CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 27, 2001

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. We resume our look into Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

This morning we have with us the Canadian Council for Refugees, as well as the EGALE group. We'll have the next hour to speak to these two distinguished organizations who do some fine work for our country.

I would hope that our guests would take about five to seven minutes to summarize their briefs. We thank you in advance for providing us with your brief, leaving a lot of time for questions.

With the Canadian Council for Refugees, we have Janet Dench, executive director, and Francisco Rico-Martinez, president. For the EGALE group, we have John Fisher, Ron Chaplin, and we're still waiting for Michael Battista, who will be here shortly. Thank you very much.

Perhaps we can start with the Canadian Council for Refugees. Is it Janet or Francisco who's going to start?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez (President, Canadian Council for Refugees): Good morning everybody. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak briefly to our concerns related to Bill C-11.

For those of you who are not familiar with our organization, let me explain that the Canadian Council for Refugees is an umbrella organization with about 170 member organizations. We are committed to the rights and protection of refugees in Canada and around the world and to the settlement in Canada of refugees and immigrants.

Over the past several years, we have been deeply involved in the process of legislative review leading up to Bill C-11.

• 0910

I would like to address the terms of the process. Before passing to the bill itself, let me say a brief word about the consultation process being undertaken by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. In our view, this abbreviated and hasty consultation is inadequate given that we believe this to be a substantial piece of legislation that will have enormous impact on the life of hundreds of thousands of refugees and immigrants and on the reputation of Canada.

Regarding our presentation, our brief has more than 75 pages and 80 recommendations. We have copies of our brief available in English, and we can distribute them afterwards. Clearly, we can only touch on a few key points in the time that is available for us this morning. Let me start with these points.

First, here are our comments on the general character of the bill. Overall Bill C-11 is contradictory, inconsistent with Canadian values, and is hostile to refugees and immigrants. It will seriously undermine the rights and protection of refugees and immigrants in Canada and is unworthy of our country.

Secondly, everybody agrees that the framework legislation leaves many of the key rules to regulations. Framework legislation gives wide powers to change the rules without any parliamentary oversight. We ask you to think seriously about whether this is the way we want to go with this.

Regarding human rights obligations, we welcome the fact that Bill C-11 makes more reference than the current Immigration Act to Canada's human rights obligations—for example, by offering some protection from return to torture as guaranteed by article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, and by referring to the best interests of the child. However, the bill is not consistent in ensuring that its provisions meet human rights obligations.

In various places it ignores advice given by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations and by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. A number of the provisions are contrary to Canada's obligations of the human rights instruments to which we are signatory.

We urge the committee to amend the bill to ensure that Canada lives up to its reputation as a leader in the human rights field. We also encourage the committee to seek an opinion on the bill from the relevant international human rights bodies—notably, the UN Committee Against Torture, the UN Human Rights Committee, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

With regard to enforcement, I think everybody can agree that Bill C-11 and its predecessor, Bill C-31, were presented with a very heavy enforcement emphasis. This emphasis promotes negative stereotypes about refugees and immigrants. Unfortunately, the emphasis is not just in the government's rhetoric around the bill, but also in the provisions of the bill itself, which gives still more discretionary powers to immigration officers. This seriously reduces individual protection for refugees and immigrants. For instance, the bill expands powers of detention, and the government has indicated that it intends to detain more people, mostly—it seems—in order to make themselves look tough, even though a recent UN report said clearly that we currently do not always meet the minimum international standards of detention.

It is important to note, also, that granting increasing discretionary powers to immigration officers opens the door to abuse targeting racial minorities. There are already frequent complaints about perceived bias or racism by immigration officers, and there is no independent complaints mechanism to investigate such complaints. The CCR recommends that power of detention be narrowly circumscribed and subject to meaningful review. We also call for the establishment of an independent complaint mechanism.

Now, I'm going to pass to Janet Dench, who is going to continue reading our brief.

• 0915

Ms. Janet Dench (Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees): This point we want to highlight regards the specificities of refugees. Most people will welcome a separate refugee protection part of the bill, recognizing that the refugee situation is different from immigrants. However, the separation is not fully respected within the bill. Refugee resettlement is covered under part 1, “Immigration to Canada”, and we note that the bill has almost nothing to say about resettlement, since it is left to regulation.

Many of the rules affecting refugee claimants, including rules about detention, are found in part 1, where the specific realities of refugees are not taken into account.

The CCR calls for more holistic coverage of the refugee programs, notably the refugee resettlement program, and applications for permanent residence by refugees in the refugee protection part of the bill.

[Translation]

Now we would like to propose some simple solutions which, in our opinion, would improve the bill and the immigration program in a significant way. These recommendations are based on three concerns; first, to have a fair procedure; second, to have a process that respects international human rights standards; third, to have an efficient process.

[English]

These are our specific recommendations among the many that we have in the brief.

One, automatic landing for refugees. For several years now we have had an immense problem because refugees recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board must apply for permanent residence and often wait years for processing. During this time they are in legal limbo and do not enjoy the rights that Canada is obliged to respect under the refugee convention. Bill C-11 does not address this problem.

The CCR recommends a simple solution: amend the bill to grant automatic permanent resident status to all protected persons. CIC would continue to be able to move to take away permanent resident status in the few cases where the persons are not entitled.

Second, eliminate the eligibility stage in the refugee determination process. Under the current law, as well as under Bill C-11, there is an eligibility test that denies a small number of refugee claimants access to the refugee determination system. New in Bill C-11 is that everyone who makes a second claim is barred from a refugee hearing. These eligibility bars are inconsistent with our obligations under the refugee convention and under the Convention Against Torture. The eligibility stage is an extra step that takes time and resources but only screens out a tiny percentage of cases.

We recommend that the eligibility stage be simply eliminated and any relevant issues be dealt with at the Immigration and Refugee Board, where they should be appropriately examined in the context of the refugee hearing.

Third, move the pre-removal risk assessment to the IRB. Under Bill C-11 there will be two parallel structures, one at IRB and one at CIC, applying the same definition but offering very different procedural protections. Some people will go through both. The system is so complicated that both Bill C-11 and Bill C-31 have drafting problems, and we still don't know exactly what is intended in the pre-removal risk assessment process.

In the interests of justice, compliance with international standards and efficiency, the CCR recommends that the PRRA be moved to the IRB.

In conclusion, we repeat what we said at the beginning: overall Bill C-11 is contradictory, inconsistent with Canadian values, and hostile to refugees and immigrants.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now, EGALE. Who is going to start? John, go ahead.

Mr. John Fisher (Executive Director, EGALE): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to be here today with my colleagues, Ron Chaplin and Michael Battista.

EGALE is a national organization with members in every province and territory of the country. It advances equality and justice for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered people, and their families across Canada.

There are three issues we will be addressing today: I will look at the question of the inclusion of same-sex couples within the family class; Mr. Battista will look at questions relating to refugees, particularly those fleeing persecution based on sexual orientation or their gender identity; and Mr. Chaplin will look at the question of HIV testing.

Our comments, of course, are focused on the bill itself, Bill C-11. We recognize that this committee is not directly addressing the regulations, and we recognize that Bill C-11 is designed as framework legislation.

• 0920

At the same time there are places where of course the scheme of the proposed regulations is inextricably intertwined with what's set out in the legislation. We think it is appropriate that where there are issues in the proposed regulations that are central to the structure of the whole regime, and that possibly touch upon the constitutionality of parts of the regime, it's appropriate for this committee to at least express its views and give some guidance to those drafting the regulations, so that they can benefit from this committee's experience and views on those points.

I would like to turn now to the family class. Usually when I present before a parliamentary committee on questions relating to same-sex couples and the recognition of our relationships, I start by explaining why same-sex couples are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

I'm going to assume that we've moved beyond that point now. I think the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that equal recognition of our relationships is constitutionally required. The Government of Canada has affirmed its commitment to that principle by passing Bill C-23 last year, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. Of course in the immigration context, same-sex couples have been granted some entry into Canada for many years based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

So the question I think today is not whether same-sex couples should be recognized equally in the immigration context, but how. What are their criteria? Where does it belong? We support and applaud the inclusion and recognition of common-law partners within the family class. That's where it belongs, not under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. We see this as a step forward.

There is one proposal that we have for an amendment to the legislation. The identification of the term common-law partner is in subclause 12(2) of Bill C-11. While we support the inclusion of common-law partner in the act—as we've said—we would support making it explicit that this includes both same-sex partners and opposite-sex partners. So we would propose inserting after the words “common-law partner”, in brackets, the term “same-sex or opposite-sex”.

The reasons for that are as follows. First, we think that as framework legislation the bill should identify the primary grounds upon which people can seek access under the family class. We think that making it explicit that same-sex partners are included within that goes to the core content of who can seek access, rather than just a question of what are the criteria, which can be dealt with under the regulations.

Secondly, it is important in the interest of transparency. Many people are not aware that common-law partner—just on its face—includes same-sex partners. We know that there is a valuable precedent in what Statistics Canada has done with the 2001 census. Statistics Canada in the census is asking Canadians about their personal relationships and for the first time this year is asking about same-sex relationships. In the interests of consistency with Bill C-23, they're using the expression “common-law partner”, but on the census, after the words “common-law partner”, they're putting in brackets “same-sex”, and for a different question, “common-law partner” with “opposite-sex” in brackets, and asking Canadians to check which of those two, if applicable, describes their relationship.

Statistics Canada has done this, of course, based upon extensive focus group testing and has found that this is the way to best get accurate results, because people don't otherwise understand that common-law partner necessarily includes same-sex partners.

In the immigration context also, it's all the more important, because of course many people will be seeking to access and understand their immigration regime from overseas. Particularly for gays and lesbians who are in countries where there is no recognition of their relationships—where same-sex couples have no protection under the law—the automatic assumption will be that common-law partners refer to opposite-sex common-law partners, which is how in many countries the term has been traditionally used.

So that is the primary amendment that we're proposing under the family class.

I will touch briefly on a key question in the regulations, but that's detailed more fully in our brief. Specifically, we're concerned that in the overview of proposed regulations tabled with the committee, there is a proposal to identify common-law partners based upon conjugality and a one-year cohabitation requirement. Put bluntly in the immigration context, cohabitation doesn't work. People are often separated by reasons of immigration and can't live together under the same roof.

We therefore have a number of proposals, which are spelled out in more detail in our brief, for how that might better be addressed, but for now we'd urge the committee, in looking and expressing its views on this subject, to just reaffirm that cohabitation is not necessarily the best criterion in the immigration context. I'll be happy to elaborate on that in the question period if there are specific questions. Thank you.

• 0925

Michael.

Mr. Michael Battista (Immigration and Refugee Lawyer, EGALE): Thank you.

I think we have to start with the recognition that in many countries around the world lesbians, gay men, and transgendered people face very serious human rights violations. Canada is one of the few jurisdictions internationally that offers protection to people who flee persecution based on their sexual orientation or their sexual identity. Yet even here there are really significant barriers to protection for lesbians, gay men, and transgendered people.

For example, after years of living in a repressive environment, a person seeking protection based on sexual orientation or sexual identity might have fears of disclosing the real basis of their refugee claim to a Canadian authority figure. Also, they might be unaware that they can claim refugee status based on sexual orientation or sexual identity, and this is particularly important given the absence of any explicit reference to their ability to do so in the Immigration Act or in the immigration regulations. We've identified our concerns that Bill C-11 will heighten the barriers already faced by people who need protection because of their sexual orientation or their sexual identity.

We've isolated a couple of ineligibility provisions that we think impact differentially on gay men, lesbians, and transgendered people who are seeking protection in Canada. Given, as I mentioned earlier, the compelling reasons people might have for not disclosing their sexual orientation or their sexual identity at the first opportunity, we're concerned that the restrictions on the presentation of such evidence at later stages might block the protection needs of people fleeing persecution based on their sexual orientation or their sexual identity. There is no provision for reopening a claim before the refugee protection division, and there's no opportunity to present evidence that hasn't already been presented before the refugee appeal division or that comes from a post-removal risk assessment.

Finally, we're concerned that the weakening of other procedural protections under the bill, such as the movement to single-member panels, makes it critical that guidelines be developed and that appropriate training be given to refugee protection division members on how to handle claims based on sexual orientation or sexual identity. Thank you.

Mr. Ron Chaplin (Chair, Political Action Committee, EGALE): Thank you, Michael.

Before closing, we would like to briefly add that EGALE is concerned about any proposal under the act or its regulations to require prospective immigrants of any class to submit to mandatory HIV testing. Under the current act and the proposed legislation, persons can be refused entry into Canada if they suffer from a medical condition that is likely to be a threat to public health or safety or that might place excessive demands on government services. Both these criteria are appropriate. Mandatory HIV testing, however, and the automatic exclusion of HIV-positive applicants do not fall under either of these provisions.

The mandatory testing of all prospective immigrants is a misuse of resources that would do very little to protect the health and safety of Canadians. Such resources would be far better spent on public health education programs. Moreover, treatments for HIV have advanced remarkably and continue to improve. HIV-positive individuals can lead productive lives and make a positive contribution to the Canadian economy. We would recommend, therefore, that there be no change in the current policies, which allow immigration officers to request an HIV test at their discretion and to review the results of those tests on a case-by-case basis. We would add that HIV status alone should not prevent anyone from entering Canada as a visitor, as a refugee, or as a member of an immediate family seeking reunification.

The Chair: Thank you all for this presentation, as well as for your continuing input. I know that you had an awful lot to say with regard to Bill C-31, the predecessor to this particular bill, and your consultation was most useful. I know that a lot of you spoke to the issue of regulations. I should point out to you—and I'm sure you recall—that there is a discussion paper the committee requested of the minister before we began our public hearings in order to assist the committee as to the kind of regulation that may pertain to the bill. As you know, that discussion paper is there. I don't know if you have received it or have had an opportunity to take a look at it. Obviously, there'll be plenty of opportunity as we move through this process to have your continuing input.

• 0930

Thank you, and we're ready for questions. I'll go to Inky in the first round. You have ten minutes. You can use it all yourself, share it, or whatever. I would ask that the questions be short and that the answers be equally short, so we can ask as many questions as possible. Thank you.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, and welcome to the committee.

I have a couple of short questions, the first one for the Canadian Council for Refugees. You indicated that you're not happy because this is framework legislation, and you'd like to see the government entrench more in the legislation rather than leave it all for the regulation. I have the same feeling. I believe it's too important to leave a lot of the specifics to regulation. What would you put into legislation that's not there right now and that's addressed by regulation?

Ms. Janet Dench: One of the areas we mentioned is in the area of the refugee resettlement program. There is virtually nothing in the bill about the refugee resettlement program, about the rights, the entitlements, and the process. That would be one area.

We were looking for there to be more protections in the act across the board. Our concern is that for so much of what's in the regulations there is less in the way of firm protection. Also, things can be changed. They can be changed if the regulations happen to be inconvenient for the government or if there's a court decision the government doesn't like. Then they can simply change the regulations, and that's been a concern for us.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: We are concerned as well about the issue. If you see the bill, the emphasis, and how they go deep into details—some parts, we understand, could be done in the regulation part—some parts work against refugees and immigrants, for example the detention and removal criteria that are very enforcement-oriented and that are there in the bill. That is not framework legislation in that particular part. But if you want to talk about other situations where you have to be proactive—resettlement programs, considering the best interests of children, and gender-sensitive issues—we somehow don't have anything in the bill that reflects that. This is a very problematic approach.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you. My next question is to EGALE. Considering that Bill C-23 was passed last year, are you surprised that this piece of legislation didn't address the issue of same-sex couples in an open fashion?

Mr. John Fisher: If I understand the question, my response is that we feel this is the theological completion of the approach begun with Bill C-23 last year. I think the government in enacting that legislation made clear its commitment to recognizing that same-sex couples should be treated equally to mixed-sex couples. We were aware, however, that there was a separate, parallel immigration review taking place. I think it was always the government's intention to ensure that same-sex partners were recognized within this legislation. As I've said, that is now done through clause 12 of the bill, although, as we indicated in our opening remarks, our preference would be to see that protection more explicitly established within the legislation in the interests of maximizing transparency.

The Chair: Gurmant.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I promise to be nice to you.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you. That's a good sign, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is to CCR. It's mentioned that there is some bias and racism on the part of some immigration officers. Do you have anything documented, any kind of evidence, that you can submit now or later to the committee as a reference?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: We have, for instance, information about persistent complaints that were made before the human rights committee in Manitoba about racism on the part of immigration officers.

• 0935

We have also continually complained about the interdiction program, which is based in racism, because it is the way you look—how you are stopped in the middle of the process, overseas or in London, or wherever, in coming to Canada. We have mentioned different things.

Sometimes for applications overseas, in terms of sponsorship and all these related matters, we have different information about the number of people who are accepted in the different posts. We have different information that we have been discussing with the immigration department for the last 20 years.

They know there is a problem. That's why we are asking for an independent complaint mechanism to deal with that particular situation and make improvements in this area of the immigration and refugee process.

Ms. Janet Dench: I'd like to offer supplementary comments in response to your question.

We did prepare a report in preparation for the World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which looks at issues of racism and xenophobia as they're found in the immigration and refugee programs in Canada, and we'd be happy to send you a copy.

The Chair: Thank you.

Gurmant.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I have a short question about the automatic landing for refugees. You have mentioned that it's not in the bill. First of all, can you specify in which section of the bill it's mentioned that once refugees are accepted, they will be denied the landing right?

Second, what are your specific recommendations on this? It wasn't clear.

Ms. Janet Dench: The bill simply says refugees—protected persons who have been recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board—can apply for permanent resident status. Exactly what criteria will apply to them will depend upon the regulations.

Again, this is left to the regulations, although we have been told by the department that it intends to carry over the same requirements that currently exist. This means people cannot be landed unless, for example, they satisfy an immigration officer as to their identity, which causes a lot of problems for people who don't have identity documents for one reason or another.

We are suggesting that there simply be a provision in the bill to say that a protected person, recognized as such by the Immigration and Refugee Board, becomes a permanent resident.

Now that permanent resident status can be taken away again, in the same way it can be taken away from any person who proves to be inadmissible, after we have gone through the process.

We propose that, simply by operation of law, everyone becomes a permanent resident, and they won't have to go through this process of meeting various requirements.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Would this be so even if they were involved in criminal activity later on?

Ms. Janet Dench: If you were involved in serious criminal activity, you wouldn't be recognized as a protected person. If you have committed serious, non-political crimes, you are excluded. You cannot be recognized as a protected person.

There will be a small number of people to whom it's not appropriate to give permanent resident status, but when you know this is the case for this tiny number of people, permanent resident status can be removed from them.

The Chair: Francisco.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: The proposal is based also on our experience dealing with the Immigration and Refugee Board.

They have a very qualified test for the identification of people. At the end of the refugee hearing, they know if this person is lying about his or her identity or not, or if the person is a genuine refugee. That's why we are providing protection.

It's not just automatic upon arriving in Canada. It is after the whole process kicks in, is finished, and a decision has been made about the identity and the need for protection of that particular person. If Immigration Canada is still having some problems with that particular person, in terms of ID, or criminality, or exclusion, or whatever, they can reopen that situation and revisit it. They can remove the landed immigrant status of that person if they prove there is something against it in that particular situation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Inky, we'll take one final question.

Mr. Inky Mark: That was the case before 1993, when refugees were determined to be genuine by the review board. They didn't have to have proof then.

The challenge today is to determine who is a genuine refugee and asylum-seeker, not only in this country but also in many other countries. Would you separate those two categories? That is the biggest question raised by the people I speak to, the whole issue of documentation.

• 0940

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: In my opinion, the confusion here is that in the western countries we assimilate two things that are totally different. One is ID documents; the other is identification. They're not the same.

I am Francisco Rico anywhere I go; I don't have to show my driver's licence. But here, the focus is on documents, and that is totally biased, because some countries that are not western-oriented don't have the tradition of having ID documents like we have. You immediately discriminate against half the population of the world if you focus only on documents.

The other area is refugee protection. We have a process and we have a test, which is the IRB, and it has been working. So we have to trust the instrument we create and let them decide or determine which people are in need of protection.

But identity is an area that we haven't really explored as a legal instrument, with legal meanings to do these kinds of things, because we are confused in terms of identification and ID documents. It's that confusion that is basically against a lot of people who come to this country, who have good intentions and would need our protection but are stuck because they don't have a passport.

The Chair: Thank you.

Steve, and then I think Gurbax has a question.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I have questions of both groups, but to the CCR folks first.

The issue of “foreign national” being used as a term has been brought up by others, and I wonder if it's a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Maybe you could explain it to me.

We don't use the term “alien”, unlike the Americans, and if they are foreign nationals and here without citizenship, they are what they are. Maybe I'm not getting it.

Ms. Janet Dench: Our particular concern is the use of “foreign nationals” in relation to permanent residents. Yes, technically speaking, they are foreign nationals in the sense that they are citizens of another country. On the other hand, they're also members of our society.

We're a country of immigration. Immigrants are part of Canadian society. A person can be a permanent resident living here for years and years, or only fairly recently arrived, but it's our job, as Canadians, to make them feel at home. If, in the Immigration Act, in most of the occasions we come to talk about them, we describe them as foreign nationals, we're simply labelling them as not of our society.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That would tend to assume, then, that as people go about their daily business being a permanent resident of Canada, they're constantly being referred to as a foreign national. It seems to me, for legislative purposes in describing people as what they are, I would quite agree that the term “alien” is not appropriate, but “foreign national” is just a statement of fact anyway.

The Chair: I don't know. A lot of people would think politicians are aliens.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, right, self-deprecation.

The Chair: Francisco, did you have something to add?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: We would suggest that we try to develop a term, or use a term that is already there, that would basically focus on the intention of people to become part of this society.

You have refugee claimants or conventional refugees who have been accepted and have been living here for three, four, or five years, and they are still foreign nationals. Even though they want to live in and be part of this society, they will be called foreign nationals, even though it is for our own reasons that they are, at the same time, not landed immigrants and not Canadian citizens.

In that way, “foreign national” creates a situation that doesn't focus on the intention of people to be part of this country. In that way, we have to use another term. “Non-Canadian” is one. There are different terms that we already have in our law that don't emphasize—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't want to use all my time on that point.

On your statement that it should be amended to exclude the possibility of setting quotas, where do you see that?

Maybe while you're looking for that I could ask a second question, which has to do with refugee determination.

• 0945

You've stated that they've been denied second claims. It's my understanding that they still have access to PRRA, which in essence would be a second claim. So we're not taking that away. I know you want it to be moved to the IRB. I understand that, but regardless of where it is in the system, it still exists.

The Chair: How about the first question?

Ms. Janet Dench: In answer to your first question, paragraph 14(2)(c) says there can be regulations respecting the number of applications that may be processed or approved in a year, the number of visas or other documents that may be issued in a year, and the measures to be taken when that number is exceeded.

We are asking for an exception to be made for refugee categories, because we don't think there should be those kinds of limits set in those categories. We don't have them now, and we don't want the government to set them in the future.

The Chair: And on to the second point...

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Respecting PRRA, you're right, we want to have just one body that decides or determines who is a refugee and who is a person in need of protection. That's why we want you to move the PRRA to the IRB, because it's the same concept. It's the same definition that will be used by the independent tribunal, the quasi-judicial tribunal in the IRB, as will be used by immigration officers to review the cases of risk, or whatever.

We are saying, then, that's not a refugee claim. By definition, if you apply the convention of 1951, you will see that that is not considered a refugee claim. It is considered a review for risk assessment, and that is why it is called PRRA, because legally it is not a second chance under the convention on refugees.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a couple of questions for EGALE, if I might.

First of all, on your request to add in parenthesis the term “same-sex or opposite-sex”, after Bill C-23 and the almost attitudinal change that is implied by that bill, I would have thought you were past, or we were all past, specifically identifying this in this way, that we recognize what common-law partner means.

Mr. John Fisher: I think we may recognize ourselves what common-law partner means, but the question is, how accessible is that information to the people who will be seeking to use Canada's immigration system?

Currently, under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, same-sex partners are allowed entry into Canada. In fact, that has been working reasonably effectively for a number of years. However, I still get numerous calls at the EGALE office from people who have no awareness that they have the current capacity to make a claim on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Some of them have consulted lawyers overseas who themselves have consulted Canada's Immigration Act and found no reference to same-sex partners within the family class or any reference under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

So I think the question is making that information as available as possible to people, particularly those applying from overseas, who may have no awareness that we in Canada have come to accept the term “common-law partner” as including same-sex partners. I think generally that's not known internationally, and it's specifically not known internationally in those countries where common-law is assumed to refer to opposite-sex only and that may even maintain criminal sanctions on the basis of homosexuality.

The other point is the one I made earlier, that Statistics Canada has tested the question amongst Canadians and found that, even amongst Canadians, accuracy and awareness increase if you explicitly set out the terms “same-sex or opposite-sex”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So training wouldn't satisfy your concerns in that area.

Mr. John Fisher: Training would certainly help. We believe it's important that there be pamphlets, training sessions for visa officers, and so forth, so that in administering our immigration policies overseas, they have as much information as possible.

But we also fear that if there are people currently who have consulted lawyers overseas and don't know about their current entitlement, that's just the tip of the iceberg, and there will be lots of people who won't be aware.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I understand your concerns. I guess for years you have fought the battle to be included, and now, by actually putting it in definition in the bill, you're setting yourselves aside again. I find that to be inconsistent.

I understand your concern and your problem, and I wonder if there might not be a better way for everyone to resolve it rather than doing it that way. But we'll take that under advisement.

• 0950

On the issue of inadmissibility based upon excessive demand on health or social services, it's my understanding that this bill contains new provisions exempting family-class-sponsored spouses, common-law partners and dependent children, overseas convention refugees, and persons in similar circumstances and their respective dependants from inadmissibility based upon excessive demand on health or social services.

Does that not resolve your concerns with regard to the testing issue?

Mr. Ron Chaplin: No. We would congratulate the minister for including the clause and making it very clear that HIV status would not determine eligibility in those particular instances. But we are concerned about public musings by the minister up until now that will require mandatory HIV tests for all applicants for immigration status in Canada. We believe this is unnecessary. It does not meet the test set in the act.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry, you believe there will be a requirement for mandatory testing?

Mr. Ron Chaplin: The minister has made statements in public, which I have to assume are trial balloons, frankly, regarding such a measure.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Michael Battista: If I could just jump in for a moment to add a point here—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I've heard her make opposite statements, by the way.

The Chair: We'll get a clarification.

Mr. Michael Battista: The exclusion from the medical inadmissibility criteria you mentioned doesn't catch independent immigrants. There might be people who are accepted for admission to Canada and can contribute greatly, economically and culturally, to Canada's life. That's just not caught.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go now to Madeleine.

[Translation]

Five minutes.

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

I address my first question to the Canadian Council for Refugees. In your presentation you mentioned giving automatic residency status to refugees. I would like to know whether in other countries that receive refugees—there are a few—a similar automatic residency status procedure is necessarily applied to refugees, in which case we would only be following the standard, but if that is not the case, wouldn't Canada become a preferred destination for refugees, whereas the bill is trying to limit immigration to some extent?

I also address my second question to the Canadian Council for Refugees. You mentioned eliminating the eligibility process for all those who apply for asylum. You said that there were basically very few of them. Could you give me an idea of the percentage? Would it be 1%, 5%, 10% of applicants who are not eligible for the status of an asylum claimant?

The Chair: Janet.

Ms. Janet Dench: Regarding the first question, I think that in different countries, there is a great variety of ways of dealing with refugees. In Canada, we have an advantage and I think that we should certainly preserve it. In fact, we encourage refugees to become permanent residents as soon as possible and to become citizens if they wish, so that they can be more easily assimilated.

However, in other countries, there are Convention refugees with Convention refugee rights. They have rights that various countries must respect according to the Convention. In Canada, there is no such category at all, because refugees generally become permanent residents quite soon. They can access these rights through their permanent residency status.

Automatically giving permanent residency to refugees would be more or less the same thing as other countries do, where refugees are properly granted rights to services, education, travel documents, etc.

• 0955

[English]

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Let me add something to this question. We already do what we are asking them to do overseas. We have experiences where Salvadoran people coming to Canada 10 to 15 years ago didn't know where to start in refugee camps in Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. They didn't have any ID. When we accepted those people, we landed them and now they are Canadian citizens. They don't have any ID originally from El Salvador, for instance. We have the same situation overseas in different refugee camps. We are already doing this.

The problem is that we are applying double standards. We do it overseas for some cases, and we're very pleased with that, but we don't do it inside Canada for no reason. We are asking for the same kind of treatment in terms of the identification of people and the landing process.

[Translation]

Ms. Janet Dench: Regarding the second question, I don't have the exact figures with me, but I know that this is much less than 5%. It is 1% or less than 1%. It is a very small number. I think that the department could give you the exact figures.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you. One brief question?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My next question is addressed to the EGALE group, which is very well organized. But there's one thing I find regrettable. You said that you had members across Canada. I imagine that you have members in Quebec, and I regret that your recommendations were only sent to me in English, especially as they were not very lengthy. It would have been easy to do it.

I fully understand your concerns regarding that well-known statement that some people make when they want to come to Canada, saying that they are mistreated because of their sexual orientation. Certainly, "partners of the same sex or of opposite sexes" would be clearer. I would agree with expressing this as clearly as possible. I would entirely agree with that.

Besides, like Mr. Chaplin, I recognize that HIV is not foot-and-mouth disease. They are not the same at all. In the required health examinations, is that the only problem you have? I remember, long ago, that I had to undergo a syphilis test before attending a training course. I must say that at that time, syphilis was regarded to be at least as dangerous as HIV. Is this the only test that you have a problem with, or are syphilis tests still required?

[English]

Mr. Ron Chaplin: I don't want to overstate our case. Basically what we are proposing has no change in the current procedure, which gives the overseas immigration officers the authority to request an HIV test and then the authority to, at their discretion, determine whether someone who's HIV-positive might pose an excessive burden on government services here in Canada. All we're opposing is any intention to make those tests mandatory for all applicants and to make a blanket exemption.

The case she raises is very interesting. Syphilis is grounds to be refused entry into Canada for a specific period of time. There are some remarkable advances now in HIV therapies. I myself have been HIV-positive now for 16 years. But there still is no cure. If you do a blanket exclusion policy for anyone who is HIV-positive, that essentially means with the information we have now they are excluded for the rest of their lives. The exclusions for syphilis or for tuberculosis are not like that because those diseases can in fact be cured.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Judy, five minutes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Only five minutes, right?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll try.

The Chair: I'm very generous, you know that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have three questions. The first is to Janet and Francisco. The Canadian Council for Refugees has done an incredible amount of work over the years in terms of supporting refugees and helping to ensure compliance with the UN convention on refugees.

• 1000

My first question is, is your job going to be made any more difficult by this bill? Will you be placed in a more dangerous situation by virtue of this bill? I'm referring specifically to the provisions in Bill C-11 for penalties for organizing the coming into Canada of persons who are not in possession of a visa. Does this have an impact on organizations like yours and individuals who help ensure people without proper visas are able to come into Canada? Are you facing, given the way it's worded, any challenges or penalties because of that kind of humanitarian contribution you make?

Second, you've raised a lot of concerns in your brief, many of which we've had before this committee in previous presentations. There are many of us who believe there are some serious shortcomings with this bill and we need to make amendments. However, there are so many areas. Could you give us a sense of some of the most egregious shortcomings of the bill, and what some of us should do to in focusing our attention for amendments to this bill?

My third question is to EGALE. I think Ron makes a very important point in response to Steve's question. The minister did make a statement, or engage in some musings, prior to the election indicating the government was looking at mandatory testing. That caused a lot of concerns, and we're not sure where that sits. The way Bill C-11 is worded now, does it allow for mandatory testing to happen through the back door? Will it happen anyway because of the way the medical admissibility provisions are worded, and if so, what should we be doing to change that or monitor it, to ensure that we don't go down that path or that the government doesn't allow us to slip in that direction?

The Chair: Okay. First question, Francisco or Janet.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: It is a concern for us. We're glad Canada understands that people, in order to come, fleeing from persecution use false documents—that's understandable. They sometimes cross the border illegally. They come to Canada without any visa. Those are the people I work with every single day of my life, and I live with them in my own house. They have to do something like that in order to flee from that particular situation of persecution or something.

It is an abiding concern that in the bill there is not a distinction in relation to the humanitarian work the NGOs do, different people do—any way you put it—and we have to emphasize that particular work. The NGOs of Canada and the people of Canada 12 years ago even received a prize for our work with refugees and immigrants, helping these people. Now we have to continue on that path and recognize that the different things we do are oriented by our humanitarian history and background and our goals in helping these people. The law doesn't make any reference to a distinction between work done for humanitarian reasons and that done for other purposes. That's the first question.

Ms. Janet Dench: As for the second question, that's a very difficult thing to ask us. We have, as you know, a large number of concerns, and all of our concerns are serious ones. I come back to the comment we made at the beginning. This is a very important bill that is going to be affecting hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives over the years to come, and we should be taking the time necessary to look at each particular area of the bill and to make sure it meets international standards of human rights and will ensure that refugees and immigrants are treated fairly.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: But one of the things you may also take as a flag is the gender analysis. This bill needs to be really analysed in terms of how it's going to affect women and children, and particularly women, because it's not friendly to women.

The Chair: Michael.

Mr. Michael Battista: Maybe I could take the question you directed at EGALE. The testing of Africans for immigration to Canada is highly discretionary. It's not dependent on anything that's really in the act. It's a decision a doctor takes in examining an applicant to Canada for immigration. But I can tell you—I'm a lawyer in private practice in Toronto—that since the minister's statements in the press, I have sensed an increase in the testing of applicants on the grounds of HIV. At least I've sensed an increase in clients coming into my office saying they've tested positive for HIV.

• 1005

And I can just add, a lot of these doctors don't have adequate counselling or training to deal with HIV. I've had applicants who have been told over the telephone that they're HIV-positive. It's had a devastating effect on relationships. So the whole counselling part of it is a really important component.

The Chair: Thank you.

John McCallum, and Gurbax. Five minutes, or two questions each.

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Thank you.

I have one question on the subject of whether the pre-removal risk assessment should be done by the Immigration and Refugee Board or by the department and the minister.

Others had suggested earlier what you have suggested—that it be done by the board—and a reason given was that the board had the greater competence in that area.

But then the head of the Immigration and Refugee Board was here the other day, and I posed the question to him. If I recall what he said correctly, he said essentially that this decision involves weighing two things—on the one hand, the risk to the individual if he or she is sent away from Canada versus the risk to public safety or national interest or other things if the person is allowed to stay. This weighing process is pretty much a political decision.

So the head of the Immigration and Refugee Board himself seemed to think it was appropriate to do it the way it is drafted in the bill. So I guess I'd just like your reaction to that.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Okay.

We are suggesting that for two reasons. One is the competence, as you said. But the other one is that it will be cheaper because you already have an instructor there. You don't have to create anything else or to pay a lot of people for doing that. You have the IRB already, and they have refugee hearing rooms and all this stuff. They can do it, and they have the expertise.

In terms of the different tasks, I seem to disagree with the chairman of the IRB because we had the discussion before. Now, currently, the IRB only reveals the refugee destination. That's the only task. Now we are asking them to do more things—protection and different things—and they are willing to do them.

In my opinion, it is a problem of resources and training, and it can be feasible for them to do anything they want as they are taking other responsibilities in the current bill that we are discussing today. So I don't see a problem in terms of that capacity.

I think we can put more capacity on them. That would be better than to spend and to clear a parallel structure that is going to be very expensive and problematic and is going to create a lot of problems because they are not an independent body or quasi-judicial people. They will be bureaucrats, taking decisions that will be challenged in different ways.

The Chair: Thank you.

Gurbax, one question.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A number of organizations think that Bill C-11 gives more powers to the immigration officials to detain on the basis of identity. Also, they think that no appeals to the board would be possible for applicants, including permanent residents, on the grounds of security, protecting human rights, or international rights.

What do you think about these two questions?

Ms. Janet Dench: With respect to the detention on the basis of identity, this is an area of extreme concern for us.

There are great expansions in the powers of detention on the basis of identity in Bill C-11. We are particularly worried about the impacts this will have on refugee claimants, because if they get detained on the basis of ID, then they're going to be under pressure to cooperate in getting identity documents. This may be something that could put themselves or family members or colleagues at risk if they have to go and make official applications for documents.

Refugees who are potentially fleeing persecution by a state should never be asked to go back to that state and ask the state to provide them with documents.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Let me say something about that one.

Also, if you review the statistics of the IRB, 80% of the people—maybe 75% of the refugee claimants who come to Canada—arrive without ID. But during the process and during the time that they are waiting for the refugee hearing, they somehow themselves contact their own countries, their own families, relatives, and whatever, and they produce that ID that we need. And 80% of those people produce that ID, and it's not a false ID. It is not possible for them to travel with two different sets of ID, where one is a false document and the other is a genuine one, because they will be stopped everywhere in the airports. So in that way, they have the possibility to produce it, and we know that. We don't have the capacity to detain 80% of the refugee claimants that come to this country. That will be very problematic, very expensive, and very inhuman, in my opinion.

• 1010

The Chair: Thank you.

Before I thank you very much for your obviously informed matters... and you are both very, very, involved... John, did you have something to say before I was...

Mr. John Fisher: I wonder if I might just make a very quick supplementary point in relation to a question that Ms. Wasylycia-Leis had asked.

The Chair: On which question?

Mr. John Fisher: The question was around whether there was anything in the bill itself that would enable the committee to address the question of mandatory testing and exclusion. Although mostly it's being dealt with by way of policies and regulations, paragraph 38(1)(c) is the place where the ability to exclude applicants is set out.

Currently, part of the problem is that the exclusive focus there is on the excessive demand on health and social services, but there's no opportunity in the bill to take into account the possible contributions to weigh the balancing effect on an individual case. So it might be possible at the end of paragraph 38(1)(c) to add an additional clause that says something like, “taking into account all the circumstances of the individual including their potential contributions”, or something like that. That makes it more of an individual analysis and not just a focus on the negative things that their condition places upon health and social services but also offsets that against their positive contributions. We could undertake to come up with a proposal for specific wording, but that's the place where there might be an option to do what you suggested.

The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.

My point was there's no doubt that this country in fact has a great immigration law and has had for a number of years. It has been recognized by other countries in the world. Our refugee protection act obviously has been recognized by the United Nations and others as being one of the most sensitive and perhaps generous in the world.

I get a little troubled, Francisco and Janet, when you start to use the words that Bill C-11 is contradictory to Canadian values and hostile to refugees. Now I just want to understand it. We have a present bill that I think everybody recognizes needs improvements. It went to Bill C-31, which brought in certain improvements along with an awful lot of input from a lot of people over the course of four or five years. We are now at Bill C-11. Just give a short answer for me, please: is Bill C-11 a step forward from where we are now or a step back? When you start using the words “hostile to refugees” and “contradictory to Canadian values”, I'm a little troubled by those kinds of words.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: In a few words, it is a step forward in a few areas and a step back in most of the things.

The Chair: Well, let me assure you, then, that the committee is starting its work. We're hearing from Canadians, we're hearing from you. We've got a long process. We intend to take the time that's necessary in order to make sure it's right.

I asked you about, and perhaps you'll have some additional comments on, the discussion paper on regulations. If you want to add in a supplementary letter or an addendum to your proposal that highlights where in fact it steps forward and where in fact it steps back, I think that kind of information would be very useful to the committee as we continue to hear and listen to Canadians and groups like yours.

So thank you very much for your input, and I hope to be working with you as we try to make this better. Thank you.

Colleagues, we have a second set of witnesses who are a little delayed, so could I ask you to get set for the second witnesses? Thank you.

• 1015

• 1016

The Chair: Colleagues, I wonder if we can get settled in again as we welcome our second witnesses for the next hour.

We have with us this morning the Getting Landed Project. We have Ahmed Hashi, coordinator, with us as well as Saada Abdi—I hope I've pronounced it right. And with the Canadian Ethnocultural Council we have Emilio Binavince—have I got that right?—and Michael Doi. Right?

Welcome to the committee. I don't know if we have briefs from you or not, but if we have, our clerk will get them distributed. We would ask you to take about five to seven minutes to summarize your positions and go over some of your recommendations so that we in fact can ask you some questions.

We'll start with Getting Landed Project and ask—is it Saada or Ahmed?—to begin.

Excuse me for one moment. I was just trying to find out whether or not we have briefs.

An hon. member: Yes, we have.

The Chair: I know, but the witnesses should understand that it's unfair to committee members to get them the same day that we're actually going to hear from the witnesses. Believe it or not, we like to do our work beforehand and read the submissions and therefore prepare for questions. It also gives us time to be able to translate the documents into our two official languages. So I hope you will bear that in mind for the future because it does make it a little easier for us. But I would ask you to go ahead.

Mr. Ahmed Hashi (Coordinator, Getting Landed Project): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the question of briefs, just for the record, the Getting Landed Project sent the brief a couple of days before this committee hearing.

Mr. Chairman, the Getting Landed Project is aimed at reducing the limbo for refugees in Canada and initiates or supports efforts to remove barriers to the landing of convention refugees. The project is associated with and managed by Citizens for Public Justice and is supported by three coalitions that have a membership of 84 organizations across Canada.

Mr. Chairman, when we are talking about Bill C-11, admittedly there are some positive elements in this bill such as the reaffirmation of the principles of the best interests of the child and others. However, we have serious concerns about the direction and tenor of this bill as well as the inadequacies and lack of attention given to important issues that impact on the lives of thousands of refugees in Canada.

In our view, many provisions in this bill are punitive, putting great emphasis on interdictions, detentions, and severe punishment. In our view, this is driven by domestic popular opinion, a rising tide against international immigration and refugees, fiscal argumentation limiting benefits and rights to refugees, and concerns of national security and systemic racism.

• 1020

Another troubling aspect of this bill is its treatment of discretionary powers. Immigration officers are given wide powers that are more than we think are necessary. These include the powers of arrest, search with or without warrant, detention upon entry into Canada—including detention of minors—and seizure of documentation.

Another concern is that much is held in reserve in the regulations that have yet to be announced. Regulations are subject to change without the scrutiny of public debate or parliamentary oversight. In our view, regulations are the bureaucrat's paradise, with little or no more input from the powers that be, except for general guidelines. Nobody knows what will be in the regulations or any operational memoranda issued thereunder.

A case in point is the recently concluded Aden agreement on the ID issue. The plaintiffs and the department agreed, under court supervision, that establishing the identity of refugees without ID is sufficient to satisfy identity requirements under the current act. This is very clear in the text of the Aden agreement, which instructs immigration officers to accept statutory declarations from refugees without ID. The agreement was signed on December 14, 2000. The department issued an operational memorandum only a week ago. After almost four months, nobody has been landed under the court-supervised agreement.

Mr. Chairman, we have other concerns. The most important one we have is the question of identity for refugees. As has been explained earlier, many refugees come fleeing war situations and persecution. They often come with documents, but some of them don't come with documents. This bill does not address the question of documentation sufficiently.

Canada is a signatory to the Geneva refugee convention of 1951. Article 27 of that convention stipulates that member states to this convention “shall”—it's not “may”—issue identity documents to convention refugees lawfully residing in their countries. This bill does not take into consideration these stipulations of the act.

There is another concern we have, and that is the issuance or lack of issuing travel documents to convention refugees. The current practice is that travel documents are issued to landed immigrants only. Article 28, paragraph 1, of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees stipulates that signatories to the convention “shall”—again, it's not “may”—issue travel documents to convention refugees. Our great country, compassionate Canada, is not complying with the convention, and it is therefore violating the spirit and the letter of this international document.

I'll give half of my time to my colleague, Saada Abdi. She is a convention refugee who is really living the issues we are talking about.

Ms. Saada Abdi (Member, Getting Landed Project): Hello. I'm a mother of four children. I came to Canada in November 1991. I was granted conventional refugee status in July 1992. In September 1992, I applied for my landed immigrant status. It's now 2001 and I still don't have my papers. This is a barrier to my goals, my dreams for me and my children. I have two of them who are ready to go to university. They cannot go to university, because they can't get a loan or a bursary because our social insurance numbers start with 9.

• 1025

I can't travel. I cannot go to see my mother, who is sick. It's been ten years that I haven't seen my family, because I don't have a travel document. I can't choose a job that will fulfil my goals because of this social insurance number. I speak four languages, I think I'm a smart person, yet I can't go through that because of these papers. I just want to know until when? It has been ten years now. It doesn't make any sense at all. I haven't gone to my family, I haven't gone to my country. Why? I am not a criminal. All I want is to build a future in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you. I hope we'll have some answers for you, if not on your own personal case. Perhaps we can discuss that at another time, but I too am a little concerned that it's been nine or ten years. Obviously, some questions have to be asked, but we can do that for you a little later. Thank you very much for your comments. There is no doubt they're very heartfelt, and that's exactly what we're trying to do here, build a system that's compassionate, efficient, and fair, so that people like yourself, who have chosen to come to this country and been accepted, can get on with building their own lives and building the country for us. Thank you, Saada.

Emilio.

Mr. Emilio Binavince (Honorary Legal Counsel, Canadian Ethnocultural Council): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We are here on behalf of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, which, I think everybody knows, is composed of over 30 national ethnic organizations across Canada.

I understand we received our notice only around a week and a half or two weeks ago, and for that reason we have not come before you with a written submission. Nonetheless, I would like to tell you that we made a written submission relating to Bill C-31. That written submission still stands in substantial part. For that reason, all that I would request of the members of the committee would probably be to study our submission that was given relative to Bill C-31. To the extent that there are certain innovations or changes, we will comment a little on that today. We are here not to quibble about minor details of the bill. The CEC has some philosophical differences with certain assumptions of the bill, and they are quite important.

First, we would like to recognize that the bill, as well as Bill C-31, shows an achievement in reflecting our current society's definition of family. That is in itself a great achievement, and we would like to congratulate the minister and the members of the government for looking at this improvement. But a large portion of what I'm going to say will be critical, and I hope you will take it in balance. After all, as Plato once said, life without criticism is not worth living. You are here to listen to our criticisms. Let us see whether we will find that life worth living.

There is a lot of coverage in the media, much of it quite hysterical. Those kinds of hysterical reactions almost always lead to panic legislation. I think the first thing this committee and Parliament should understand is that the Immigration Act is observed a substantial majority of the time. It is respected. I can bet you that over 90% of the time, for all immigrants coming to this country, there is no conceptual or actual violation. It is for this reason that those dramatic things you see in the newspaper and the media should not trigger legislation. Otherwise, you are writing a law on the basis of the exception. You write laws as general rules for human conduct, not for those who are exceptions.

• 1030

For that reason I would like to give you certain propositions, so that we can understand our submission. Stripped of any technicality, the task you have in crafting the Immigration Act is relatively simple. It consists of two things. The first one is the matter of who may be admitted to Canada, and that is a question of selection. The other one is how this law is to be administered and applied, and that is a question of practice.

I think I can answer the first proposition: who may be admitted to Canada? Over the years selection has been founded in Canada on three major considerations. The first is, those who can benefit Canada should be admitted. It's a large proposition, and therefore we had to define what would be beneficial to the country. The second proposition we have observed in this country over the years is, those who belong to our concept of family should be admitted. This is probably the most dramatic change over time, the redefinition of the family. Unless this committee and Parliament are going to march to that time, you will find your laws to be a little authoritarian. The third one is, those who seek haven from abusive governments.

Those are basically the three kinds of people we bring into this country, and no others. When you try to determine those whom you would like to admit, it is a question of writing policy. With respect to the administration—this is the second aspect of immigration law—as I said, the vast majority of admissions are really uneventful, undramatic, routine. In fact, it is the significant exception that almost always captures our imagination and attention.

In my submission, whereas the law must be preserved and respected—the one you are going to write—justice must also be done. That should be the principle in the administration and application of any law, particularly immigration law. You have to remember that law and justice are not always the same. It is when you are dealing with the exceptions that the agonizing choice between mere law and justice becomes real.

The task of articulating the policy on these two components of immigration law is very simply in two steps. The government articulates a policy and Parliament translates that policy into law. These two functions have to be clearly distinguished, because there will be delegation and abdication of responsibility the moment we confuse these kinds of distinction. The articulation of policy and submission of those policies by the minister and government to Parliament is a subject we are debating today, because we would like to see Parliament ultimately be responsible for the law you are going to adopt.

This brings me to the first proposition that is difficult in this bill: delegation, regulation. If you look at the bill today, as it was in C-31, there are approximately 11 provisions where delegation occurs. There is one general delegation provision, which is found in clause 6. Then, following that, under about every division there are still some delegations.

My submission to you is this. When we are selecting people who come to this country, who must be admitted, that responsibility should never be delegated, because that's policy. Our perception and conception of this country are founded on that definition. If you delegate that to the minister, he will be remaking this country in his own image. That is not necessarily the image of Canadians. If you further delegate that to the immigration officers, it becomes more restricted. That is the reason I would urge you, as members of this committee, to be very careful in enlarging the regulatory-making powers.

• 1035

It is true the government is elected by the people, but Parliament makes the law. I find it objectionable that under the old Bill C-31, as well as Bill C-11, in spite of the press releases saying it has been neutralized, the truth of the matter is it has not. All those regulations, regulatory-making powers, still exist today.

I would like to go the second part. There's another point on that regulation-making power—

The Chair: I would ask you, Emilio, to get on with your summary so we can ask you questions. I don't want to hurry you up, but I would appreciate it if you could come to a conclusion.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: Sure.

The administrative power, the implementation of this statute, is not really a difficult one. As I said, 99% of the time it is very routine. It is the use of discretion in the administration of this statute that is problematic.

My submission to you is that until human beings become better, you have to restrict exercise of discretion. The way the Immigration Act has always been crafted from the beginning until today, its major shortcoming is the incredible amount of discretion delegated to the people who are running it, especially those at the border.

The power to exclude is the power to determine what this country is going to be. Unless you are going to limit that, Parliament's idea will be frustrated.

The third element I would like you to consider is the increasing restriction on judicial review and appeal. As long as we human beings use discretion, there must be a way of monitoring this exercise of discretion. When you increase discretion, you have to increase judicial review and appeal. You cannot do it the other way around. This is exactly what the bill is doing today.

Unfortunately, even in the appeal cases, you have now proposed a paper appeal. An appeal based on paper does not speak. That's not justice. I tell you again there is a difference between law and justice.

I would like to ask my colleague, Michael Doi, to speak on the question of judicial review.

The Chair: Briefly, I hope.

Mr. Michael T. Doi (Representative, Canadian Ethnocultural Council): Yes, I will be brief.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, committee members.

I'd like to address two issues; first, the issue of judicial review of overseas decisions and the requirement for leave to commence judicial review; and, secondly, the issue of deportation of permanent residents from refugee claimants prior to judicial review proceedings.

Presently when an overseas visa officer refuses an applicant for immigration in the independent or business-economic categories, the applicant may seek judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada. However, Bill C-11 effectively insulates overseas visa refusal decisions from judicial review by requiring applicants to seek leave of the Federal Court. In practical terms, seeking leave of the court will be unfairly difficult for overseas applicants to meet, as you can well imagine, for reasons such as retaining counsel, preparing documents, arranging for translations, and so on. As such, overseas applicants who are refused will be denied meaningful access to legal recourse.

The importance of judicial review for overseas applicants is emphasized by the fact that overseas applicants are not allowed to have counsel present and there is no actual formal record of proceedings, unlike inland decisions. Disputes may arise from a failure to follow proper legal procedures or from disagreement over what was said and what was heard.

Pursuant to the leave process under Bill C-11, and despite an extension of the original timeline under Bill C-31 for filing leave for judicial review, the standard 60-day window under Bill C-11 offers very limited time for an applicant to make a written submission.

As such, it is our suggestion, our recommendation, that there be no requirement for leave on applications for judicial review from overseas decisions. Secondly, the department should adopt overseas processes that include permitting the attendance of counsel and taking a complete record of proceedings.

• 1040

In terms of the deportation of permanent residents and refugee claimants prior to judicial review proceedings, we note that Bill C-11 provides for the expeditious execution and enforcement of removal orders against all foreign nationals without regard to whether or not judicial review proceedings have commenced.

The current legislation recognizes that removal orders are issued in the early stages of the enforcement proceedings, before the intended review and appeal processes and before judicial review proceedings. The legislation provides that removal orders against claimants and immigrants shall not be executed—in effect, they are stayed—while determination and appeal processes are ongoing. Section 49 of the act protects classes of claimants and immigrants from removal during the process of leave application to the Federal Court by extending the statutory stay.

Bill C-11 encourages the enforcement of removal orders expeditiously and does not provide for any stay of a removal order for permanent residents or claimants pending judicial review proceedings. At best, under Bill C-11 permanent residents are afforded an appeal process to the immigration appeal division, although this may afford only a single opportunity for consideration of the circumstances of the case.

The only review mechanism from a decision of the appeal division is by judicial review with leave to the Federal Court. In our view, this scheme will lead to harsh results due to a lack of adequate process in cases involving a denial of Federal Court access due to expeditious removal. On that basis it is our recommendation that permanent residents facing removal and refugee claimants denied access to the determination process must have a statutory stay of removal order pending application for leave to Federal Court.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for some great briefs and input. Hopefully, our questions will be equally so.

We'll now turn to Inky for the first round of questioning.

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

Thank you for coming before the committee today.

Pretty well all of our witnesses come before us with grave concerns about the bill. As one of our witnesses indicated, sometimes it should reflect justice rather than what is the current sentiment of society. Unfortunately, legislation sometimes is created in reaction to current sentiment. That's why we're fortunate to have your input to ensure we're well grounded and that this legislation is fair and just for all of us.

As you know, currently the media plays up the whole issue of security. I believe security is important, but it can be addressed in a responsible manner certainly at the front end through screening and scrutiny, rather than through reducing the rights of the refugees and immigrants.

One aspect of the bill that's brand new is the residency requirement. As you know, under current legislation there is no residency requirement. It's very subjective. I often wonder why the legislation is putting in place a residency requirement. I haven't seen any statistics to rationalize the new approach. I know there are a lot of concerns and problems with it, one being the whole issue of a permanent resident being deemed to be a foreign national, and I find that alarming. Would you make some comments on the whole issue of the residency requirement? Do you think that's necessary? If it is, are there ways of dealing with residency other than the current process?

The Chair: Emilio.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: Was it directed at me or for anybody?

The Chair: You were talking about immigration. I would imagine it's earmarked for you. If not, I will earmark it for you.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: I will give you my thoughts on this.

The Chair: Make it short, though, because, unfortunately, Inky has only ten minutes for both questions and answers.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: If I were to give you a short answer, it would never be understood. It would be outside of the purpose.

Residency requirements are useless. They are useful when you go to citizenship. In fact, this is one of my big problems with this bill. We have functioned for many years now without a residency requirement. The only thing you have to prove sometimes is whether you have been out of the country longer than 180 days. Then you're going to be admitted. This is a duplication of the citizenship rule. My view on that is it has no function whatsoever.

• 1045

The Chair: And on the second question, Ahmed.

Mr. Ahmed Hashi: With regard to residency, I think the previous system worked well, just requiring that the person not be out of the country for more than 180 days. Now you have this. So the question is, when you have a system that works fine, why do you want to change it?

The Chair: Perhaps we would disagree on this, and that's why we want your input, but the present system and the one that is being proposed in Bill C-11 are supposed to make it easier for people, not more difficult. The 181-day rule, as you know, makes it very difficult for people who in fact need to travel around the world.

Inky, it's your time.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: The existing law does not require 180 days. All you have to say is you did not abandon your intention to stay. I find this part of looking at physical evidence today very disturbing. It is not the body present in Canada that makes a citizen love this country. We have seen great Canadians outside of this country. I don't understand all of that.

Mr. Inky Mark: The old act basically said one needed to show intent as to whether or not they were going to abandon the country.

My other question has to do with the whole issue of addressing permanent residents as foreign nationals. I want you to comment on that. Should the bill refer to permanent residents of Canada as foreign nationals?

Mr. Ahmed Hashi: One of the problems with this terminology is that, first, it lumps together an entire group. That includes refugee claimants, convention refugees, permanent residents, temporary workers, and students. All of these are called foreign nationals. That's one aspect.

The other aspect is the impression that terminology gives. It gives an impression of exclusion. When we look at the objectives of Bill C-11, we find that one of them is to facilitate the integration of refugees and immigrants into this country. So apart from the technicalities of entering and acquiring that status, the very term “foreign nationals” is, in our view, offensive to newcomers to this country, and it shouldn't be there.

The Chair: Emilio or Michael, do you have any comments on the term “foreign national”?

Mr. Michael Doi: Mr. Chair, we do agree that the term does connote an exclusionary basis. On that point we would agree with our friends to the left.

The Chair: We'll proceed now to Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could somebody tell me what term you would like? Mr. Hashi.

Mr. Ahmed Hashi: We can return to the terms we had. If you are a refugee claimant, that's a special status. If you are a convention refugee, you have another status. If you are a permanent resident, you have another status. If you are a temporary resident, you have another status. We should define in Bill C-11 what we mean by these terms and keep these names. But whatever terminology we use, I think it smacks of alienation. We are probably getting it from our neighbour to the south, which calls everybody an alien.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's the exact point. We don't use the term “alien”.

I find it kind of curious that people have for years come to this country from all over the world in various categories, be it refugee, landed immigrant, or whatever, and they continue to enjoy and celebrate their heritage. They're proud to be from Greece or Italy or wherever in the world.

• 1050

So “foreign nationals” simply recognizes that they're nationals of another country. I don't understand why it's seen as some kind of a slap. Most new Canadians are proud of their heritage.

We've always had this debate over hyphenated Canadians and I frankly have never had a problem with it. Yet obviously it's a concern to people because group after group have come before us, and Mr. Mark said they're all here expressing concern. I'd be shocked if we had a long list of groups coming here to tell us what a wonderful job we're doing. That's not been our experience in government, and I wouldn't expect that to happen. But I just wonder if it's not a tempest in a teapot.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: I would like to say something about that.

The Chair: Yes, Emilio.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: Creating a concept that is unnecessary is really what Parliament should not be doing. Even the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not speak of foreign nationals.

Ask yourself, what's the function of the words “foreign national” here? Is it to distinguish the various kinds of—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into a half-hour debate on this. I have other questions I'd like to address.

I'm sorry, forgive me, I don't remember which group it was that made the reference to the ability to arrest and detain without warrants. I think, Mr. Hashi, it was you.

In fact, that's not the case. We have had other groups come here and say this, and I think it's important we clarify this. The previous bill, Bill C-31, allowed for arrest without warrant when justified for all types of inadmissibility to Canada. In recognition of the increased rights that flow from permanent resident and refugee status and that additional safeguards are necessary to protect these rights, this bill clarifies that arrest of permanent residents and refugees will be by warrant only.

Are you aware of that? Other groups have made the same charge.

Mr. Ahmed Hashi: Yes, I am aware of that. But when we are talking about that, we're talking about the general direction.

Let me be frank. We talk about globalization at one end and then at the other end we have international migration. Yet you have 650 people—only 650 known people—coming to B.C. and then you have this cry that the country is being flooded with economic migrants who do not qualify as refugees. Then, as a result of that, we put punitive measures in Bill C-11 to the extent that anybody caught for that crime is to be sentenced to life imprisonment. Subclause 15(3) authorizes immigration officers to board and inspect any means of transportation and examine any person carried by that means of transportation. This also includes interdiction at airports.

What we are talking about is the department places visa officers at major international airports across the world, and definitely the most identifiable people who are interdicted at these international airports are people of colour who come from the southern countries.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You actually hadn't mentioned that aspect earlier, but I take your point. But surely you support finding a way to attack the issue of people-smuggling. We've seen terrible tragedies throughout the world of people being killed, and there may be many we don't even know about, capsized boats or whatever. Surely we have to put some strength in our laws in this country, not to penalize the migrants—and I quite agree with you, there was a lot of hysteria when those boats arrived on our shores—but to get at the snakeheads and the people who are doing the smuggling. We must get tough on that.

Mr. Ahmed Hashi: Let's take a hypothetical situation. People are travelling to Canada through Frankfurt airport in Germany. Our visa officer is stationed there to find out whether these people are legitimate refugee claimants or not. So it's up to that immigration officer. How would that person know whether that guy from Rwanda, Burundi, or Somalia, or from China or Hong Kong, is a legitimate refugee?

• 1055

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's the biggest problem they have.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: No, there is a solution to that. Let them in. Let the process flow. Let them go through the IRB determination process, and after that, if they are confirmed to be legitimate refugee claimants fleeing persecution or a civil war situation, then let the process flow.

If they are found to be not convention refugees or refugee claimants, then there are provisions in Bill C-11 and the current act to vacate the decisions of the IRB and to have them deported.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You admit that once you let them in, under your scenario, they would have complete and unabated access to the Canadian charter. For you to say that you simply vacate the decision and deport them... I can give you examples in my own community where people have been found to be here illegally and it takes up to three years to even get the process in place to deport them, never mind to find an officer who's willing to go and arrest them and take them to the airport.

There has to be some balance here. If we just open the floodgates and then worry about deporting them later, I don't think the Canadian people would tolerate that.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: But the charter, sir, is out there. It's there.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Should we provide access to the charter to people overseas? Is that what you're telling me?

Mr. Emilio Binavince: No. What I'm saying is, if people want to come to Canada—whether it's a push factor or a pull factor or whatever it's called—nobody would know whether that person is a genuine refugee claimant or not.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I understand that.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: So let them come in. Let them go through the hearing—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, do I have time?

The Chair: You can have one final question.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have one final question on the issue of permanent residency requiring two out of five years. I find this puzzling, given all of the exceptions there are if you're a permanent resident here: you could be outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen as a spouse; you could be outside employed by a Canadian business; you can be outside accompanying a spouse or common-law partner employed by a Canadian business, etc. There's even a catch-all referred to in the regulations providing for other means of compliance. It seems pretty wide open.

But the bottom line, or the fundamental question I have is, if you're designated a permanent resident, shouldn't you live here at least some of the time?

The Chair: Emilio.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: I think when a person comes here as a permanent resident, you and I know what he wants. He wants to live here. The exception is where he doesn't; that's the reason we have to look for. In this draft today, if I have a person who cannot find a job in this country, like a medical doctor... he would like to go to Hong Kong and practice law to support his mother, his children. He doesn't fall into any of your exceptions. We are not going to create social welfare cases and yet we don't allow them to go outside and look for a job so that they can feed their family. The contradiction in this statute is striking in those cases. There is no need for all of this. They will have to screen them out. If they don't want to become citizens, that's it, but there is no need for these regulations or requirements relating to permanent residence. I submit to you, it's a useless exercise; just another bureaucracy.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madeleine, your questions, and then Yolande.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My first question is addressed to Mr. Hashi, coordinator of the Getting Landed project.

You referred, as did several other witnesses before you, to the problem caused by the lack of identification papers. If Canada really gave automatic permanent residency, would that solve part of the problem?

[English]

Mr. Ahmed Hashi: I didn't get the English translation properly, so would you please repeat it?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Let me repeat my question.

• 1100

In your presentation, you referred to the problem that some refugees have because they have no identification papers. If all those who are admitted as refugees automatically obtained permanent residency, wouldn't that solve a major part of the problem?

[English]

Mr. Ahmed Hashi: That's true. After you have a determination of refugee claimants as convention refugees, if they are landed automatically, then there would be no problem. That's one of the things we gave the department and we are giving the members of this committee to consider as an alternative. At the moment there are almost 8,000 files—and who knows how many persons are on these files?—of undocumented convention refugees who have been determined as protected under the Geneva Convention, but are not landed, like my friend Saada here and thousands of others whose lives are in limbo.

What we are putting before this committee is a recommendation to include provisions in this bill granting automatic landing for convention refugees determined as such—of course barring criminality and security checks. That would make life easier for the department, for the communities concerned, and for Canadian society.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My next question is addressed to Mr. Binavince.

As I listened to your very clear presentation, I certainly had the impression that you thought that immigration officers had far too much power, that their powers were too broad. Please tell me what you think sufficient powers would be.

[English]

Mr. Emilio Binavince: I think the definition of what is adequate is a very tough one. It is what he needs. In certain cases, of course, a far-reaching kind of power is necessary, depending upon circumstances. I'm not going to second-guess the situation. I think what we need is not to unduly limit the power. It's the discretion that I want to be clear. We have to give him parameters on how the discretion should be exercised. After that we would like to have a system of review, so that we know the discretion was exercised properly.

I totally agree that if a person is a suspected criminal, they have to be detained—that's a power—and an examination should be conducted. But we can have harassment in the examination. So it's the use of the power, rather than the existence of power, that's an issue.

The Chair: We'll go to Yolande, and then we'll go to Judy.

[Translation]

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

I would like to come back to the comments made earlier by the lady who represents the Getting Landed group.

Mr. Chairman, I understand very well that we are not here to settle personal matters, but the problem raised by the lady is too important to be ignored. I would not say that this is a frequent problem, this might be too broad a statement, but many of my colleagues told me that they had similar situations in their ridings.

During all these years, Madam, you have surely put questions to obtain information. What answers did immigration authorities give you during all these years? Did you always receive the same answer, the same explanation?

Ms. Saada Abdi: No, the answer was never the same. It was always different. I was never given a clear reason. My rights were never explained to me. I can assure you that immigration officers act as if they had divine powers.

I was naive enough to tell one of these gentlemen that my son was getting ready to go to university and that I needed my papers. He asked me if I believed that he had received a scholarship, to go to university. He told me that he had to work and my son too should have to work if he wanted to attend university. That's the answer I got.

• 1105

[English]

Mr. Ahmed Hashi: I would like to add a comment with regard to this issue. The problem here is in the current act. That's the problem. There is a provision that stipulates that convention refugees should produce what are called satisfactory identity documents before they can be landed. Immigration officers have to follow the rules. They have to implement that. So the problem is in the act. What we are asking for is that you not include any such requirement for convention refugees. So if we solve that problem, we won't be having cases like Saada's and those of the thousands of others who are in limbo.

A voice: I would like to share that, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: No, I'm going to go to Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I wanted to follow up on this whole area, because I think Saada Abdi's situation is not unique. From what we've heard, there are many people in similar situations. I know you've appeared at other information sessions for MPs and senators and have been very effective in putting the case, but that case has been put for years. We haven't found a way to effectively address it. Here's an opportunity with this bill, so my question is, how do we do that?

You mention, Mr. Hashi, that really it's the current act that's the problem. That's what the Caledon Institute has said time and time again, that the way it's now worded, genuine refugees spend years in legal limbo, allowed to stay in Canada, but denied permanent resident status because, through no fault of their own, they are unable to provide satisfactory documents to immigration officials. The question is, where does it fit in terms of Bill C-11? I know you just hinted at that now. Can you get a little more specific as to exactly what you think we need to do in terms of Bill C-11 to make sure we're in full compliance with the convention on refugees?

Mr. Ahmed Hashi: That's a good question, and there are a number of options that can be put into this bill. I'll step back and explain a little. I'll take a moment to explain.

When Ahmed Hashi comes and makes a claim, goes through the IRB process, he is deemed to be a convention refugee. Ahmed Hashi is not Michael or Saada. So the identity of the refugee claimant is determined by the refugee board at the front end when the determination is taking place. Once you have determined the identity of the claimant at the IRB level, why do we need another determination of identity at the landing level? So the first thing we can do is put provisions in this bill that would make the determination at the IRB level sufficient for the identification of those without identity documents. That's one.

The second option is to put explicit provisions in this bill to the effect that Canada shall... I'll step back before I say this. See subclause 31(1)—that's the closest it comes to determining this thing:

A permanent resident shall be, and a protected person may be, provided with a document indicating their status.

That's the closest this bill comes to dealing with this problem. It's not sufficient.

The second option, then, is to include a provision in this bill mandating that Canada shall issue identity documents to convention refugees without documentation. Believe me, the number of people who come without documentation is relatively small. As the Canadian Council for Refugees was saying, about 25% of the total refugee claimants come to Canada and cannot produce, for very good reasons, any type of identification.

• 1110

This would be in compliance with one of the objectives of the bill, which says in paragraph 3(2)(b) that one of the objectives of this bill is to fulfil Canada's international obligations with regard to refugees.

The Magna Carta of refugee rights is the Geneva Convention on Refugees of 1951. Our government is not complying with the provisions of the Geneva Convention and this should be put into this law.

Another question is that of travel documents. It's a very important thing for the convention of refugees. In the current practise, travel documents are given only to landed immigrants. In other countries, even the United States, Britain, and Belgium, the practise is once a person is determined to be a convention refugee, then the refugee document is issued automatically upon request. People can travel, visit their families, and come back to Canada. That's an important omission in this bill and should be provided for.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Ahmed.

Gurbax, one question.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On your question about travelling documents for the convention refugees, in one way the person comes from a country and claims he has a danger over there and is at risk for his life; in another way you're saying we should provide them with travelling documents to go back.

Mr. Ahmed Hashi: In my reference to visits, I said to visit families. The families they are visiting could be in a neighbouring country, as usually happens, or they can visit their family members in the diaspora. They can go to the United States if they have family members.

By definition, convention refugees are barred once they have that determination as a convention refugee. By definition, they are not allowed to go back to the country of their origin.

The Chair: Just before I thank you very much for your great input, can I ask a question?

With regard to Emilio, there are a couple of things.

First of all, I'm very intrigued, Ahmed and Saada. I can't speak for the committee, but I myself am intrigued to move from refugee determination right to landed. Waiting nine years is absolutely unacceptable for anybody. I find it incredible that you and your family are still in a state of limbo because they're looking for one little piece of paper that will tell us you're Saada Abdi. That's incredible to me.

I'm intrigued with being able to find a system that obviously has to put people first and not bureaucracy first. I'm intrigued with that proposal.

Emilio, with regard to the improvement of families or improvement in the bill with regard to families, the definition of families as it's stated now would add parents. I know the minister has indicated a family could also include brothers and sisters—after consultation with the provinces, who seem to believe if we bring in brothers and sisters they're all going to go on welfare. It's absolutely mind boggling to me that they would think so, when in fact we know in the statistics that 90% to 95% of the people are hard-working people who come to help their families out.

Would you be in favour of expanding the family definition to include brothers and sisters?

Mr. Emilio Binavince: In my view, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there is a good point for expanding it. I think we have to face the concern of Canadians as well, of trying to stem the flood of all the dependants coming in. Very often what's necessary...

Let me deal with grandparents first, because in my way of thinking, grandparents in certain cultures are always part of the family.

The Chair: I like my grandfather and grandmother too.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: There was a point in time when I liked my grandfather more than I liked my parents, so I think we have to recognize that.

The Chair: It's because they can send you back home after they've had you for a few hours.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: I think brothers and sisters are a little bit tougher. I think it's possible to include brothers and sisters, but there should be qualification measures in some cases. For instance, there are more responsible brothers who are really dependent. They have nobody. Unless you include them, the support system is gone. On the other hand, if there are around fifteen brothers still living on the other side of the ocean, that kind of situation cannot occur.

• 1115

I think what we need here is a little bit more imaginative definition of family that includes two things. The first one is the cultural background, and the second one is the support system, because that's what it's about.

The Chair: The second issue is with regard to residency. I'm also intrigued as to whether or not you can determine in a qualitative or quantitative way whether or not a person who has chosen to come to this country obviously is going to choose not to be part of this country by virtue of his profession. He may want to globally travel, or may not physically be present in the country, thereby perhaps losing a right because of the residency requirements. What would your recommendation be with regard to how one determines one's attachment to one's country as a Canadian permanent resident for a certain period of time before they can get their citizenship?

Mr. Emilio Binavince: Mr. Chairman, let me preface what I am going to say. The present system is working very well. I do not think there is any need to make requirements for permanent residents.

The other system, the citizenship system, has not worked very well. What happened in the drafting of this bill is that the concern in the citizenship area overflowed into the drafting of the Immigration Act. In my way of thinking, there's no analogy.

What we really need when we allow a person to come into Canada... if he comes here because he is an investor, he's an economic immigrant—well, that's the basic idea. We want to have him here. In his business, he's probably going to do business not only here, but all around the world, which will make Canada a little better. On the other hand, if we allow a person to immigrate to Canada and the objective is to help the grandmother who is now sick, it's now impossible for him to leave.

You have to see these contextual ideas of residency, but unfortunately our system today is too mechanical. What we need are imaginative laws and imaginative applications, and you can only do that with general requirements.

The Chair: Let's hope we can be imaginative by the time we pass this. I can tell you, I have a bunch of imaginative committee members on all sides of the House, so we're going to hopefully live up to your expectations. Thank you very much for your input.

Mr. Emilio Binavince: May I just say one thing about the point made by Mr. Hashi? I have not said anything about refugees, but it is really true in the practice, you have to understand. I think the moment the IRB hearing is finished, landing should be automatic.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We're adjourned until Thursday.