story of the detention of a wife and children while the husband's case was still under appeal. He won the appeal and they had already been deported.

There is the story of an Iranian man I met at Celebrity Inn. The officers there told me he didn't speak English. He'd been there a year and a half. I asked him how he was. He said, “I'm very depressed”. It turns out he had been picked up from a mental hospital.

There is the story of the death at Celebrity Inn of a Nigerian man, a severe diabetic. Last year I was asked to go to an adjudication hearing of another man who was a diabetic. I asked the adjudicator that if this man was detained, at least he be given a medical check. The adjudicator ordered the check. It was never done. The man was finally bailed out.

There are other stories that are not in this book. There is the story of a man who had emergency brain surgery two days before he was to be removed. I phoned the officer and he said, “I don't care if he comes down in a coffin or a stretcher; he's not missing that date”. Finally, the chief of staff at Mount Sinai Hospital called the officer and said he would bring charges against him in court if this man was forced out of the hospital. For a while this man was okay.

Recently I was in a detention review at the airport and I overhead an adjudicator say to a lawyer, “Our days here are numbered. Some bean-counter in Ottawa has figured out it's cheaper to send people back on the same plane rather than to let them make a claim.”

A young Kurdish girl, a teenager, was held in detention a year and a half at Celebrity Inn. She was put there directly off the airplane because she was suspected of being part of a terrorist group. That was the line.

My question is this. Last week a man came to see me. I refused to help him. He was a member of the Serbian security forces. He said he told them that at the airport. They let him through. They said CSIS would be interested in talking to him. Why was he let through and she was detained?

A former guard at Celebrity Inn who worked there for 10 years told me he quit because he couldn't stand participating in the beatings there.

• 1715

In another story recently, a family who qualified under what's called the deferred removals order class—in other words, they were both working; they had been here three years; they had two Canadian children—were refused because the oldest child was handicapped.

What we then did was Catholic Children's Aid took custody of the handicapped child. I then talked to an officer and said, “The child is no longer with his family; can you remove the removal order?” He said, “But the child is still theirs; it's their fault.”

During my seven years of working with refugees, only twice have I felt morally that I had to report to security services two people who were really, really serious security risks.

In one case, the man was a member of a notorious security service and engaged in illegal arms trade. He is still here. His name appeared recently as a translator on immigration documents.

In the second case, I learned that man was a member of a vicious security service and was admittedly involved in the arrest and execution of enemies of his state. In addition, there were other violations here in Canada. This was known to CSIS and immigration enforcement, and it was no secret where he was living. The man missed his deportation date over a year ago. He has been illegal since then, and he regularly appears in Canadian courts because of his other offences here.

As I sift and sort through those various experiences, I am forced to conclude that there are two systems of justice in this country: one for those who are landed immigrants and citizens, and another for those who are not. In another place, not here of course, this would be called apartheid.

I am forced to conclude that the enforcement section of Immigration Canada operates as a state within a state. It is the only police-like force with powers of arrest and detention—no warrant needed, just a hunch—with the life and death power of deportation. This police force has no oversight committee. That is the structural problem.

I am forced to ask what purpose is served by having a separate, unaccountable, untouchable police force for Immigration Canada. If the point is to detect serious criminals and security threats, then I don't think they are qualified to do this, not by training, not by anything.

As several ethnic groups have pointed out, the only war criminals who have been detected recently are those the ethnic communities themselves have identified and have publicized in the media because they got no answer from Immigration.

Wouldn't it better to have a more qualified agency—I hesitate to say this—such as the RCMP be responsible for ensuring the security of this country? What purpose is served by a separate police force with much less training than other police forces and with none of the procedures of public and political accountability? What kind of person will be attracted to such a police force?

I have characterized the detentions and removals system as a state within a state. It is surrounded by a paper wall as impervious as it is invisible.

This committee is hearing submissions on detentions and removals. I hope my reflections will help your discussions. I realize they are difficult, and you are generous with your time. However, I also want to introduce the issue of refugees who have been forced into a limbo existence because of protracted security checks. There is simply no other place to raise this issue, because immigration security and enforcement has no watchdog.

• 1720

I am attaching a formal complaint in this report by four Kurdish refugees who say that each of them was asked to become an informant in exchange for immigration papers. Each one was willing to speak for themselves, but they were not willing to inform. As a result, they have spent eight years, ten years in immigration limbo. The personal and social cost is enormous. This is morally appalling and legally questionable, at the least.

I hope this committee will take advantage of the presence of Mr. Sami Durgun and Mr. Suleyman Goven to discuss this matter further. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll have an open forum, but questions could be directed to the other two witnesses who are here as well. We'll start with the opposition. Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Thank you.

Thank you for coming and giving us your perspective. What you're saying here today is very disturbing.

Let's get to the bottom of this. I'm a little confused here. If I understand right, a failed refugee who's under deportation has failed because he's gone through a Canadian judicial system that has rejected his application. Am I right?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: It depends. You'd have to give me an example of the case.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: From what I understand, anybody who's under a deportation order, the deportation order comes from the court of law, the judicial court of law.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: No.

Mr. Marty Dolin: You go through a refugee hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board. At that point you are either declared to be acceptable as a refugee or not. If you are acceptable, you can be landed; if you are not, you can only appeal. You cannot appeal as in a criminal court. You can't appeal on the evidence. You can only appeal on matters of jurisprudence. So the reality is those are the people who may be appealing on matters of jurisdiction who are looking for compassionate and humanitarian grounds, but it is not a court of law. It is IRB that makes the decision.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It has nothing with the justice system—this is strictly the law on immigration and citizenship and there are two instances: one is the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board; the other one is the citizenship department. Justice is not involved in this at all—in more ways than one. That's off the record.

A voice: There is no justice.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Let me continue. In the examples you have given in which you have pinpointed the enforcement thing, you have given examples in which people were not refugee claimants but they were in the country, your so-called other percentage that you are talking about. Right?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: No. The people I'm talking about are refugees.

Mr. Marty Dolin: You're talking about both: people who are claimants, people who are failed refugees, people who have made claims and are appealing at any part of the system. I've been in the business a little longer and I have a large staff. I'm just talking about the cases I see. My staff can bring you hundreds of cases at any part in the system where we have seen this.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Okay. You are then of course accusing the enforcement agencies of being colour blind here, most of them being visible minorities, which is quite disturbing.

I am still trying to figure out where does our judicial... I got your point: it's IRB. But where does the judicial system come into place? It doesn't. So you're letting us know today that the immigration department is really the one that is the judge and the jury as well. Am I right?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Yes. That is the systemic problem. They are the judge and they are the jury.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: And the executor.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: They can accuse, and the refugees have no rights to even know what they're accused of. And it's impossible to appeal.

• 1725

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So they are the judge, jury, and executors as well.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Marty Dolin: That's right. Absolutely.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: With no political or public oversight of that enormous power. We've all got to know now from the history of our country and of our churches that when people have that much power with no accountability you are going to get this. It's dangerous.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I hope the parliamentary secretary is taking note of this.

I must thank you for bringing that to our attention that they have such enormous powers. I think we'll have to ponder this very seriously. That one area is the judge, jury, and executor is quite disturbing, from the examples you give.

Regarding the criminal elements, in which you said that the communities brought in and identified them, would you not say that in most cases criminals were here way before they were granted Canadian citizenship and they were caught as Canadian citizens way after the fact? Am I understanding this right?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: No. I'll be quite practical. If you talk to a man called Ahmed Samater, who is the head of Midaynta, which is the umbrella group for Somali groups in Canada, he will say with enormous frustration that there are Somali war criminals here and it is their community that has identified them and the only way they could make it known is through the press. They have not been detected by some sophisticated immigration investigation or enforcement.

In my experience, for the real criminals, the ones we should really be concerned about, enforcement just doesn't even have the competency to get them. That's what concerns me. In the meantime, innocent people are being terrorized.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So now we have this situation where you are saying that these criminals have come in without real security checks, but at the same time you have also put in, in strong letters over here, where so-called security checks are held up. Right?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Yes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So there is contradiction right here. In this case you have severe security checks delayed, and in this other case people are not being checked and are being let in.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Yes, and I ask why.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I ask why too.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I want to understand something that is very important to this committee's work. You're telling us that basically, it is taking far too long to conduct these national security checks and to grant claimants refugee status. Often, the delay is due to an authority outside Canada, since it is often the police force outside the country that must... Am I wrong in this? I always thought that two checks were done, a security check and a medical check, and that in the case of the security check, it was a matter of validating information outside Canada. That's what officials have always said. Kindly correct me if that is not the case.

Let me put my second question to you right away. You raised an important point which needs to be clarified. You stated that members of the Kurdish community were asked to act as informers in exchange for having their status settled and receiving papers. Is that in fact what you said? If so, this appears to be a clear case of influence peddling. You realize that it would be illegal for the department to engage in this kind of practice and that this matter will have to be investigated. Therefore, could you enlighten me as to my first question and, regarding my second question, give us some names so that we can pursue this matter further.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: If I understood correctly,

[English]

there are three parts of a landing process: the medical, criminal checks from your home country, and a security check, which is this amorphous whatever. In the case of both of these men, they easily passed the criminal checks from their own country long ago. They had no criminal record in their own country. It's the security check being conducted from here, and you've raised an important question,

[Translation]

If I understood correctly:

[English]

to what extent has their home country influenced the decisions here?

• 1730

Turkey is a part of NATO. Its security forces are tied in with ours in some way. Kurds from Iran and Iraq do not receive the same harassment as that which Kurds from Turkey are receiving here.

Now, that's all I want to say, but maybe these two—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Who conducts the security check in Canada? Is it the RCMP?

[English]

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: No, it's two agencies. First, there's CSIS. Then the recommendation from CSIS goes to immigration security. We have learned from SIRC—CSIS has a watchdog—that CSIS checks should only take two years. Then it goes over to—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What does the acronym CSIS stand for?

[English]

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Fine.

[English]

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Then it goes over to immigration security. There's no time limit there, no watchdog, and no way of getting hold of that question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I want to pursue this matter further because I'm interested in the Kurdish community. You're telling us that you have reason to believe that because of the ties between the two governments, because they are both NATO members and because Canada has always been averse to condemning the Armenian genocide and human rights violations in Turkey, there could be some interference going on here and the Canadian government, through its immigration officers, might be resorting to some kind of influence peddling, given that some delays border on intimidation. Is that what your telling us?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I believe that's possible,

[English]

because I think that—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard:

[Note de la rédaction: Inaudible]

[English]

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I'd like to ask Mr. Goven to speak to this.

Just quite simply, the Turkish government says that it treats Kurds well, but the only problem is that they're terrorists, criminals, and this and that. In other words, they say they deserve what they get.

I would like Mr. Goven to—

Mr. Marty Dolin: I'd like to make a quick comment in response. I think the answer to your question is we do not know and we do not have a way of finding out. The problem we have is not just with Kurds from Turkey, as we have the same problem with Iranians who are fleeing the ayatollah's regime who are being accused of being part of the mujahedin, the leftist group that overthrew the shah, who are now being persecuted. They are being hung up in various places in the world, including Canada, in getting landing, for reasons we do not know.

We don't know what the security problem is here. We don't know whether or not there's some arrangement with the Iranian government or whether or not we're concerned about their being communists. It is very, very difficult to find out any rationale. What you hear from is people who are affected by this.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to understand this. I want you to clarify this issue for me. If you want us to do our work as parliamentarians, we need to have this information. Do you have any evidence or even some reasonable doubts that you could share with members, anything to indicate that consular or embassy staff are being influenced in some way, thereby preventing certain individuals from being granted refugees status?

[English]

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: No, but just to repeat what Marty said—it goes to the heart of this question—we do not know, and we do not have any way of finding out. For three years, we have been trying to get hold of Sami Durgun's file under the access to information request. You should get it within 30 days. All we're trying to do is guess.

Now, that's what I mean by two systems of justice. Normally in this country, for you and me, if—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: To whom have you spoken? Why is it that you can't get any information about the people signing the orders? Is it because your departmental spokesperson won't disclose that information or is it because you don't have a spokesperson willing to talk to you and to get to the bottom of this matter?

[English]

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Well, you see, under this famous section 40 of the Immigration Act, these people have no right to know what they're accused of and they have no way of replying when it gets tied up in immigration security.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's incredible.

[English]

The Chairman: I think, you know, we're dealing with a CSIS issue here.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: But it's immigration security as well.

• 1735

The Chairman: That's right, and I would strongly suggest that names not be given at this stage of the game. You're talking of a process regarding retention and removal, and I would like it to be kept at that level. However, if names—

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no.

The Chairman: —have to be given, that could be done in a separate situation, and not here. All right?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Here is what I would like to understand. I don't care about names. I don't know who these individuals are. However, I want some assurances that this committee will do a follow-up to find out if some officials, with the help of informers, have managed to settle the claims of applicants or immigrants seeking permanent residency status. That's what I would like to discuss. Don't tell us that this is a CSIS issue. It's an Immigration Canada issue.

I will turn the floor over to my colleagues, but I insist that we deal with this matter again later.

[English]

The Chairman: No. It's in our report, and there's an opportunity to study the report—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Not only will this be in our report...

[English]

The Chairman: —and then follow through, Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: ... but we're also going to take this up at our next meeting.

[English]

The Chairman: Would you please continue with your presentation, or answer questions?

Mr. Suleyman Goven (Individual Presentation): Honourable members of the committee, I would like to comment on this detention, and give you some examples. The harassment against Kurds from Turkey actually starts when they get to the airport. I would like to give you a few examples.

First, three Kurds arrived from Turkey in February 1996. Their relatives asked me to go with them to act as an interpreter, which I did. When we were there, our help was refused. Even though the relatives of those people were present at the airport, they were detained and questioned by CSIS. But then they were released.

One Kurd had just arrived from Syria. They considered him as coming from a KKK camp, so CSIS questioned him right at the airport. They detained him.

As I said, this harassment against Kurds from Turkey starts from the beginning. Actually Kurds from Turkey have been subject to double interrogation by CSIS. Sometimes it starts at the airport.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Have these people actually identified themselves as being from CSIS?

Mr. Suleyman Goven: Yes, they have.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have a big problem with what's going on right now. I don't know whether my colleagues feel the same way as I do. We're looking at a very important problem right now. This is the problem of what happens to these people who, as Madam Leddy said, are in limbo.

However, I don't see how we're going to be able to solve the problem here at this point this afternoon. We're looking into detentions, and this is not really a detention problem.

Now, I understand what Mr. Ménard is coming to, and I would agree with him that we should look into it. But I don't know that this is the time and place to look into what is really a major problem.

I disagree with you, Mr. Ménard. From what I understand from the witnesses, CSIS is very heavily involved in this. It's another kettle of fish altogether. Although I have a great deal of respect, and I think it's an important problem, I—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: This decision rests with Immigration Canada, not with CSIS.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes, but I'm saying that...

Mr. Réal Ménard: We're not going to settle this here today.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, not today.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We're going to ask the committee to identify an official with the immigration department who can report on the situation to us. We won't do this in committee, but the two of us can work on this.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm quite willing to do that, but in conclusion, I would simply like to say that we must find a way of dealing with this major issue so that we can stop going around in circles this afternoon. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: We're not trying to solve problems here. We are here to gather information. All right? Okay.

• 1740

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes, but I asked a question, Mr. Chair. I didn't just want to cut off what was going on.

The Chairman: Oh no, no.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I want us as a committee to try to see how we could look into this problem at another time. So before we do go, I would like to have some kind of answer—

The Chairman: We can put that on.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: —from the members of the committee.

The Chairman: We would like to.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: There's no doubt about it.

The Chairman: Yes, I think we should take advantage of the people—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That's fine.

The Chairman: —we have here before dealing with special issues that have been introduced by these people.

If you wish as a member of the committee, those issues could be reintroduced as specific areas for discussion and deeper investigation by the committee. All right?

What has happened here this afternoon is that they have brought forth before us two or three very critical areas of concern. I think this committee is going to have to follow through with it, not just simply listen to them but act as you have already indicated, and as has Mr. Ménard.

Go ahead, Marty, please.

Mr. Marty Dolin: Ms. Folco, I would just like to comment that there is a common thread that runs through all this. That is the lack of external oversight, be it from yourselves as a committee, be it from an independent judiciary, be it from publicly appointed committees, to look at the actions of the invisible government we have here. That is the enforcement division of the Department of Immigration, that is CSIS, that is all the operations that affect people's lives here, and that go on without any kind of responsibility or accountability.

We're suggesting here that we hope you, as committee members, would look very seriously at where there is no accountability and where people are being denied rights and privileges that they should have as residents of this country. We hope you would come up with some alternative ways of ensuring that people get their rights and privileges as people resident in this country, be they refugee claimants, immigrants, or Canadian-born.

These are the issues that we are raising here, and hopefully you can help us solve them.

The Chairman: Okay, very good.

Now we have Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you for your presentation and for bringing these things to light, because as my colleague and others have said, they are very serious matters.

You've mentioned accountability as being a big problem, and you've said that there doesn't seem to be any. In fact, that was mentioned in the Auditor General's report as well. He also mentioned refugees being left in limbo for a long period of time without their knowing what is happening with their lives. They can't get on with their life one way or the other.

We've also been saying the same kinds of things, and that has to change.

It seems to me that the things you are bringing to our attention point to the inflexibility of the system, the inflexibility of the structure, to deal with particular case-by-case situations that don't seem to fit the mould. As a result we have these inconsistencies with individuals who come without a security check, and others who do, and we get these baffling, unbelievable cases appearing.

You've made some recommendations in your comments, and I'm just trying to draw those out. Maybe we could just do that in point form, so that we can take them and mull over them.

I think, Doctor, that you had mentioned the lack of an accountable police force. You mentioned perhaps the RCMP involvement somehow, and the fact that there is an accountability factor to that force that doesn't seem to be apparent in the immigration detention force. What specifics do you see as positive to change that particular area?

Ms Mary Jo Leddy: Well, in one of the consultations related to the legislative review, the Canadian Auto Workers said quite simply that we have a public review committee. It seems to me that if you're looking at legislative change, it wouldn't be a great step to have a public review committee for immigration. I would suggest to you that every member of Parliament, especially those in the metro Toronto area, would be eternally grateful, because there's no way of appealing some of this terrible injustice.

People go to their members of Parliament. They'll tell you that half of my staff time is spent picking up the pieces of a dysfunctional system. If there were an independent review committee that wasn't too cumbersome, if instead of going to the minister or your member of Parliament desperately trying to find some justice, there would just be an established procedure for complaining... We have gone to the Security Intelligence Review Committee about this situation. They say they'll deal with CSIS but they can't deal with immigration security.

• 1745

The auto workers have a review committee. Every police force has a review committee.

Who else did you mention, Marty?

Mr. Marty Dolin: The post office. Cable TV.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: And we could go on. This is a structural problem. I think it's a waste of your time to be involved in immigration complaints and a waste of the minister's time. You should be dealing with large public policy questions. Why should Sami Durgun have to stand outside for 40 days and 40 nights to complain? Why should I have to spend that time? Why should his member of Parliament's staff be booked up for a month on this?

If it had a normal procedure... Without that accountability you have a state within a state, and I don't accept that, as a democrat. I won't. I think there's a basic principle, Mr. Chairman. These officers act as if these human beings have no rights until the officer gives them to them. As a religious person and a Canadian, I happen to think they have rights, and they're there whether the officer recognizes them or not. It's incumbent on this committee to see that there is one system of justice for all of the human beings in this country.

Thank you.

The Chairman: That was very well said.

Before we continue, I'd like to get some consensus from committee members. It's 5.50 p.m. If you wish to continue, we have three more people to ask questions. Or do you want to terminate it? How many would like to hear the three additional requests?

Mr. Grant McNally: There should be at least three people voting for—

The Chairman: Okay, let's go on with the three. Keep your preambles concise. Get right to the questions so that they can have more time than you do.

Madam Hardy.

Ms. Louise Hardy: The whole idea of being in limbo—for the people who are left there and for yourselves in particular, have you been living in fear this whole time that you could be detained and deported? Is that fear of deportation always there for you?

Mr. Suleyman Goven: Yes, being in limbo holds sway over my life all the time. I have always been unsure about my future, of where I am going. Even the lawyer said one night they would arrest me and put me into prison, because this is a security issue. We don't know where we are in the system. We don't know.

Ms. Louise Hardy: So being questioned by CSIS—I understand Mr. Durgun has been questioned four times in the last month, and it was the same questions over and over.

Mr. Sami Durgun (Individual Presentation): Yes, four times, and they asked me the same questions each time. I was in the Kurdish community centre in Toronto for six months to help refugees for translation and stuff like that. They asked me who else was there, to give them the name. When you buy a Kurdish newspaper, who do you pay? When you pay the rent, give us the name. If you don't give the name and they think you have some connection with the PJJ Kurdish Workers Party... The security checks never finish. Every year they call you. They ask you the same questions unless you give them some names.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Can I have one other question?

When you were questioned, was it an outright blackmail? If you gave them answers would you get your papers, or was it just hinted at?

Mr. Suleyman Goven: Exactly. In exchange for getting my landed papers I was asked to cooperate, to provide information, to give some names. As Mary Jo described in her book—she was there, she witnessed what they were asking me for. They're very straightforward. I was kind of forced.

• 1750

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I was at that interrogation, and it lasted seven hours. On page 81, it's exactly there—he was told “You inform and we'll give you your papers”.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Inform on who?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Other Kurds.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: To do what? What was the purpose of having him inform on other Kurds? Are the other Kurds here illegally? Are they the same as you or what?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: No, they are in the same situation.

The Chairman: Let's stick to the...

Okay, you've asked her questions. We'll go to Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We've only been here since June, but it's nice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be brief. We want to find a way for this committee to deal with these concerns, accusations, etc. I think that has been said. If that means bringing forward some witnesses from CSIS or the department or whatever, then that would be lovely.

I have a fairly serious question and concern about a statement on page 3 of your presentation, Sister Leddy. You make a statement here that really disturbs me—a former guard at Celebrity Inn told you he quit because he couldn't stand participating in the beatings. I'd like to know if we could get more information. When I combine that with the last paragraph on the same page and your question about what kind of person inevitably wants to be attracted to such a police force...

The implication here, without saying it outright, is that we've got a bunch of thugs running this system who are physically beating people at the Celebrity Inn, in my city, in my country. I'd sure like to hear the details of that—some proof, some names, some witnesses. I think this is an extremely serious matter, one that frankly, if you're prepared to provide that kind of information, should go beyond the purview of this committee to the RCMP for an investigation immediately.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: What I can do is get an affidavit for you.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: An affidavit—is that good? I'll check with my adviser here.

The Chairman: Thank you. Now we'll hear from Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Sister, you and I have had this conversation on the phone before, but I want to go back to the big picture and the reason this committee has been struck and the issue that we are dealing with, and that is to try to design a system that is fair but expeditious. I am interested in both your comments in terms of trying to design a system that is a system that is fair and appears to be fair, but deals with whatever the issues are within a fairly short period of time.

I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on the issue you raised briefly with respect to public oversight of cases that fall outside any system. That is presently what humanitarian and compassionate is supposed to do, but it seems to have degenerated into an even bigger bureaucracy. So I'd be interesting in hearing you on both.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I'll answer briefly, Marty.

The standard argument against a public review committee is that it would be another layer of decision making, but what you must consider in the case of Sami Durgun is that there is already an enormous amount of political, public and NGO time going into compensating for the lack of that kind of body. It seems to me if there were a public review committee, a way that you could complain, not cumbersome, then people wouldn't have to go to their members of Parliament, to NGOs, to Amnesty.

• 1755

Legal aid is spending way too much money on court appeals that aren't court appeals. They're trying to deal with a problem in the system, and I think it would be worth the public's time, worth the money, and would better enable you to function as policymakers, not little fixers of micromanagement. It's worth your time and effort to look at this.

Mr. Marty Dolin: I'd like to add a little something to that, that throws maybe another thing into the pot.

In the days when Barbara McDougall was the minister responsible, when we had complaints and issues we used to write to the minister with some of the cases, saying we had a problem, and we got a response from somebody in the minister's office. Since Mr. Valcourt and the ministers subsequent, we get responses consistently from the bureaucrats, justifying the decisions of their inferiors, saying that they could do nothing else. I think the last line is usually: We had no choice but to make this decision.

Basically, it is the police reviewing police practices. That is what is happening. How this developed, that when you make a complaint to the ministerial office somehow it disappears from the political realm and goes back into the bureaucracy, is beyond me.

The first thing I would certainly hope this committee would do, especially government members, is ask the minister and her staff that when a letter comes saying what we see as a miscarriage of justice of some sort—Sami's case, for example—the minister and the political staff review it in light of the realities of the situation, in real compassion, and compassionate and humanitarian decisions are not relegated to the bureaucracy, which is what seems to have been happening in the last eight or nine years. I don't know how that took place, and I would hope it would stop. It might make your lives a lot easier. It would certainly make my life and Sami's life a lot easier.

The Chairman: Madam Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna: As a clarification on something, Mr. Chairman, or information actually, for members of the committee, I want to say, following up on what Mr. Mahoney said with respect to the security guard's comment—this is not in defence, because it is something that needs to be looked at; you're quite right—just to inform, the guards at the Celebrity Inn are not part of the enforcement. They're not immigration officials; they are contracted out.

A voice:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Maria Minna: I understand that. They're still under control. I'm not saying that in defence; I'm simply saying they're two separate... I'm saying, yes, we have to look at the problem, no question.

A voice: It's a point of information.

Ms. Maria Minna: The point of information is that they are not part of the removal officials of the ministry. They are contracted security guards, which of course, obviously needs to be looked at in terms of who we're dealing with. I'm not suggesting in the slightest that we don't have to look at it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They're hired by the ministry.

A voice: They're hired thugs as opposed to our own.

A voice: The ministry is still responsible.

Ms. Maria Minna: I agree 100%. All I meant was it's not part of the...

The Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing. You have certainly added a lot of spark to this committee this afternoon, and you have left us with a great problem. I promise you that this committee, through your stimulus, will be heading in the right direction.

The meeting is adjourned.