CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 23, 2000

• 1538

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Colleagues, today and tomorrow we hope to begin the process of writing a report that will have some degree of credibility and some sort of legitimacy. We need to try to deal with this in a timely fashion. That's why I thought we'd do this today and tomorrow, because our witnesses could not appear until next week.

We've been trying to deal with the witness we discussed at our last meeting. We'll have two refugees who have gone through the system give us their insight next Wednesday from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m., and then we'll hear from CSIS on Thursday, March 2, from 9 to 11 a.m., and that will finish it off. Unfortunately the American expert we wanted to get is unavailable, and there's no other way of being able to access, so to speak, the Americans.

Therefore once we've dealt with those witnesses, we'll be in a position, in my opinion, to be able to put together this report, based on what we've heard thus far and based on what we've already learned and/or our own feelings.

• 1540

I want to make sure that by the time we get back here on March 13 or 14, we submit and table this report in the House of Commons, because we want to make sure the minister has the wisdom of our thoughts on the refugee determination system before any immigration bill is tabled, whenever that might be.

Let's be realistic. We know it's probably going to be earlier rather than later. That's why, if we're to be at all legitimate, if all of this work is to be put into doing this work on the refugee determination system, then we ought to move towards getting the report. I think, to tell you the truth, based on our discussions and tomorrow, we'll find out.

We have a draft that was done by the researcher, based on what the witnesses said and what we heard, to give us food for thought, to get us thinking about the issues we need to make decisions on and begin to write. So this is not a final report. This is just areas of what we've heard from the witnesses.

Before we go on, yes, Rob?

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): On the point of getting an American perspective, what about Lamar Smith?

The Chair: We discussed that last time, Rob. I don't believe you were here, but Leon was here.

Mr. Rob Anders: Right. I'm just wondering, in light of not being able to get this other witness—

The Chair: The problem is that Lamar Smith, who might be a counterpart on a standing committee, is not a government official. He's a Republican. He's the chair of the committee. We discussed whether or not that might be fair, because obviously he has a particular point of view. It is not the American government's point of view; it's his own point of view.

We also learned that American officials cannot come before a standing committee of the House of Commons, just as our officials can't appear before a standing committee of the Congress. We discussed that, and we indicated that unless we were to balance off Lamar Smith with a Democrat from the committee....

Mr. Rob Anders: Sure.

The Chair: It might be possible.

Mr. Rob Anders: All I'm saying is if we can't get an official and there's some aspect of the law being an ass, such that an American official can't appear before a Canadian committee and vice versa, why not have somebody who's interested as a politician and invite a Democrat?

The Chair: The only thing I can tell you is we discussed it last time, and unfortunately the committee consensus view was that probably Lamar Smith would not....

I had offered up the name of someone who would be non-partisan, unbiased, and who knew the law. I can't remember his name right now.

The Clerk of the Committee: David Martin.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. David Martin. Unfortunately he's out of the country. He's not available.

To tell you the truth, I don't think, in the whole scheme of things, an American viewpoint is absolutely necessary to us drafting Canadian legislation. As much as some people think the Americans have the answer to everything, I don't pretend to be of that persuasion. Yes, it's important to know what our colleagues in other countries are doing. In fact we have a lot of evidence that shows what the Americans are doing, what the Australians are doing, what the British are doing, and what the Germans are doing. And our CIC people who work with their American counterparts on an ongoing basis have already given us their information.

It would have been nice to have an American viewpoint, but unfortunately I couldn't facilitate it within our time schedule for this or even next week. We're off the following week, and then the week we come back is the time we want to submit this report.

Mr. Rob Anders: It's just so frustrating that when we have as much cross-border migration as we do between Canada and the United States, the Buffalo shuffle is a reason—

The Chair: I'm not going to preclude what you might have to say in the report about it, but I'm sure part of the report will probably touch on the fact that we need to have greater working relations with a number of countries, including the United States and China, with multilateral arrangements and so on, because this is a global problem. It's not just a Canada-U.S. problem. Obviously we share a very big border and that's where the stresses and strains and challenges are, but I think....

Why don't we see how far we can get today and tomorrow on some of these issues? We're going to hear from Ward Elcock next week, when you might question some of that with regard to the American system, and then we'll go from there.

I'd like to move on at least to start some sort of discussion today and put our time to use.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I'm just wondering if I missed it. We were expecting a...I don't know if it was going to be a chart or some kind of comparative analysis of our system with the United States and with Australia.

Mr. John Bryden: We have that, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Did I miss that?

The Chair: You must have.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I mustn't have been at the meeting.

The Chair: If not, we can provide it to you, but it is there.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd like to see that. I must have missed that meeting.

The Chair: Again, to put this time and tomorrow's time to good use, why don't we start looking at what we've heard so far from the witnesses and what our opinions may be with regard to this refugee determination system? Let's start to look at this report, which was only just prepared.

Perhaps I'll have Margaret say something about the draft report in front of you.

• 1545

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): Okay.

The first thing I'd like to do is just remind you of the terms of reference, because that should be our starting point, as it was with the study.

We identified three goals in those terms. The first was to speed up the refugee determination process within the requirements of the law. The second was to deter future arrivals of illegal migrants. The third was to hasten the removal of individuals who had no legal right to be in Canada.

In the document you have before you, you'll see—although it's organized in a slightly different fashion—that basically all of those three goals would be accomplished by the recommendations. It's a short document. It contains a summary of the recommendations by the witnesses, plus some other things—for example, the announced intentions of the department on what they were planning on doing.

The first four pages deal with various aspects of the refugee determination system, beginning with detention. I counted that as part of it, certainly with refugee claimants. Then from page 5 on is the illegal migrant section.

As the chair indicated, it would be useful to just start at the beginning and go through. As the first paragraph says, I need instructions from you with regard to drafting the actual report, so this paper is structured....

I should point out that some of the suggestions in here of course are contradictory—not that many, but some of them are—because the witnesses came from different perspectives. So some of these will need to be grouped, and if it's not readily apparent, I'll do some grouping as we go through, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Margaret, for that.

Why don't we start with at least the categories as they're outlined for us? That way you don't have to go through all of the document right at once. So why don't we go to section A, which is entitled “Detention”, and look at the review of what we heard from our witnesses and some of the recommendations with it?

Colleagues, could we have your comments on those or your opinions or stated positions? I don't think we have to get structured. Rob is here and a whole bunch of Liberals are here, but I don't see our other colleagues.

Rob, do you want to start?

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm just reading through the first five points. I notice point 3 is, “Detention should not be used as a means of speeding up the process.” I haven't had a chance to read the whole document. I'm wondering if there are other points that counter that throughout the document, because I think there's evidence that Australia is using that. Maybe there's a difference of opinion about whether or not it's improving the process, but I think counterpoints to that were discussed. Was the counterpoint mentioned in the document that detention can be used as a means of speeding up the process?

Ms. Margaret Young: No, not really, although indirectly that has to be true, because you have your refugee claimants accessible. And I should point out it is the policy of the board and the government to process people in detention as a priority, which is a slightly different point.

You might be better to focus on the more positive aspects of when you think detention should be used, rather than the negative. Jackman was just saying don't do it. There are a number of other recommendations in this document that would speed up the process, so you don't have to focus on detention necessarily.

The Chair: John, or Rob. I think we should make it informal.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay. I just hope we don't, John, totally overlook the potential that detention could possibly speed up the process, because if they just vanish, I don't think that helps the process.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): I was just going to make the observation that the issue of detention is very closely wedded with the illegal migrant section. Part of the discussion that really interested me was the idea of using detention as a means of discouraging the traffic in human beings—i.e., if, as in the case of point 1 or point 2, they arrive and it's very clear they're refusing to cooperate because they're part of a trafficking scheme, detention becomes a way of discouraging traffickers from using the process.

• 1550

It is my personal opinion that I don't like the idea of detention per se, but detention as a means of discouraging the traffickers from trafficking in human beings is a legitimate use of detention.

Ms. Margaret Young: I'd just point out that's number 2.

The Chair: I wonder if there is consensus. Detention may very well be the exception and not necessarily the rule. Detention may be necessary if in fact there's some degree of suspicion of criminality involved or some security matter or so on.

Let's face it. What we've learned, after the three or four boatloads we got, is that for the first boatload there was no detention and for the second boatload there was detention, as a way of processing in a far more expeditious way and to ensure—which I think is uppermost in Canadians' minds—that people who might be accessing through the back door, while they may or may not believe they're legitimate refugees.... After all, that's why they want to come here, either with smugglers and/or with traffickers. But in fact Canadians want the assurance that these are not bad people, that there's no criminal element involved with these people trying to get in, that they don't pose some security risk or what have you.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: A point that may be missing is that if we're going to use detention—and in the case of illegal migrants, I think it has to be an option.... If they arrive here illegally without any identification, you probably can safely assume they've been sold a bill of goods at their point of disembarking, wherever they came from. While it may seem unfair to detain them, by releasing them, you're potentially subjecting them to lives of prostitution and drug trafficking and other things—in fact a form of slavery. So I don't think we're doing them any good or helping them in any way. That's one aspect.

The other aspect is that Canadians—even the immigrant population, the Chinese population, which Sophia can tell us about, in Vancouver—reacted very angrily at people trying to jump the queue. I'm wondering if we should recommend that some form of major communications program be undertaken in certain strategic parts of the world to inform people that if in fact they do accept passage on a ship for which they pay or commit to pay some amount of money, they will be detained if they try to come into Canada illegally.

Trying to get that message across may be difficult. I don't know what the media is like in that part of China or in other parts of the world. I suspect it's not great. It may be difficult to do, but there has to be some attempt in working with the government there to communicate to the people that they should not believe these stories that they're coming to a land of milk and honey, and they should not pay outrageous amounts of money to get on some rusted-out old tug and go across the ocean, and if they do, they will in fact wind up being detained when they arrive in Canada.

If you do that for a period of time and get that message out and enforce that, you could have some effect on stopping the illegal migrants.

The Chair: Rick.

Mr. John Bryden: If I may—

The Chair: No.

Rick.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry, Rick. Excuse me.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thanks.

The Chair: Then Jean, then Sophia, and then you.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, that's fine.

Mr. Rick Limoges: With regard to the issue of detention, there are a few issues that really haven't been discussed to the extent that maybe we ought to discuss them.

First, if we're going to detain refugee claimants and so on, then we ought to have a system set up that is perceived to be humane, that is not necessarily in a prison-like setting but in a controlled setting to protect our population from potential problems, whether they be health problems or problems of criminality, and also to protect these refugee claimants from snakeheads or other smugglers and so on. There's that issue. I just feel we really ought to be careful of how detention is used, but it can be a very good means of caring for this population.

• 1555

The other thing we have to keep in mind is we're also subject to complaints from provincial and municipal governments that the welfare and social services system is under undue strain because of these migrants. By a fair system of detention, we would also be assuming responsibility for the cost of their care during that period of time, which would take away the negative aspect of the municipalities and the provincial governments saying we are downloading the cost of this type of service onto them.

The Chair: Jean, then Sophia.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): I want to apologize for coming late. I may have missed a couple of points.

In point 1 you have a note that says it's important to distinguish between undocumented and uncooperative claimants. That is one key message that we have to in some way elaborate upon, because we need to make that distinction between the two. This speaks to the issue of deterrence and also answers to the vulnerable groups, so I see it as a very important differentiation when we talk about detention.

The Chair: Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to really look at the purpose of detention. My colleagues have already discussed some of it, and my follow-up on the point is this.

That was really a temporary measure for the first boat—no detention. But then in December a few of us went to talk with the Chinese government. If we use detention to send out a clear message to discourage organized crime, so this is really the purpose for that, then we are not doing that. I did suggest the government is willing to accept this measure to do that, the Chinese government, but now I think it's up to....

I'd really like to put in a sentence.... We want to present an accurate situation or condition of detention to get the message out to wherever the refugee came from. It's very important. This really helps to discourage some of the misuse of information or falling into organized crime.

I would suggest, though I don't know how you'd phrase this.... I would like to discuss with the minister having a videotape, a news report, to send out to the Chinese government to say, “Yes, if you can facilitate that, we will help.” Because the Chinese government also agreed to have public education to send out the proper information to inform the potential victims. At this point some of them are innocent and victims. So I suggest we look into that.

Second, my friend Rick hit the right point. I remember in B.C. there was such an oppositional move because of the great burden financially and socially. There's no such facility, and they have just a temporary...I think it was a military camp. So we have to look into that becoming a great burden for the local government. For instance, there were different age groups, and minors were placed into so-called foster homes. We were not prepared.

• 1600

So we will have to be more clear on how we're going to develop the services, because we cannot just say this is our law, and in the meantime, the provincial government has to carry the burden.

Those are the two points I want to suggest we look at. Thanks.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Bryden: I have just a couple of questions. I'm going to be the devil's advocate here for a little bit.

One of the problems with detention that we must be reminded of is how long we detain them. If they go into detention for six or eight months, they might be prepared to wait that detention out, so long as they still cannot be returned to their country of origin. So we have to be a little careful with the detention in the equation.

I pick up Rick's point—and this is another thing to bear in mind—that obviously we can't put them in prisons, so we're going to have to construct special facilities for them. Well, if you do that, will the kinds of facilities you're constructing have an echo of the concentration camps that were instituted actually by the British in the Boer War and then later became infamous during the Second World War?

Detention is a very tricky equation. I think we have to look at a more powerful means by which we can turn people back at the frontier—that is, before they actually are landed—because however we detain them, it still doesn't stop them entering the country. So long as they cannot be returned to their homelands, eventually we're going to have to release them into society.

The Chair: Rob, do you have anything to add at this point?

Mr. Rob Anders: Just generally, I don't think we have to look at detentions necessarily being slower. I know people have given presentations to that effect, but certainly we should be able to figure out a way to try to streamline it.

The point with detention is not to have somebody be in there two years or eight months or six months and the rest of that. The point is if they're there, they're not out and about and going down to slavery or prostitution or goodness knows what. We need to try to figure out a way to expedite it so that it's a faster mechanism rather than a longer one.

The Chair: A number of questions have been raised, such as who are we going to detain, when do we detain them, how long are we going to detain them, and John's point, should we even have them land on our territory before we consider detaining them? Detention is part of a remedy of a particular situation, but let me try to focus this.

If we believe most of the system is working—and that might be a stretch for the Reform or for Rob, but assuming the system really isn't broken but just needs improvements—and assuming the back door is the problem, because the front door.... If you come into this country, regardless of whether it's by boat or by plane or by crossing at the American border, if you actually believe you're a refugee and you want to claim to be a refugee....

Who are we really trying to detain in the context of detention? Obviously not the legitimate refugee. Obviously it's the person who's trying to access the back door because they think it's quicker than the front door. So maybe we ought to think about detention as not necessarily the first step. Or are we suggesting that anybody who claims they are a refugee, depending on what we believe, is going to be detained until such time as we give them landed status?

Mr. Rick Limoges: You need a qualitative assessment.

The Chair: That's precisely what I was thinking, maybe before. Are we going to distinguish between the people who come by boats and others? The problem may not be the people but the traffickers and/or the smugglers who are taking advantage of these people.

So I like the idea Rick just said. What if we treat everybody the same, regardless of how they come—by boat, by plane, by walking, or by anything else—and we put a first screening process that will essentially say to everybody who comes to this country, regardless of where they go, there is a security check, a criminality check, or something?

That says to one person, no matter how you come here, if there's any suspicion that you might be a criminal or a security risk, because you're uncooperative, because of where you come from, or whatever the case may be, one of two things will happen. One, we could say, “No, you can't come in, because we suspect some problems”, at which point we may detain them. Or two, we could say, “Yes, you may have a claim to the act or a claim to the refugee system” and thereby refer them immediately to the IRB. And we'll talk a little bit about that process.

But in the first instance, before they get here by plane, by train, by water, or by walking, maybe we should have a gatekeeper who asks, is there a question of criminality or uncooperativeness? That should be the test of whether we detain someone or allow them access into the system.

• 1605

Everybody is saying, who are we going to detain, when do we detain them, and how long do we detain them for? So detention, as I understand it, might be the option.

Ms. Jean Augustine: That's the present system, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: What present system?

Ms. Jean Augustine: The present system is making a decision on whether—

The Chair: No, there is no present system.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sure there is.

The Chair: What's the present system?

Mr. John Bryden: You're talking about detention at the start for everyone.

The Chair: No, I'm not talking about detention at the start. I said the existing system does not have a gatekeeper right now, does it? Anybody who comes into this country talks to an adjudicator and either is going to access the IRB right away, if they are a refugee claimant, or in the case of the Chinese boat people.... What did we say? We couldn't do it, so we said after the second boat, “We're going to detain you and find out whether or not you're a refugee.”

Mr. Rob Anders: I have a point of clarification. Doesn't an immigration officer serve as a kind of gatekeeper?

Mr. John Bryden: Sure he does.

The Chair: Not necessarily. What they do is process the person, because the person accesses them and says, “I'm a refugee.”

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We have detention centres.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, sure we do.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We have them in Mississauga, the No-Tell Motel or whatever it's called.

The Chair: And who do we detain there?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We detain people we suspect of being criminals or illegal or people who are uncooperative. There is a system now that does that.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Jean Augustine: We visited them.

The Chair: I'm not sure that—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What's the hotel called?

Ms. Jean Augustine: The Celebrity Inn.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The Celebrity Inn, a perfect name.

The Chair: Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine: There was only one point I wanted to make in this whole discussion. I know the recent Chinese situation is ever before our minds, but also, what we are making, whatever policy or whatever is coming out of here, is long-range. So though we have the present situation, we can't really make policy decisions simply on the basis of what is current and recent. We have to think long-range. That's just a point I want to make as we carry on the discussion.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Bryden: Maybe I can crystallize a couple of things that were said here.

We don't need to be specific about who we're detaining. Perhaps the recommendation should be that detention should be an instrument used to discourage trafficking, and let the authorities determine how they're going to use that, give them discretion. Maybe we should just point out that this is a tool they ought to consider to discourage trafficking and to send a message to the human traffickers.

The Chair: But you're not detaining the traffickers or the smugglers; you're detaining the people.

Mr. Rick Limoges: You're talking about a security issue.

Mr. John Bryden: Excuse me. I'm not talking about a security issue. I'm saying you can send a message to the traffickers that when they traffic in human beings, they're going to be detained at the other end. You have to cut off the profit; that's what I'm saying. And I think Steve's point is that in sending a message to the traffickers, you have to communicate that message.

So if you're going to give the government the discretion to use detention as a means of discouraging trafficking, then you're going to have to tell the government in another recommendation or make sure you communicate that message.

The Chair: John, can I just ask you a question though? When the person is coming to the port, to the airport, or across the border, you're not going to be confronting the smuggler or the trafficker, so how are you going to know that person?

Mr. John Bryden: It's not my job to micromanage the immigration and refugee—

The Chair: No, but if we're going to write a report, I want to...[Inaudible—Editor]. How do you determine what kind of person is coming across?

You say you want to get to the trafficker, but if a Joe Blow like me is coming across and wants to get in as part of a group on a boat, or even by himself, how would you know—

Mr. John Bryden: I'm coming to that.

The Chair: —whether or not he came through with the assistance of a smuggler or a trafficker?

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, Joe. Just let me finish my point. Let me finish my point.

I do believe you have to give discretion to the officials but also give them direction to use detention as a means of stopping trafficking. But if another category of individual comes in and it's very obvious that individual is part of the trafficking program, we can make the recommendation there that we refuse to land them.

The classic case we've heard of somebody who is part of human trafficking is the case of those people who destroy their documents and refuse to identify themselves—the uncooperative ones. Somebody who doesn't have documentation and is willing to identify himself can be treated as a legitimate refugee, but we know absolutely, and we heard it time and time again in testimony, that this is the classic symptom of somebody who is genuinely in the hands of the traffickers as opposed to the smugglers.

• 1610

There are two different categories. The person who lands without documentation, having destroyed the documentation, and refuses to identify themselves.... Well, they're the ones for whom the primary recommendation is that we should find a means of sending them back on the same plane or boat they arrived on.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. John Bryden: Because obviously the whole idea is for them to go into detention, sit there, and never identify themselves, until such time as we get tired of detaining them and let them out into society.

The Chair: I like that. My idea is that if you had one gatekeeper, or at least a quicker system than we have now....

If I could just use your example, right now, if someone is suspected of not having proper documents, is uncooperative, or may be a security risk or a criminal, all they do is say, “I want to be a refugee”, and we have to put them right in through the system. Why not instead, if that person is uncooperative, doesn't have documents, or is suspected of being a security risk or a criminal, say, “I'm sorry; you're not coming into this country. Bye-bye. We're sending you away”? What would be the matter with setting up that kind of system—

Mr. John Bryden: Yes.

The Chair: —before you let them access the refugee system, so that it's at the first entry point?

Mr. Rick Limoges: I think you'd be violating their rights.

The Chair: That's a good point.

Mr. John Bryden: You can still make the recommendation though.

Mr. Rob Anders: First off, it's not that I disagree with what you just said. It's just that the problem with the Singh decision still stands in the way of that.

My understanding of the system the way it works right now in terms of them being set free is that they see an immigration officer, who serves as that gatekeeper, and then often they're set free with immigration forms. At that point, what happens?

Jean raised the very good point that we have to think long-term with this. I'm going to raise the question you just put: How will you know who got trafficker assistance and who didn't? Let's say just for a second that I'm an illegal migrant, up to who knows what, and I'm coming into the country. Maybe I think I'm going to be—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Say you were from Tibet.

Mr. Rob Anders: Who knows, who knows, who knows? Maybe I'd forced abortions or whatever it happens to be.

Thinking long-term, if you set up a system saying that if I don't tell you who I am, then you're going to deport me immediately, fair enough. That's probably a good approach. But then I might falsify documents rather than not giving you any documents, and I'd say, “My name is Joe Fontana—”

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Out of here.

Mr. Rob Anders: “—and here is my document”. So I'm being totally cooperative. It turns out I'm lying to you, but as long as I can get past that first gatekeeper, I'm okay, and then it's still the same process: I leave, the case is abandoned, and whatnot.

The Chair: Oh, no, no. We'll get to that point.

Mr. Rob Anders: I understand, but what I'm saying is you see the permutations here, right? If you set up a system where you say, “If they don't give us any pertinent information, then we're going to deport them”, well, then, they're going to give you some sort of information. It may likely be incorrect, but they're going to give you something.

As a result, it just makes sense if we can streamline the process, make it fast, but detain people until we actually know, because if we don't actually know, then as soon as you set up any potential loophole, they're going to abuse it.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, could we go back to the first thing Margaret did with us and look at the terms of reference of what we're talking about?

We're discussing this because of the illegal migrants who came into the country, and they were obviously illegal migrants. They've been painted in some areas as being the criminal element, when in fact my view of them is they're victims who are being abused by the criminal element.

We're dealing with the illegal migrants. We can't just send them back in the boats, because then we know we'll be party to a boat sinking and a bunch of people drowning. So they're going to come on shore, and when they come on shore, they automatically have the right any citizen in the world has in this country to declare refugee status.

If we know they're illegal and have no documentation, whether it's stepping off onto a pier in British Columbia or landing at Pearson International, if they have no ID and they're not prepared to cooperate and tell their story....

• 1615

Let's realize that the reason legitimate refugees arrive here without ID is that they left in the middle of the night or they've been persecuted or whatever else. They can't go to their government and say, “Give me a visa or travel documents”. They won't get them. So they leave without them. At least if they then sit down and tell their story to that first gatekeeper who is there, that person can determine whether or not this is a legitimate story.

If someone says, “I was a political person in Iran. I was threatened with imprisonment and death. I've left. I've left my family there. I'm worried about them. I can't go back. I'll be imprisoned. I'll be killed”, then you get a believable story out of him. But if he sits there and says, “I'm not going to tell you anything”, fine, he's in detention.

The Chair: What do you want to do with him? Do you want to detain him or do you want to send him back?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Send him back to where? He's not disclosing; he's not cooperating. That's the problem.

The reason there's a problem in just arbitrarily sending them back, which might be the popular view in the National Post or some other areas, is that they may be withholding information out of fear that their family back in wherever will somehow pay the price for them disclosing information. It may not be that they want to be uncooperative, but they feel they must be uncooperative.

The Chair: So what you're saying is you want to detain that kind of person.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That kind of person, anybody....

This document says it is important to distinguish between undocumented and uncooperative. Say someone arrives at Pearson without documents. You know they either gave them back to the guy on the plane or flushed them down the toilet, but they sit down and tell you a reasonable, believable story coming from a country where we know there's persecution and there are problems. Then you put them through the refugee system and there's a judgment call. No matter what you do in this, somebody has to make a judgment about this person.

If they're clearly uncooperative, if they're clearly illegal, if you have evidence that shows they're of a criminal nature, I don't think you have any option but to detain them until you sort it out, have the hearing, and then send them back.

The Chair: That's fine.

Andy.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Within the system you have, somebody is going to make a determination. Right now an officer makes a determination, and if the determination is that the person be detained, that person is going to get a hearing at some point in time, and fairly quickly.

We want to make sure we have a very good handle on this. If we get any more boats, we want to have something specific that deals with that, because there's no question in anybody's mind that we're going to have a problem. In wholesale, in all probability, they aren't going to qualify as refugees.

So we need to deal with that kind of situation, because then we cut off the traffickers' ability to profit. That's what the minister has said time and time again: if we can eliminate their ability to profit from their action, then they will withdraw. They're not going to send boats over, because they have to invest money to do that. So if we deal with something that is that obvious, if we get any more boats, how do we deal with them?

Steve really underscored a lot of it. There are no easy answers to it.

Mr. John Bryden: No, no.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It's going to be complicated, but we have to make sure that as much as possible we try to deal with the whole issue of public safety.

If you look at the courts right now, if somebody is charged with a criminal offence, they'll have a show-cause hearing and they'll make two determinations. Determination number one is whether this person is going to show up, return to court. The other determination is whether this person is going to be a danger to the community. Are they going to commit crimes?

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Bryden: Just to pick up on what Rob was saying, I read the Singh decision, and one of the things the decision did not consider was the issue of people who refused to identify themselves. The individuals involved in the Singh decision admitted who they were. The question was whether or not they were entitled to a hearing, because of the false documentation and that kind of thing.

• 1620

What we're talking about here is people who don't have documentation and refuse to cooperate on their identity at the first instance. The reason we'd like to address that is, if the Singh decision doesn't apply to those people, then we might be able to turn them around at the frontier on the same plane they came on.

The reason they don't want to identify themselves and have documentation is they want to give their home country the option of not accepting them. But if they have come on a plane and we can turn them back on the same plane, then the home country has to accept them, regardless of whether they identify themselves and regardless of whether they have documentation.

One recommendation I would like to see, if I may ask for it, is that we do ask the minister to make a reference to the Supreme Court on whether a person who lands in this country without documentation and refuses to identify themselves or deliberately or wilfully avoids identifying themselves could be exempted from the Singh decision so that they could be turned around on the same plane.

Mr. Rob Anders: I worry about what the Supreme Court may say, but it's a good idea.

The Chair: Let's just leave that question. I think we've spent enough time just on this particular aspect.

If I could, I'd just say this. Some of you believe that in the very first instance, there is a gatekeeper there who can determine whether or not there's a security or criminality issue. I don't believe there is.

I would agree totally with what Steve said in terms of an uncooperative person who in fact may not want to tell a good story, but at least it lets them access the refugee system as it is. One could probably do what I think John and Rob and some of us want to do, and that's either to send them immediately back to where they came from—provided, to be humanitarian about it, you don't send them back to a country where they're going to shoot them or something.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What if they came through Chicago?

The Chair: Well, then, send them back to Chicago or through a third party.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Chicago won't take them back with ID.

Mr. John Bryden: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: In terms of the detention centre and in terms of detention, from what I heard, there seems to be some pretty good consensus based on what Steve says. It becomes the option of being able to detain those people who are uncooperative, and it becomes the exception, not the rule.

I must admit I don't believe—and the government never said this—that, number 4, “The government should provide detention facilities for people ordered removed and recover the costs from transportation companies.” I don't know whether or not they actually meant that. I don't even agree with that.

Mr. John Bryden: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: And number 3 says detention should be used as a means of speeding up the process. I'm not sure I've heard people suggest that might be an expeditious way of doing it.

Margaret, did you have something to say?

Ms. Margaret Young: I had a couple of things to say, but I've just heard you say you don't agree with number 4. You want to say nothing on that.

The Chair: Right.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Do you want me to check—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We already charge back to shipping companies and airlines.

The Chair: I know we do that.

Ms. Margaret Young: It's the question of facilities.

The Chair: It's the question of facilities for detaining people we want removed.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: I did not say that. That's not an issue we can make—

Ms. Margaret Young: Okay, so there's no agreement on point 4. We haven't touched number 5, and I'd like you to do that, but if I could, I'll say two things first.

I'd suggest that the undocumented and the uncooperative are only a problem initially. Somebody who comes in and refuses to talk but says, “I want to be a refugee” has to, within 35 days, submit a personal information form to the board. If they say, “Well, I'm not saying anything”, if they persist in that, granted they're detained, and if at the end of 35 days they haven't in fact made a refugee claim, they can be deported.

Mr. Rick Limoges: But if they're not detained, we can't find them.

Ms. Margaret Young: No, I'm not speaking of that. I'm saying it was suggested that the detention would have to go on indefinitely.

Mr. John Bryden: But Margaret, we can't deport them back to their country of origin, because after 35 days, without any identity, the countries of origin won't take them back.

The Chair: Listen. Let me—

Ms. Margaret Young: That's not the case actually.

The Chair: Let me just say this.

Mr. John Bryden: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: I think we're trying to get to the end game while we're still trying to think about the first instance.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Joe, on your point with regard to having somebody review it at the first, what we're hearing and what we know of our system is there is a cursory review—

The Chair: No.

Mr. Rick Limoges: —and what we're talking about is empowering that review officer with more tools in order to detain and/or make an initial determination as to the legitimacy of the claimant.

The Chair: I agree.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You'd better make sure you have well-trained people doing that.

The Chair: I agree with your intent, but I'm not sure that's what we have. Right now we have a person who essentially says, “Do I believe you are a legitimate refugee?” and can put you through an expeditious process, or says whatever.... I'm talking about even having perhaps a better....

• 1625

Mr. Rick Limoges: I think we're saying the same thing: that person should be empowered to be able to do more.

The Chair: I agree.

Mr. John Bryden: Put them in the clanger; that's all.

The Chair: Margaret will refashion this detention part of it, based on what she's heard and so on. Okay?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I want to ask a question about point 5. Did you mean to say a review should occur less frequently or more frequently?

Ms. Margaret Young: Less frequently.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So, what, every 60 days?

Ms. Margaret Young: In other words, a longer period of time. It was just discussed at the committee.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Where did that come from?

The Chair: It says, “Detention reviews should occur less frequently than every 30 days.”

Ms. Margaret Young: Every 30 days, the adjudicator has to go in and review it. If you're comfortable with that, fine. If not, there was some discussion about making it longer than that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: To me that sounds punitive for no reason. If there's a legitimate reason to review it or to not review it—for example, after 30 days, where no new information has come to the fore and the person continues to be uncooperative—that's one thing. I don't think it needs to be stringent, but I really do think we should be striving to end the detention period as quickly as we can.

Ms. Margaret Young: So there's no agreement on either point 4 or point 5. Fine, okay.

The Chair: Let's go on to “Initial Considerations Regarding a Refugee Claim”, where we're trying to reconstruct this thing, and spend a couple of minutes looking at that.

Rob, have you looked at it yet?

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, just in a quick, fleeting way. I still have some issues with regard to interrogation not taking place immediately upon arrival. This gets to this whole idea of whether or not detention is a worthwhile idea and whatnot.

You yourself said we have a problem, where all we have is an immigration officer who doesn't seem to be serving as an effective gatekeeper at this time. If we're not going to be looking to speed up the process and expedite interrogation or move it closer up, if we say it shouldn't take place upon arrival, when is the appropriate time? All we're doing is prolonging the detentions and everything else.

The more time you give people, the longer they're going to have to fashion some BS story, and they're going to have access to a trafficker to tell them how to spin it and whatever. If we can try to truncate these things and put it all through one process, we may, surprise, surprise, be able to actually decrease the amount of time in detention and speed up the whole process.

The Chair: Yes, I like that.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm with you on that as well.

The Chair: Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I think the reason for not interrogating or questioning people unduly at the very beginning is that someone could be traumatized, someone could be under all kinds of stress, someone could be so mentally and psychologically damaged that whatever evidence they give or just the questioning itself could create some difficulty. It's a humanitarian issue.

Mr. John Bryden: I make the observation on that though, Jean, that people can have compassion in interrogations. We're not talking about the Gestapo here. We're talking about people who actually want the refugees to succeed.

I also make the point, as somebody who has spent a lot of time questioning people who were traumatized—I used to be a police reporter, and I've dealt with a lot of people who were traumatized—that's the time in which they are the most honest. An expert compassionate interviewer can determine the validity of the story very effectively when people suddenly arrive newly and are perhaps overwhelmed by the experience.

But I really take Rob's point that if you put them in a situation where other people get a chance to tell them what to say, your ability to assess them accurately diminishes very rapidly.

The Chair: I'd just say, though, I like what both of you have said, but I hate the word “interrogation”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

Ms. Margaret Young: I wouldn't use that word in the report.

Mr. John Bryden: No, we don't want to use that word. It's like a concentration camp. These aren't nice words.

The Chair: I think what we're all saying is there's nothing wrong with criminal and security checks as well as more information-gathering, or call it what you will, at the very first instance when they arrive, no matter how they arrive. That's the first gatekeeper concept I'm talking about.

Mr. John Bryden: Exactly, Joe. That's what I'm talking about.

The Chair: And then one can say if there's any suspicion of these people, then you deal with them in an entirely different way, detention being one of them, immediate removal being another one.

Mr. John Bryden: That's good.

• 1630

The Chair: But if in fact you have compassion for the person telling the story, then you access the IRB or the refugee determination system.

Should there then be an initial consideration regarding a refugee claim? That's the title of this, but....

Mr. Rob Anders: I want to say if we want to use the word “determination” or “interviewing” or “investigation”, maybe those are better, but another aspect is it should be admissible to the IRB.

The Chair: Yes. Admissibility to the IRB—

Mr. Rob Anders: I want to be clear—and I say this seriously—that if you want to dress people in pink uniforms and have nice, warm settings and provide them food and make it very.... As John said, we're not trying to make this a harsh experience, but really you're going to get the best, most real, true-to-life data at that point.

Mr. Rick Limoges: But we can't forget they have a right.

The Chair: Good point.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I think also we should have consideration and compassion, because consider that they're all foreigners from other lands. If they have language problems, we should assist with a proper—

The Chair: Let's not try to get into the micro stuff right now. We're still talking about the macro issues. In terms of whether or not you're going to need lawyers, interpreters, and everything else, that's getting into micromanagement of the thing. Let's start talking just about the macro stuff. But your point is well taken, Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung: We have to consider...[Inaudible—Editor]...not like “interrogation”.

A voice: I've never used that word.

Mr. John Bryden: “Compassion” is the word.

The Chair: Can we summarize this section by saying we need an initial consideration for admissibility to the refugee determination system? Because that's essentially what we're talking about. It's at that point that we will decide a security criminal test, a security check, and not an interrogation, but a talk, an interview.

Margaret, you're going to have to come up with a better word.

Ms. Margaret Young: No problem.

The Chair: Then we get into the refugee system, and we'll get into that in a moment.

Mr. John Bryden: Let's stay focused. This doesn't even have to be talked about at this time. I don't care whether you use the word “interrogation”, “question”, or whatever. I just want to make sure, for Margaret's benefit, that we are talking still of interviews—

The Chair: Face-to-face, verbal.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, something happens.

Mr. Rick Limoges: The information may only be useful to enable them to access the system and to facilitate a quicker determination getting in, but it may not be useful in being able to send them back, unless we dot our “i”s and cross our “t”s with regard to the right to counsel and other rights.

Mr. John Bryden: They're going to get all the counselling—

The Chair: We'll get into that micro stuff in a moment. Don't forget this is a report that will go to the minister and that's going to be followed by legislation, which gets into that.

I think we have a vote probably now in about—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just before we go, could I make a comment on the last item, number 3?

The point was made that a lot of very obviously legitimate refugees come into the country and still have to go through the meat grinder and the process. If we really want to try to speed things up, we should find a way of dealing with them quickly.

The Chair: We're going to do that in part C, where it says “Access Criteria”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, it's point 3 of item B, which begins: “The determination system...”. I just want to make sure we make a strong recommendation that at the point of entry, when we identify an obviously legitimate refugee, we let him in.

The Chair: They go through the system quickly. I think it was mentioned here that a lot of these things are going to flow together, as they did when we were talking about detention. But as you know, detention could be at the beginning of the process. It could even be at the end of the process, when we're trying to deport someone who is supposed to be deported.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If you can find them.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.