CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 15, 2001

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues, witnesses, ladies and gentlemen. This is the start of our public hearings and hearing from witnesses with regard to Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted, or in danger.

It's our pleasure this morning to invite a number of witnesses. From nine to ten we will have Amnesty International, B'nai Brith Canada, and the Canadian Bar Association making presentations.

I think the rules of engagement are that all three parties have an opening statement of around five to seven minutes, thus allowing a lot more questions and probing by the committee members. I'll try to be as fair as possible and fairly flexible. I know that we have received your submissions and some of us have had an opportunity to look at them, so if you don't have to read them word for word, this would probably save us some problems. Perhaps you could give us the highlights of your comments, questions, concerns, and more importantly, some good ideas if you have any—and I'm sure you do—with regard to how we can all work collectively to get the best immigration policy and program in the country.

Having made those opening comments, I would invite Amnesty International—Alex Neve, Michael Bossin, and Gloria Nafziger—and welcome them to the table. Who is going to be speaking on behalf of Amnesty International?

[Translation]

Mr. Alex Neve (Secretary General, Amnesty International (Canada)): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Amnesty International thanks you for this opportunity to meet regarding Bill C-11.

My name is Alex Neve. I am the Secretary General of the Canadian section (English-speaking) of Amnesty International. With me today are Gloria Nafziger, Refugee Work Program Coordinator, and Michael Bossin, who is the President of our section and also a lawyer here in Ottawa.

Before sharing our reaction to Bill C-11, I will very briefly explain Amnesty International's mandate.

Amnesty International is a world-wide voluntary movement with now over one million members around the world. Amnesty International takes action throughout the world to defend victims whose fundamental rights have been or are at risk of being violated.

In this context, we attach great importance to refugee protection systems. Basically, refugee protection is a preventive measure necessary to the protection of human rights. When refugees are well protected, persecutors cannot get at their victims.

[English]

We have had a chance to review Bill C-11—as we did Bill C-31—and in doing so we have identified and welcomed measures that we believe will strengthen Canada's refugee protection system. We have also noted proposals that we are concerned may lead to people being returned to situations of torture and other serious human rights violations.

• 0910

Our brief includes recommendations in a number of areas. Today we intend to touch very quickly on only three of those issues: the right to seek asylum, appeal provisions, and protecting individuals from being returned to torture. I will begin with the first, and my colleagues will address the other two points.

The right to seek asylum from persecution is a basic human right enshrined in article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a right, however, that is under siege worldwide. Increasingly, and in almost every corner of the globe, governments have adopted laws, policies, and practices such as closing borders, turning back boats, and imposing visa requirements that make the refugees' journey to safety difficult and even illusory. Generally these initiatives are pursued in the name of controlling immigration and entry to territories.

Amnesty does not dispute that states have that right and responsibility. We are concerned, however, that these measures fail to make allowance for those among the individuals who may be fleeing persecution and be in need of international protection.

We have noted over the past several years that Canada, like many countries, continues to devote greater and greater resources to this area of immigration policy—often referred to as overseas interdiction. By stationing immigration officers abroad and through other measures, steps are taken to intercept individuals seeking to come to Canada who lack proper travel or identity documents. Their journey barred, their fate is left to be determined by the authorities in the country where their journey has been interrupted. In many instances, we know that people have found themselves returned eventually to the situations they tried to flee in the first place.

We are concerned that this dimension of immigration control and enforcement—which can so dramatically impact on refugee protection and which is attracting greater and greater resources not only in Canada, but in many countries—is not covered by Canadian legislation. There is nothing in Canadian law or regulation that defines the role, powers, or responsibilities of immigration officers working outside Canada who interdict an individual en route to Canada and who may have a refugee claim. There is no assurance that if that person is interdicted and has a refugee claim, the protection needs will be dealt with by an appropriate body.

Our first recommendation in the brief, and the first I'd like to highlight for you this morning, therefore is that Amnesty believes it is time for Canadian immigration law to take on this issue and ensure that the powers, role, responsibility of immigration officers acting overseas who are engaged in work of this nature are regulated and defined, and that we can be sure that it will not result in people being returned to situations of danger.

Thank you. I'll now turn it over to my colleague, Ms. Nafziger, who will speak about appeal provisions.

Ms. Gloria Nafziger (Refugee Coordinator, Canadian Section, Amnesty International (Canada)): Amnesty International is very pleased in the current bill to see that opportunities have been made for refugees to make an appeal of their case from the original negative decision. This is a much-needed provision that's been sorely lacking in previous pieces of legislation. We believe that the opportunity to have an appeal will more effectively and more fairly deal with the situation of refugees who are at risk and in need of protection.

We see, however, a few weaknesses in the appeal provision. One of those particularly is the restriction in terms of the evidence that can be entered for the appeal itself. The bill restricts the Refugee Appeal Division to a paper review on the basis of a record of proceedings. We think that this restriction is unnecessarily limiting.

In order for the appeal to be effective, it is our recommendation that any piece of evidence that's relevant to the issue of protection should be introduced at the Refugee Appeal Division. There are many situations refugees are facing that, for all kinds of reasons, may not come up in the original refugee hearing, particularly where there's been a change in country circumstances, or where an individual has been found not to be a refugee on the basis of credibility concerns.

If there's no opportunity to introduce new evidence, or evidence that wasn't available at the initial hearing, refugees may be rejected at the appeal level as well. We have to find ways of dealing with these issues at the appeal level. We spent a fair bit of time thinking about the wisdom of actually having an oral hearing at the appeal, and I think in the perfect world we would make that recommendation, but we understand some of the limitations that also could make an oral hearing at the appeal a difficulty.

• 0915

The legislation allows for the refugee appeal division to return cases to the Immigration and Refugee Board under certain circumstances. I think the recommendation we would make, although it's not written in the brief, is that guidelines be provided to the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board to deal with cases that need to be returned to the refugee division. Particularly in cases where credibility is an issue, board members and appeal division people need to have an understanding of how and when it's appropriate to send cases back to the refugee board. Guidelines to the chairperson would certainly go a long way in beginning to address that issue.

Mr. Michael Bossin (Member of the Executive, Amnesty International (Canada)): I'm going to speak briefly about the pre-removal risk assessment, as specifically found in clauses 112 to 114 of the bill.

The legislation sets out cases, for example, of people whose refugee claims were turned down because they were described under section F of article 1 of the Refugee Convention as committing crimes against humanity. In those cases, when the risk assessment is done, there is a weighing—on one hand we weigh the risk of torture, and on the other hand we weigh whether the person is a danger to the public or to the security of Canada.

When Canada signed the Convention against Torture, we agreed that we would never send a person from Canada back to face torture. With these provisions, in our view, Canada has legislated a process that sanctions a situation where someone is returned to face torture. In my view, it's a step backward. Clause 97 specifically refers to torture. We are a country that is specifically saying we will send people back to torture in some circumstances. Interestingly, the United States recently has taken the opposite step. It has said that in no circumstance, regardless of criminality or security risk, should people be sent back to face torture. We're going in the other direction.

In our view, the right not to be returned to face torture is absolute and cannot be derogated. It's not just Amnesty International that believes that. The Committee against Torture has consistently said that a person's background, past, criminal history are irrelevant when considering whether a person should be sent back to torture. In November of this year, Canada was before the Committee against Torture, and the committee specifically expressed concern about Canada's belief that where someone is a security risk, we have the right to send them back to torture.

In our recommendation, when considering situations under the pre-removal risk assessment, only the risk of torture should be a factor—clause 97. Danger to the public and national interest should not be balanced against that right.

Having said that, and in conclusion, I would say that Amnesty International does not believe that people who are dangerous to the Canadian public, who have committed atrocious crimes, should be free to walk our streets. They should be brought to justice, and we should be passing legislation in this country to bring those people to justice. Shutting our eyes, sending them out of the country, and having them go to places where things would be done to them that we would never sanction in our country is simply irresponsible and wrong.

The Chair: Thank you very much to Amnesty International. We'll get back to you, I'm sure, with some questions.

We'll go now to B'nai Brith, and we have David Matas. David, welcome.

Mr. David Matas (Lead Counsel, B'nai Brith Canada): The concern we have at B'nai Brith is with the fragmentation of the process that deals with war criminals in Canada and the inordinate delays it causes. There have been a number of people who simply died during the process because it was taking so long. That's true of Namsila, Tobiass, Grujicic for prosecution, Bogutin, Kancevakius. There are two cases now, Obondzinski and Kisluk, that are being delayed because the people are deathly ill. There are other cases where witnesses have died and made the cases impossible to prove—they've either been withdrawn or failed.

• 0920

The cases are taking way too long, and the reason for that is not just that the government's too slow or the courts are too slow. The problem is the process is too fragmented. There are too many steps going over the same ground again and again.

Unfortunately, the legislation before Parliament replicates the process. It's not just the immigration bill. We've seen citizenship legislation, criminal legislation, extradition legislation, all dealing with the same issue, but in bits and pieces, not using an integrated approach. What we need is an integrated approach to all these components of the legislation, so they deal with the problem of war criminality, crimes against humanity, and torture as a whole.

In particular, in terms of Bill C-11, the immigration bill, there's a problem with the way, first of all, these crimes are described. At various places within the bill, torture is described as a serious crime, not a human rights violation, and the same is true of war crimes and crimes against humanity, described as serious non-political crimes as opposed to human rights violations. That has an effect on removal, because once it becomes a serious crime, a person becomes removable only if the person is a public danger, not if it's in the national interest. Obviously, these sorts of crimes are not ones that are likely to be replicated in Canada, and saying that they're removable only if they're a public danger means they become not removable, which is inappropriate.

We would say there shouldn't be any discretion at all for removal in these cases, subject to a caveat, which I'll mention in a minute, and certainly shouldn't be a public danger discretion. If there is a discretion at all, it should be a national interest discretion.

As for the caveat, I would pick up exactly what Amnesty International has just said, that nobody, under any circumstances, even the worst criminal, should be removed to torture, arbitrary execution, or forced disappearances. The bill should have automatic removal in some cases and automatic non-removal in other cases, but what it does is to set up a discretion of removal in all cases, and in some of them the discretion is totally inappropriate.

With respect to the integration, first, there should be in the Citizenship Act—and I realize that's not before you here now—a power, as there is in the Immigration Act, to revoke for war criminality, crimes against humanity, or torture. And when and if there is, there should be automatic recognition of that and application of that in the Citizenship Act.

What there is in the Citizenship Act now is the power to remove for fraud. That needs to be integrated with the system in the Immigration Act, so that when there is a revocation of citizenship for fraud, there should also be a removal order issued at the same time. It shouldn't be a separate procedure, because it's basically the same issue. Both of them should be conducted by the Federal Court trial division. We should abolish this business of going to the Governor in Council. Instead, we should just have an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal with leave, and the possibility of a judicially ordered stay of removal, pending the appeal, but not an automatic stay of removal.

There should also be integration in terms of the offences, so that if a person is convicted abroad or in Canada of these offences, there shouldn't be a need to re-prove them. Indeed, if a person is convicted in Canada, we would say that the criminal courts should have the power, at the same time, even to issue the removal orders.

As for the prosecution of these crimes, again we would pick up what Amnesty said, that these crimes should be prosecuted, either in Canada or abroad, and removal alone is not an answer. It should be something that could happen in addition, but not instead. If there are allegations, they should be referred to prosecutors. A person should not be removed until the prosecutor has investigated and decided to prosecute or not. If the prosecutor decides to go to trial, the person should be required to stay in Canada, pending the trial. What the bill says now is the person stays in Canada when sentenced, but that's all.

Finally, there's the issue of what happens with extradition and the way it's treated if somebody is acquitted abroad. There's the problem with the fact that if somebody's acquitted abroad after they've been extradited, they still have problems of access to the system. I would say that's generally a concern with the way this bill is drafted.

It assumes in many cases, or the way the sequence of events follows, that the government's going to win the case. The drafters don't look at the situation if the government loses. The bill produces absurd consequences in a situation where government loses a case. I would encourage the drafters to consider that when they're considering amendments to the bill.

I'll stop with that.

• 0925

The Chair: Thank you, David, for B'nai Brith Canada.

Now we'll move to the Canadian Bar Association, with Michael Greene, Gordon Maynard, and Lorne Waldman.

Michael, welcome.

Mr. Michael A. Greene (Chair, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association): Thank you, and thank you to the committee members, for inviting us here.

I'll be speaking on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association. I'm an immigration lawyer practising in Calgary, Alberta. I'm accompanied by Gordon Maynard, who's an immigration lawyer in Vancouver, and Lorne Waldman, who does the same thing in Toronto. So we have the country at least halfway covered.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national organization of 37,000 members. The citizenship and immigration section comprises approximately 600 members from across Canada. Among the objectives of the CBA are improvement to the law and the administration of justice, and it's in that context that we address you today.

We're very pleased to be here. We've been part of this legislative review process for the last several years—it seems like my lifetime. This is the culmination of that process and an absolutely critical stage.

As you may know, we have had some very serious concerns. Before I get into that, I want to say that at the outset we are supportive of the minister's efforts to improve the act and to update it. We are pleased by her commitment to improving the public image of immigration, and believe she has been very successful, and also to improving the efficiency of her department, and particularly in meeting her target numbers in the past year. We've seen great improvement in recent times.

Having said that, we want to make it clear that we are seriously disturbed by this bill. We think it is fundamentally flawed, and we cannot support its passage unless substantial changes are made. The good news is that changes can be made to the bill, which we think would make it tolerable, and even good legislation. But we want to be unequivocally clear that there are serious problems with the bill.

In the course of our preparation we have done an extensive brief on Bill C-31. I trust you all have access to it, but if you don't have a copy, it's reachable at cba.org or from our national office. We are in the midst of preparing an extensive brief on Bill C-11 because there are substantial changes from Bill C-31 and we want to address this as well.

I believe you should have copies of a letter we sent to all MPs, which briefly outlined a number of our concerns, and we'd be happy to take questions on those. We have only a brief opportunity today. We look forward to assisting the committee in whatever way we can in the future, whether that be through appearances in other locations, coming back here when you come back to Ottawa, or in the clause-by-clause.

We understand that you are under considerable pressure to pass this bill through committee quickly. We want to urge you to take your time and consider the bill carefully. Our concerns are substantial enough and the problems substantial enough that it deserves your very careful attention. We also believe there is no panic. There is no necessity that this be rushed through in the next few weeks. It has been an extensive process, and it only saw its legislative form as Bill C-11 just a few weeks ago.

The boat people can be stopped with the tools we have. Our efforts or our effects last year have shown that we have the tools; what's needed is the resources and the will to use them. We believe that many of the measures proposed throughout this bill are unnecessary.

To get into the specifics with the bill and the key changes, I'm only going to touch on some of them. I ask you to look to our brief for more details and for some of the other concerns. The major concerns that I'll touch upon are as follows.

Regarding the removal of Immigration Appeal Division jurisdiction to review loss of status of permanent residence in particular, but also in sponsorship cases, we believe the Immigration Appeal Division works very well and has worked very well. It has a great history of success and very few failures. We believe the Immigration Appeal Division should be maintained as the independent decision-maker to determine major issues within immigration. These powers should not be transferred to officers, and review should not be taken away.

• 0930

In particular, we are concerned about long-term permanent residents. It's proposed that they be denied access to the IAD on the basis of such things as serious criminality. We believe this is fundamentally unjust, and it's a bad process. The reason that the government created the IAD in the first place in the 1970s was to depoliticize the decision-making process. If you take away the IAD jurisdiction, these decisions will become very political and they will become bad.

The failure of the bill to guarantee any kind of review whatsoever for permanent residents of all the circumstances of the case is a glaring and unconscionable omission. If you look at the briefing notes or the discussion papers, you will see it says something to the effect that there will be safeguards. Well, there are no safeguards in this bill, and under this bill a long-term permanent resident who had been here since childhood could be taken through to deportation without any review whatsoever. It's not provided. “Trust us” is no substitute for justice.

We object to the imposition of a leave provision limiting access on overseas challenges. It has been justified primarily, I think, on the basis of cost. We believe it serves a major function of accountability that has been missing since the department restructured several years ago. We believe the reason for the rise in federal court cases has to do with the change in the structure of the department and the lack of accountability and the lack of managerial review. If that's not restored, it's no solution to mask the problem by limiting access to a federal court.

One of our greatest concerns is the transfer to immigration officers of sweeping unrestricted and draconian powers to arrest and compel examination of foreign nationals, including permanent residents.

In Canada, if the police come knocking on your door, you have a number of options. If they want to ask you questions in an investigation, for instance, you can say I'll talk to you, or I want to talk to my lawyer before I talk to you, or I'd like to bring my lawyer with me when I talk to you. Or you can say I choose not to talk to you, so take a hike; prove your case against me if you want. That's the law with immigration right now. Under Bill C-11 those rights against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent would be completely taken away.

If you look at clause 15, it allows compelled examination of any foreign national when there are reasonable grounds to believe the person may be inadmissible. That is a minimal threshold test. And it would be easy; all they need for them to compel the examination is a complaint.

Under subclause 16(3) they can require production of any document they request. Under clause 127 it becomes an offence to withhold material facts in any examination, and the offence is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and five years in jail. You not only have to answer the questions and truthfully, but you have to provide any relevant information. You have to incriminate yourself.

It is also an offence under clause 127 to refuse to be sworn at such an examination. This completely eviscerates the right to remain silent. It eviscerates the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is the stuff of Stalin's secret police waking you in the night and saying “Come with us; we're going to question you and you have no choice.” It's un-Canadian; it doesn't exist in present law; it doesn't belong in this legislation.

We have no problem with having these powers at the port of entry or for people seeking to enter Canada in an application. These sections can be easily fixed by limiting those powers to situations where people are applying for something, but to give them to cases where immigration officers are merely investigating, it's unconscionable. It would treat immigrants in ways that Canadians would not allow themselves to be treated.

With respect to the permanent resident card process, there is much that is very good about that process. The two out of five years is easier to figure out; it's much simpler. Much of that process is good.

• 0935

Our main concern with the process is the right of access to Canada, or the right to return to Canada. What we are suggesting is that permanent residents should be allowed to return to Canada even if there's a challenge to their status in terms of whether or not they are entitled to retain that permanent resident status. Let them come back. These people are not criminals. They're not harming our society. You have measures in the bill to strip away status through court procedure, and we say to use those. What we're concerned about is permanent residents being stranded overseas and not being able to return.

In particular, we're concerned about the discriminatory effect this can have from visa-required countries. If you're a permanent resident from a non-visa-required country—let's say Great Britain—even if the department is taking the position that you're not entitled to a renewal of your permanent resident card, you can just get on an airplane. At the port of entry, you will be admitted. You have to be. They've assured us, and I'm sure they're assuring you that people will be readmitted. If you come from a visa-required country, though, you won't be able to get on an airplane. That discriminates against permanent residents—we're not talking about visitors, but permanent residents—who come from those countries, and they are a large number of the permanent residents coming to Canada. We're saying to give an absolute right to return to Canada.

There is a suggestion in there that was put in at our request, and that's a compromise that is to allow people who have been gone less than one year to return. If that was the compromise—and you know that's not what we're suggesting, but it's a fall-back—then it needs to be reworded because there are some problems with it, but I won't get into those now.

Lastly, we are concerned about the downloading of powers from the act to the regulations, or the failure of the act to provide for basic safeguards for permanent residents. We think the bill is remarkable in terms of the number of places you find in the bill where regulatory powers are allowed to determine things that were formerly in the act. What this does is take away your powers. It takes away Parliament's powers to control immigration law. This bill can effectively be substantially changed by regulation now, because definitions passed by regulation are incorporated into the act. For instance, the detention criteria are set out in the act, but if you look at the bill, there's a power to make regulations listing additional factors that must be considered. So effectively they can be changed.

In the interest of preserving the commendable commitment of the minister to fair and just process—and I think she stated that—we encourage you to carefully review this legislation and to stand up for some basic rights of permanent residents and foreign nationals in Canada, and to make substantial amendments before the bill is passed.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for your very thoughtful submissions. While you summarized them, we have your briefs, and we look forward to any additional material that you might send us as our hearings continue.

We'll go to questions. I'm sure there are some.

Gurmant, the first round is ten minutes.

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

I welcome you, witnesses. I enjoyed the presentations. All of them were very good and very brief.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions.

For the last five years, I have been saying the Immigration Act should close the back doors but open the front doors. The minister has borrowed my line, but neither has she opened the front doors with this law, nor has she closed the back door. Instead, she has installed a revolving door that will delay and cause problems for prospective immigrants. I'll put three questions first. After getting the answers, we'll then proceed.

I understand from the discussion, as well as from the presentation and the notes, that after being accepted, genuine refugees are not guaranteed landed status. That will affect the reunification of the families of the refugees who are accepted but not landed in Canada. Do you think my assessment is right or true?

The second question would be, why should the refugee division conduct eligibility determination rather than CIC, particularly when it lacks the tools to assess eligibility and eligibility criteria?

• 0940

There is a third question that I will put forward, Mr. Chairman. There are more regulations in this bill, and too many. To me, that gives the indication that the powers of Parliament are taken away and are given to bureaucrats.

I would like to hear the assessment or the points of confirmation from the witnesses on those questions.

The Chair: Gurmant, are you asking those questions to every witness, to every group, or did you have one specifically in mind?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I think the Canadian Bar Association can answer the first question, and probably the second one. The third one I will leave open for anyone.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Lorne Waldman (Executive Member, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association): On behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, I'll answer the first question on right of landing to refugees.

It took a while for us to understand this, because it isn't clearly set out in the immigration law. Under the current law, section 46.04 says a convention refugee shall be granted landing if he meets certain admissibility requirements. What that means is a refugee has an absolute right to be given landed status unless he or she is inadmissible on criminal grounds, for terrorism, etc.

This is extremely important, because a refugee cannot effect family reunification until he gets landed. He can't bring his family in. We have cases of delays in landing that cause hardship to the point where we've had clients who have committed suicide because they've been waiting for years to be able to be reunited with their families.

What this law does is take away the right to be granted landing, and it changes it to a discretion. The immigration officials may grant landing, but they may not. Worse still, it doesn't allow and set out in the act specifically what the criteria are that refugees will have to comply with in order to be granted landing. This is an extremely important change. It's a dramatic departure from our immigration policy, which was one that always recognized that refugees who were accepted in Canada had a right to be landed. That has to be corrected.

The Chair: For members, you're still referring to section 46.04 under the existing law, right?

Mr. Lorne Waldman: Right, under the current law.

The Chair: The word is “shall”, and in the existing provisions of Bill C-11, still at section 46.04, that word has now been changed to “may”—is that what you're saying?

Mr. Lorne Waldman: No, there's no similar section.

If you want the clauses in order to understand how the existing law works, subclause 99(4) of the proposed bill, if you're found to warrant protection, says:

An application to become a permanent resident made by a protected person is governed by Part 1.

So the only landing subclause in the refugee division is 99(4), and it refers you back. This is how it's hard to figure out. You have to go from clause to clause, and specifically to subclause 12(3), which says:

A foreign national, inside or outside Canada, may be selected as a person who under this Act is a Convention refugee or as a person in similar circumstances...

It's a “may” instead of a “shall”, and it doesn't specify the criteria for landing. It doesn't say what criteria they have to meet, so it refers you to the general inadmissibility criteria, which are set out in clauses 36 through 43.

The Chair: Your second question was on the—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Refugee division versus CIC—

Mr. Lorne Waldman: And eligibility.

We have a lot of concern about how the eligibility process in the proposed bill will work. It's the same concern we have about how it works at the present time, when it's done by immigration officers. We believe the most appropriate place for this to be done is at the refugee board, which has the expertise to do it.

We understand there are some concerns about whether or not the refugee board has the resources, but we believe this can be taken care of by ensuring they have the adequate resources to do the procedure there. We believe it's far safer to have an independent tribunal that can engage in the eligibility process than it is to have it done by immigration officers.

The Chair: I think the question on regulation was posed to all of you.

Mr. David Matas: On this one in particular, I think one has to look at what things you get ineligibility for. Some of them, of course, are the issues of war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and so on. These are matters already now within the jurisdiction of the refugee division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, within the exclusion clauses. This is one of the components of this fragmentation, in that you set up different tribunals with the same jurisdiction, and then the issue can go to a sequence of them. It makes much more sense to say you have one tribunal, they do the job, and there's only the one step, rather than breaking it up and having people going to different tribunals looking at the same issue time after time.

• 0945

The Chair: Thank you.

On the question of regulations, maybe we can start with Amnesty International and go around the table. On legislation as opposed to regulation, are there any comments?

Mr. Alex Neve: Others probably have more comprehensive views on this than we do, but we have noted concern that there is too much left to the regulations around some particularly vital issues, especially around the importance of defining important terms that are going to determine whether or not people are going to have access to refugee determination and things like that.

One area that we've noted, for instance—and I don't remember the clause right now—is a clause that would exclude people from protection decisions on the basis of, among other things, having violated human or international rights. “International rights” is a term not defined in the legislation. Assumedly, it is a term that is left to be defined by regulation. In law more generally, the notion of the term “international rights” is not known, so we have a concern that something like that—something which is going to determine something as vital as whether or not someone is going to be allowed to have their protection claim assessed—shouldn't be left to be defined in regulation. And I think there are numerous other examples.

The Chair: David, do you have any comments on legislation versus regulations?

Mr. David Matas: Yes, this bill is actually better than Bill C-31, which had a lot more in the regulations, but it still leaves large swaths to be decided by regulation, and in areas dealing with fundamental rights. The example that we just heard about the landing of refugees is just one of them.

There is the whole issue of stays, for instance. The department has said it is going to provide a regulatory stay for people, pending the pre-removal risk assessment. The question is, are they going to be providing a stay pending access to the Federal Court, or are they going to have to be judicial stays? When you're dealing with matters of due process or rights, it's inappropriate that it would just be left to guesswork right now, when we really don't know of the scheme of the legislation.

The Chair: Gordon.

Mr. Gordon H. Maynard (Executive Member, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section and Chair of the British Columbia Branch Section, Canadian Bar Association): Yes, thank you.

I think a very good example of the problem with devolving substantial matters down to regulations is found in clause 44 of this bill.

Under the current Immigration Act, the act itself tells which removal orders can be issued against which people, in which circumstances. There are three types of removal orders—deportation orders, exclusion orders and departure orders—with varying degrees of severity. Right now, it's mostly the independent tribunal that issues the removal orders. Officers do have an authority, but it's limited by the act. It's limited to only the lesser removal orders, and never against permanent residents. This bill doesn't contain any of those restrictions. Clause 44 simply says we'll determine them by regulation.

Those regulations may authorize immigration officers to issue deportation orders against permanent residents and cause their loss of status completely outside of any tribunal hearing process. By regulation, you're setting up a parallel process and you're avoiding the tribunals that are supposed to have the jurisdiction. There's no restriction on that in the act; it's left to regulation. Now, this is a fundamental issue. The rights of permanent residents include how they lose their status, and that should not be left to regulation.

Another example is clause 61. Clause 61 authorizes regulations as to factors to be considered by the tribunal in determining releases from detention. Right now, the tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not somebody should be released, to determine whether or not they're a danger to the public, or to determine whether or not there's a risk of flight. This law says regulations can be made telling the tribunal what factors they must take into account. Well, who has the jurisdiction and who has the independence to make that decision? Is it officers, is it the regulations, or is it the tribunal? So there's a failure on the part of the bill to put the substantial rights into the act and to leave them to regulation.

Similarly, clause 18 deals with regulations regarding examinations—and Michael mentioned this issue. The compelled examination of permanent residents or any foreign national in Canada for simply investigative purposes is an appalling power. It doesn't exist under the current act, and it shouldn't exist under this bill. It's an egregious breach of civil liberties. This bill does not define what an examination is, and it leaves it to regulations. Well, this needs to be corrected. Too many substantive rights have been left to regulations.

• 0950

The Chair: Thank you. Steve Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm assuming that our staff will give us a detailed response to all of these at some time, but I have a couple of questions for each of the witnesses.

The first one is to Amnesty. On your concern about the lack of a hearing, I'd just like your reaction to paragraph 113(b) on page 50, where it says that “no hearing shall be held, unless the Minister, on the basis of prescribed factors, is of the opinion that a hearing is required”. We've been told that this leaves the door open to an oral hearing, as opposed to a paper hearing. I wonder if you recognize that, accept that, or dispute that.

Mr. Alex Neve: When we were raising our concerns about oral hearings, we were referring specifically to the appeal process. I believe this provision deals with the pre-removal risk assessment, which is a slightly different process.

We of course welcomed and were pleased to see the inclusion of this provision in Bill C-11, which didn't exist in Bill C-31. Bill C-31 did envision only a written review process under the PRRA, and we are pleased to see that there is this provision here. I guess it points to another instance, however, where, by virtue of the fact that the criteria are left to be determined by regulation, we're at this point unable to ascertain when, in what kinds of contexts or circumstances, oral hearings will be provided. Again, it points to an area where some further guidance in the legislation would have been helpful.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If we were to expand that, it might be a way of resolving your concern.

Mr. Alex Neve: It would be. Still, with regard to the appeal itself, there is not the power for the appeal division to hold its own oral hearings, but the appeal division is given the opportunity to refer things back to the refugee division for a hearing if it feels that to be necessary. Again, there's no illumination within the legislation of the circumstances in which that would happen. We've therefore suggested that, at the very least, there'd be a need for guidelines, which the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board could issue, to help give some guidance as to when oral hearings would be helpful in an appeal process.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's helpful. Thank you.

To B'nai Brith, the issue is—and you'll forgive me, as I forget the exact wording, David, of your concerns—that when one faces persecution or torture in one's own country, they should not under any circumstances be sent back. Even if they are the most heinous criminal, it doesn't matter. Do you have any concern about what we hear quite often in question period and in other forums about the potential to create a safe haven wherein, with forethought, a criminal in another country might commit a criminal act and have a quick escape to Canada, knowing that under no circumstances whatsoever would they ever be sent back, with the exception of extradition? Do you have any concerns about exacerbating that, or how would you respond to that kind of an accusation?

Mr. David Matas: Well, first of all, yes, I do have concerns about Canada as a safe haven. The reality is Canada has been a safe haven for Nazi war criminals for decades. Our organization has been extremely concerned about that.

The problem is this is not the solution. Deportation is better than nothing, but it doesn't bring these people to justice. It doesn't punish them for the crimes. All it does is it relocates them, and that relocation may be to a place where they're not going to be prosecuted at all; it just means they get a temporary stay here. With the bill, you might shorten the stay or lengthen the stay, but that doesn't become a really effective deterrent. What you need as an effective deterrent is a system of prosecution in Canada. These are all universal jurisdiction offences. It's simply a matter of making the laws work, because the laws are actually in the Criminal Code now. We punish torture. We just passed a war crimes act.

• 0955

What we're saying is that when these people are here and we have information about them, refer the cases to the prosecutors, because that, as far as we can tell, hasn't been happening now. Wait until the cases are investigated. Let the prosecutors tell us whether these people can be prosecuted or not.

International law doesn't say you have a duty to remove. International law says you have duty to prosecute or extradite—not a power, a duty. And, if you remove somebody without either prosecuting or extraditing, you're violating that duty. So that's what should be happening.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So, notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision on extradition with regard to the death penalty, you would still basically support an extradition procedure, but not through this mechanism, not through this act?

Mr. David Matas: Notwithstanding the Supreme Court of Canada decision with regard to the death penalty, I would support extradition.

Well, first of all, I don't see a conflict between the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the death penalty and extradition. First of all, I argued that case—not for B'nai Brith but for Amnesty International, but I did argue it. There's no conflict between that case and extradition. And indeed what we're saying here is, extradition is fine, but I would say also, to none of these offences.... I certainly, obviously, support the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Burns and Rafay. Extradition is fine if there's an extradition request, but the reality is that we don't get these extradition requests for torturers, war criminals, criminals against humanity. If we don't get them—and we don't get them—then our duty is to prosecute and not just to deport.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you. I—

The Chair: Answers have to be a little shorter. I'm sorry, we're limited by time; I know that. The questions have to be a little shorter.

Mr. David Matas: Thank you.

The Chair: These are complex questions and complex answers. I know that, but I'm just trying to move it along.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to be as brief as I can on these questions.

I have a question to the CBA. I'm not being critical, but you went all over the bill from clauses 15 and 16 and 20, to clause 99 and back to clause 12, and I was trying to follow the bouncing ball, if you will—

Mr. Lorne Waldman: We didn't write the bill.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Your issue in clause 99, if I recall, centred on subclause 99(4), “An application to become a permanent resident made by a protected person is governed by Part I”. So this is a claim for refugee status, and you refer it back to your concerns around the word “may”.

A voice: Twelve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's clause 12, that's right.

I looked at this, and I'd like your reaction. I assume you'd be happy if the word “shall” were substituted, but I looked at this as being three options, as opposed to being a soft set of guidelines: that the selection of permanent residents may occur if it's a member of an economic class, etc.; the spouse, common-law partner, etc.; and the third one. All three are options that could be used, as opposed to wishy-washy guidelines, which would be the implication of your analysis of it.

Do you see any rationale for my looking at it in that way in terms of them being viable options? In other words, one of them is going to be picked. They may choose one, they may choose two, or they may choose three.

Mr. Lorne Waldman: Okay. The point still doesn't change. I see what you're trying to say, but the point doesn't change. The point is, under the current law, a refugee has an absolute right to be landed. The word is “shall”, and that's extremely important. That's been our refugee policy since the 1950s. We've always brought refugees in, and we've always said that refugees who come here have a right to become permanent residents unless they are criminals or terrorists or whatever.

The fact that the word “may” is in there is extremely significant, and what it means is that this right that is now enshrined in 46.01 is replaced by a discretion. Now, there may be three criteria on which they could be selected, but it still doesn't mean that they're automatically going to be selected. That's the concern.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So an amendment that would ensure that one of the three was used would satisfy your concerns?

Mr. Lorne Waldman: An amendment that provided that a refugee who is not inadmissible on specified grounds of terrorism or national security shall be granted landed status would satisfy our concerns. It's not a difficult amendment to make. It's consistent with our current law.

There's nothing in anything we've heard from the minister that suggested that they intended to take this right away, so I would think that the minister would probably be willing to accept it. Maybe it's just something that was missed by the officials. I hope that's the case.

• 1000

The Chair: Okay.

We'll have five-minute rounds. We'll go to Madeleine and then Judy, and then we'll come back to Gurmant.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would first like to make a very short comment.

One of you said there was no big hurry, it would be better to take the time to study the situation and come up with the fairest legislation possible. I agree completely and imagine everyone at the table does too.

Turning to my second comment, you also said people who decide to make a refugee claim in Canada generally do so because they have no choice. Above all else, they are people.

I have a question for you, because obviously others make the decision regarding those people. If it were up to you to establish criteria for members of the Immigration and Refugee Board, what would they be? In your opinion, is the way in which Board members are currently appointed—you had a lot to say about their independence—a good way to make those appointments? Since no one said anything about that, I would like to hear what you have to say.

[English]

The Chair: Would anyone like to respond?

Mr. Lorne Waldman: We've been very concerned about this for a very long time. We think that you can have the best refugee system in the world, but if you don't have good people to run it, the system won't work.

We believe that there should be criteria set out in the act to clearly establish that the refugee officers chosen should be chosen according to competence and should be carefully selected through some kind of independent process.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you. My second question is for the Amnesty International representative. Am I right in saying you find that immigration officers actually have very broad discretion? That is what I gathered. If I understood correctly, what limits would you consider reasonable?

[English]

Mr. Alex Neve: We have highlighted concerns about the powers of immigration officers in a couple of different contexts. I began with concerns about powers of immigration officers acting abroad. There our concern is that those powers are limitless, not defined in any way. Increasingly, this is one of the real challenges internationally to our having a viable international refugee protection system. It is getting more and more difficult for people to reach a country where they can make their claim.

We feel, therefore, that it's important that on that front the law define the powers of immigration officers acting abroad in such a way as to ensure that anyone whose journey to Canada to seek asylum is interrupted has two options. One, their claim will be referred to an authority in a country where there is a reasonable assurance that it will be reliably dealt with, a country that has a proven record of refugee protection. Or two, they will be allowed to continue to Canada to make that refugee claim. That way, anyone seeking asylum can't simply be intercepted and their claim left to the whims of fate.

We've also raised concerns about the powers of immigration officers in Canada, especially about eligibility decisions. I think this echoes some of what was said earlier, to the effect that we too feel that the proper place for those decisions to be made rests with the refugee division, the experts on these issues. It is artificial—and inefficient, really—to divide it into two steps. If eligibility decisions are to be left in the hands of immigration officers, we're concerned that people who need protection may be denied it.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I would also like to thank everyone for their presentations.

It's so unfortunate there's so little time to deal with such a major area of concern and such far-reaching legislation. We're going to run out of time, and I'm just hoping that all presenters will feel they can submit draft amendments for our perusal so we can be better informed and prepared throughout the process of the bill.

The Chair: That's an open invitation. I'm sure they will.

• 1005

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have three or four quick questions. I'll just ask them all at once and hope that.... I know he's going to cut me off, so I'll do it fast and hope that.... I'm used to that from my other committees.

The Chair: I'm a good Liberal chair. It's not a problem.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Oh, you're great. Okay.

First of all, all presenters have dealt with a general question concerning Canada's humanitarian role around the globe. My first question, really.... It's been suggested before that there is in fact an unwritten quota in Canada on the number of refugees who can be accepted into the country, and I'm wondering if that's your sense and how we can address it.

My understanding is that Canada takes in maybe 25,000 refugees a year. I'd like to know how that relates to the number of demands around the world and what kind of numbers you think we should be looking at. Without getting into quotas, I'd also like to know how we can play a much more significant role on the international scene in that regard.

All of you have touched on the UN conventions. I'd like to know directly from you if, with this bill, we are in direct violation of the UN Convention Against Torture. In the same vein, is there an international consensus that the Convention Against Torture does contain an absolute ban on removal to the home country?

Second, are we following the UN convention in relation to the status of refugees? I know the minister says she has made some changes concerning documentation, and I think the appropriate section is clause 106, if I'm not mistaken. Do the changes from Bill C-31 to Bill C-11 actually address the concerns that many have raised with respect to refugees being in legal limbo because they come from countries that don't issue the appropriate documents?

The Chair: That's good for starters.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

Mr. Michael Bossin: I'll deal with the question on the Convention Against Torture, if I may. I'm just going to read you several quotes from the Committee Against Torture itself.

The first concern is a case of a member of the Shining Path guerillas from Peru, and the committee said that the test of article 3 of the convention, which is the prohibition against returning someone to face torture, is absolute. The nature of activities in which the person engaged cannot be a material consideration when making a determination under article 3 of the convention.

In another case the committee said that whenever there are substantial grounds for believing that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he was expelled to another state, the state party is required not to return that person to the state. The nature of activities in which the person engaged is not a relevant consideration in the taking of a decision in accordance with article 3 of the convention.

I think the committee has been absolutely clear that this is an absolute right.

Yes, I think that this bill envisages a situation where the minister will balance the danger to the public or the national interest against the risk of torture, and this bill sanctions the government's sending the person back to be tortured after it has weighed the risks. Yes, that would be a clear violation of our international commitments.

The Chair: Okay, Judy, where was your next question headed?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to ask about the convention as relates to the status of refugees and the question of documentation.

Mr. Lorne Waldman: I'm not sure I can help you, because I don't think it's in clause 106. I think it's...the closest I can see.... This is the question of refugees in limbo, which has been a major concern and which deals with people not being able to get landed for years and years because they don't have adequate documentation. Clause 106 doesn't address that. The closest I can see is clause 31, which mentions a status document. Subclause 31.(1) says:

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

This again is designed for refugees, and it should be a shell. A protected person should be granted a status document so they have security, and they should have a right to this. It still doesn't deal with the issue of refugees not being able to bring their families into Canada, which all goes back to the question we raised before. It's about people not being able to get landed, which is when they can bring their families.

The Chair: Yes, David.

Mr. David Matas: I'll take a stab at answering your third question, although it didn't really relate to the brief we submitted, which deals with numbers. Also, it doesn't particularly relate to the bill as to numbers.

Our numbers are too low. The number for overseas refugees we accept is about 7,300 a year out of a global refugee population that varies between 15 million and 25 million, depending on the year.

That's for government-assisted refugees. If we consider privately sponsored refugees, of course, there are additional numbers. However, it's very difficult for a private sponsor because of high refusal rates, because of criteria for successful establishment, and because of the way the notion of a need for resettlement is applied. So there's a very high rejection rate for private sponsored.

• 1010

The government justifies the low numbers. They say they're high numbers compared with other countries. The reality is if you look at other resettlement countries, we're not at the highest but we're certainly well in the middle of the pack. We're not at the lowest.

What happens realistically is that border countries get the bulk of the refugees. It's not a very hospitable setting, and many of them are treated so badly that they're pushed back because of the inadequacy.

It was a former government that actually had a target of 25% of the total as refugees. So out of an immigration population of 200,000, we would have 50,000 refugees. That was the target. The reason that was abandoned and we're now closer to 10% is that the government operationally couldn't generate the numbers. They never abandoned it as a policy goal. They just abandoned it because it was not operationally viable the way the system is run.

In my view, the system could be run better. They could certainly make private sponsorship easier to access. They could increase the government-assisted. In my own view, we should be targeting the 25% number, or 50,000 a year out of 200,000.

The Chair: Gordon, you had a short comment on that.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: Refugees are remanded to grab the attention of the press and apparently the minds of parliamentarians too. This bill is not just about refugees; it's about permanent residents too.

We told you at the outset that we have serious concerns about the loss of review through the appeal division of circumstances for permanent residents and refugees who are ordered deported from Canada. This bill provides for mandatory deportation without review. May I suggest you turn your minds and questions to that area.

The Chair: Okay. Gurmant.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you very much. You're a very liberal chair. I will try to use my time very conservatively without fear that I will ask the questions.

The head tax or the right-of-landing fee is discriminatory in the sense that when we convert the right-of-landing fee into the local currency and into the cost of living, it discourages people from applying from poor third world countries. I would like to know if anyone agrees with that.

The Chair: I think we'd like to stick to the nature of the bill. I don't believe the bill talks about—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The bill doesn't address that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: It doesn't address it. You can address it in some other forum. We're dealing with the bill now. I know you've raised this issue, and in fact it has been raised by an awful lot of parties. But this is not the place to raise it. The bill doesn't speak about fees or government policies as they relate to landing fees or taxes and so on at this particular stage. If you want the witnesses to comment—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But maybe they can comment.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I can move to the second question. This particular bill we're now debating recognizes dual intent, that a person can be an immigrant and a visitor at the same time. In my opinion, when a visitor comes to Canada, an inland application is allowed by this bill, so a person can apply for immigration in certain categories within Canada. So that means the prospective immigrant has the potential to jump the queue. Do you think that will inhibit the visa officers from giving a visitor visa to people because of the potential that they can come into Canada and apply for immigration? That is the second question.

The third is—

The Chair: No, I'm sorry. Let's deal with the first two questions. Let's deal with the—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The first one, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: If you have some time left, Gurmant, I'll get back to you. Let's deal with the relevant question first with regard to dual intent, and we'll get to the question about fees if we have some time left.

Mr. Michael Greene: I can cover them both. I'll make just a brief comment on the financial aspect, because there is something that is relevant there.

On dual intent, a concern of ours for a long time has been that in some cases you have visa officers being overly zealous in how they restrict access to visitor visas. Anybody who might have the potential to apply for immigration is denied a visitor's visa even though they have no intention of breaking the law. We've made some progress in working with the department in getting a change of attitude abroad. We're happy to see something that enshrines the dual intent and to recognize that just because a person might apply for immigration in the future doesn't mean you deny them a visitor's visa. A lot of people who are legitimate visitors aren't getting here because of the way those laws are applied. So I think it's a good thing that's happening there.

• 1015

In terms of inland applications, my understanding from what we've seen in the proposed regulations is it's going to be fairly limited. So I don't think you'd call it queue-jumping.

We think the shortcoming in the proposed selection system is that if you're a skilled tradesperson, the only way you're going to get here is if you're able to come here and work for a couple of years. That's the way they've set it up. The problem with that is if you have a zealous approach in visa offices, people from some countries aren't going to be able to get those work visas because they might apply for permanent residency.

The Chair: Are there any other comments on dual intent by Amnesty or B'nai Brith?

Mr. Michael Greene: Just quickly on the financial aspect, I won't comment on the head tax. We've been opposed to it and its discriminatory effect for a long time. I think you do have to watch out—

The Chair: I wish you wouldn't call it a head tax. Let's correct the record. It's not a head tax. A lawyer should know that.

Mr. Michael Greene: The right-of-landing fee. I don't know who came up with that term.

The Chair: Don't use it.

Mr. Michael Greene: We have had some concerns about the impact. We are concerned about some of the proposals in both the bill and the regulations when you start talking about people having to have a certain amount of money to be able to come to Canada and establish themselves. We are concerned about something that is now a policy in the policy manual being elevated to a regulation, where you have to have a certain amount of money in the bank before you're going to be qualified to come here under the economic class. That will have a discriminatory effect on people from underdeveloped or less developed countries.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jean and then John, one question each, please.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to say how pleased I am to see you here and also to look at the briefs you've presented to us.

I think what we're trying to do is to make sure we have the best possible piece of legislation. We are looking for all the fairness and due process and everything that should be in this legislation.

So I take very seriously the comment the Bar Association makes about there not being any safeguards in the legislation, about the sweeping powers of officers, the downloading of powers, etc. I know you've been at this for a long time. You've studied this. You've put all the experience of your colleagues and others from the Bar Association into this. Have you been working with the officials in this regard? Are there some changes that could be made without substantially changing the entire context of the bill?

The Chair: Thank you, Jean.

I wonder if we could have comments on this very important question from each of the witnesses. Michael.

Mr. Michael Greene: We have been working and we are continuing to do so. Even today I think we'll be meeting with departmental officials. There are problems that are obviously just errors in drafting and things that have been overlooked. We've seen things that appear to have an unintended effect, and we're hoping that changes will be made to correct those. So that process is ongoing, and we hope it does continue.

I just want to re-emphasize that it is a mammoth undertaking for this committee to consider this legislation. It involves all aspects of our immigration system. It's a once-in-25-years thing. To have to cram this into a few weeks and make your decisions.... What has happened here in an hour illustrates this. There are a lot of questions focusing on the subject of refugees, which needs to be focused on. The same thing is going to happen during your six-week process. There are so many areas that are absolutely critical, and fundamental, sweeping changes are happening. We're really concerned about it being rushed and then being too late. The horse is already out of the barn.

The Chair: Let me just comment on that. You and 154 other people who want to address the committee obviously bring an awful lot of experience and expertise, and we're going to rely on you to tell us where the strengths and the weaknesses are of a particular bill. We'll take what time is needed to make sure Canada gets the best immigration bill we can possibly come up with. With this timeframe and this urgency we intend to work very hard, but we rely on an awful lot of people like yourselves, who are on the front lines, to tell us what is right and what is wrong with the system.

David, please.

Mr. David Matas: As I've said, we're concerned about consolidation and integration. For different bills we're dealing with different officials who, it seems, are not necessarily talking to each other. For the citizenship bill, we were concerned there and said once there should be revocation, there's deportation. At that time they said Bill C-16 is decided and talk to the immigration people. So we talked to the immigration people, and we don't see it in here.

• 1020

The question is, is this going to surface with the citizenship bill? How's the department going to integrate its approach to citizenship and immigration when it deals with revocation based on fraud and war criminality? I don't see that being organized and I don't see it in the bill. I think it needs to be.

The Chair: Thank you, David. Alex.

Mr. Alex Neve: Yes, certainly we do endeavour to take advantage of all opportunities to be in contact with departmental officials and the minister herself on these issues and have highlighted these concerns in our discussions with them.

We've seen movement. In the current bill the most dramatic example for us would be the proposal to introduce an appeal procedure for rejected refugee claims. That's something we've been pushing for. However, it's taken a decade to get there, so it took a long time.

In the current brief we've provided, we have sought to be very pragmatic and practical with the suggestions we've made around amendments and we do think that many of these very profound and important issues we've raised can be dealt with through fairly minimal, but important, amendments to the bill. So I don't think it's necessarily a matter of completely rewriting it. It's just paying attention to the specific provisions that raise concerns.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll have a final question by John McCallum, because we have six other witnesses and we're already late on our first round.

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have one extremely brief comment and one brief question, if I may, to the Amnesty group.

I'd like to echo what my colleague Steve Mahoney said. Especially for me as a new person on this committee, I hope we'll get some briefing from the staff, because to listen to some of the brief comments, the drafters are guilty of the most egregious injustices to the point of being un-Canadian. I'm not competent to question this, but I'd like to hear counter-arguments from people who are expert.

My question is on this safe haven argument that was referred to earlier, whether the Amnesty people think this is of significant importance. Also, in particular, when you say that other ways should be found to deal with crimes, that people might be sent back to torture, what are those other ways that might address the safe haven issue?

Mr. Alex Neve: Essentially, I would echo much of what David Matas from B'nai Brith said. We too do not in any way, shape, or form want to see Canada or any place in the world be a haven for individuals who have been responsible for committing serious human rights violations. It's a crucial and central part of human rights work. Unless we start to tackle that in a meaningful way, we're never going to get to that better world where human rights truly are being protected around the globe.

That having been said, we agree that the remedy of deportation does not take us to that goal. Number one, it often results in people being sent back to experience further human rights violations themselves, which means we just keep getting caught in the cycles of violence, abuse, and repression that fuel further abuse and repression and violations. The other scenario is the very real likelihood that the person will walk scot-free and will not face any penalty, will not be brought before any tribunal.

It's for this reason that the most effective means of ensuring that Canada is not a safe haven is by paying attention to the extradition and prosecution possibilities, rather than the deportation possibilities. It's only by tightening that web of international justice, bringing people to justice in Canada, making sure that they're brought before appropriate international tribunals, that we ensure there really is no safe haven for human rights abusers, and we do move closer to a world where human rights are safeguarded.

The Chair: I believe, Lorne, you had a quick comment.

Mr. Lorne Waldman: We have to understand that this is a process. The international community enacted the international war crimes tribunal in Rome. This is the ultimate solution. Canada was one of the driving forces in supporting this. Ultimately the answer to safe haven is to create an international tribunal that will prosecute these people, because it's too difficult.... This is happening. It's going to take a few years. So I think we have to understand this as a process. If members here can push the United States to ratify the treaty, then we would go a long way toward solving the problem of safe haven. But there's an international process, an international war crimes tribunal that will prosecute these people, and that's the solution for safe haven.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To my colleague, John, as you know, we started as a committee to get briefed by the officials and there were a lot of questions on Tuesday. Those briefings will continue.

• 1025

Let me assure the witnesses and our colleagues that your recommendations will all be taken very seriously. In fact I want to make sure that the witnesses provide us with their briefs on Bill C-11 at the earliest possible moment, probably before our meeting, so that we can in fact know what you're going to say, know what you're talking about, before you actually appear. In most cases that's very important.

We're going to list all of the recommendations of all of our witnesses so that we can probe our officials and have their rational explanation as to why they've done what they've done. In this process, over the past number of weeks, we will make sure that we get answers that satisfy you, but more importantly satisfy us, so that we can be assured that we are getting the best legislation.

Let me thank Amnesty International, B'nai Brith, and CBA for your input. I'm sure we'll be talking to each other over the next number of weeks. Thank you very much for your insight.

Voices: Thank you.

The Chair: Colleagues, we have to move fairly quickly to our next round of witnesses. We have the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Notre-Dame Cathedral, the Canadian Police Association, and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. I would ask those witnesses to come to the table.

We are running a little late. There is another committee that wants to come in here soon, but we want to make sure we take the time necessary to listen to our witnesses.

I want to welcome Cliff Dezell of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; Bernard Daly, the chair of Notre-Dame Cathedral-Basilica of Ottawa; David Griffin, executive officer for the Canadian Police Association, and Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham, from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Welcome to the committee.

Some of you have provided briefs, some of you haven't. I must tell you that we want the briefs as early as possible. You can't drop them on our desks the moment you arrive here, especially if they're not in a translated version. I want you to summarize from the briefs. Take five to seven minutes to talk a little bit about the issues and comments, but I ask our witnesses to be a little respectful of our committee members. We'd like your briefs as early as possible. They have to be in both official languages. I'm not suggesting that all of you didn't do that. I am just saying it for the benefit of anybody else who will be meeting with the committee.

Let's start with Cliff Dezell of FCM.

Mr. Cliff Dezell (Director and Chair, Federation of Canadian Municipalities): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting us.

Since 1901 the FCM has been the national voice of municipal government, dedicated to improving the quality of life in all communities by promoting strong, effective, and accountable government. At this stage in our life we represent more than 1,000 municipalities across the country and more than 82% of the Canadian population.

We have some specific concerns about the bill and I will summarize them.

I'd like to state on behalf of FCM that we believe that immigration enriches our social and cultural life, supplements our declining workforce, brings financial capital and creates jobs. However, in our experience immigrants and refugees also are less likely to be employed and have significantly lower earnings than people born in Canada. As you have probably heard, incidents of hate-motivated crimes against racial minorities and others are on the rise, and that concerns us.

In addition, federal and provincial downloading, downsizing, and offloading have created critical pressures on the financial capacity of cities to meet the increased demand for services.

• 1030

The 1996 census showed that 85% of all immigrants live in Canada's 25 census metropolitan areas, with nearly three-quarters living in three cities, Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. In 1999, most immigrants continued to settle in these centres, Toronto with 44%, Vancouver with 15%, and Montreal with 12%. Additionally, cities such as Kitchener-Waterloo and Hamilton receive a high proportion of secondary migrants, immigrants, refugees, and refugee claimants migrating from initial destinations. Still other cities such as Winnipeg are faced with a declining population. They need to attract immigrants in order to strengthen a shrinking labour force and to stimulate economic development.

Specifically, our concerns about Bill C-11 are that it is silent on consultation and collaboration of municipalities. A stated objective of the current bill is cooperation between the Government of Canada and other orders of government. Bill C-11 has deleted this objective and requires the minister to consult only with the provinces regarding economic and demographic requirements for the distribution of immigrants and measures to facilitate integration.

However, it is in local communities across the country that integration takes place. It is the programs and services in these communities that help ensure the success of Canada's national immigrant policies. Many of the impacts of immigration occur at a local level and municipal governments are most aware of how federal policy affects local communities.

There is a need for all orders of government to work cooperatively with each other and with the community and private sector towards setting and achieving common goals in immigration and refugee policies and programs.

The need for municipalities to be directly consulted is made all the more important because many details of the changes to the Immigration Act will be stipulated in regulation rather than the statute. Clause 38, for instance, addresses the protection of health and safety of Canadians and the grounds for inadmissibility on health grounds.

Municipal governments need to be actively involved in developing the regulations for this section. It is our view that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should immediately establish a process to include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and representative municipalities as full participants in the development of the regulations.

Specifically, Bill C-11 should also be amended to include municipalities in the section “Objectives and Application” and the clause on consultations with the provinces—paragraphs 3(1)(c) and (f), paragraph 3(3)(c), and subclauses 10(1) and (2)—to make provision for the Government of Canada to consult directly with municipal governments on relevant policy and program issues.

The bill does not appear to recognize the cost borne by many, if not all, municipal governments for providing services such as public health, emergency shelter, and social assistance to refugee claimants, as well as social assistance to immigrants because of sponsorship breakdown. The Government of Canada should share these costs.

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, we are asking the Government of Canada to amend Bill C-11 to provide for consultation and collaboration with municipal governments. We are asking the Government of Canada to share the costs borne by municipal governments in providing services such as public health, emergency shelter, and social assistance to refugee claimants, refugees, and immigrants.

Finally, we are asking the Government of Canada to support the funding of programs and initiatives for the social and economic well-being of immigrants and refugees and their successful integration into Canadian society.

Many of the impacts of immigration occur at the local level and it is community-based programs and initiatives that ensure the success of our national immigration policies. Funding should reflect this reality. The changes we have suggested to Bill C-11 will help ensure that the goal of facilitating the successful settlement and integration of immigrants and refugees in Canada is achieved.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Cliff.

We'll now go to Notre Dame Cathedral-Basilica. Bernard.

Mr. Bernard M. Daly (Chair, Notre-Dame Cathedral-Basilica of Ottawa): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

Our interest in refugee issues stems from our experience as a parish in sponsoring a Rwandan refugee family. They arrived in Ottawa last June, are getting well settled, and Mr. Kanamugire is in fact an observer here this morning.

In general, we want the new immigration act to carry forward some of the provisions of the current act for assisting refugees, both overseas and in this country. We are particularly interested in two categories that were included each year in the plan: government-assisted refugees and privately sponsored refugees.

• 1035

The inclusion of these two categories was new when the present act came in. There were questions earlier about the numbers. We're recommending very strongly that at least the current level of government-assisted refugees—7,500 for the next year—and privately sponsored refugees of up to 4,200 be maintained each year for the foreseeable future.

With respect to refugees, Bill C-11 in paragraph 3(2)(b) reaffirms Canada's commitment to “international efforts to provide assistance to those in need of resettlement”. However, we ask that the words “including their resettlement in Canada” be added. This would make it clear that we're not just assisting in resettlement, say, in border countries, but we're also going to clearly resettle refugees in this country. That goes back to the numbers mentioned earlier. Therefore, we're pleased that subclause 13(2) continues to provide for private sponsorship.

We have a major concern that clause 94 of Bill C-11 does not clearly require an annual report to Parliament about future numbers of refugees and immigrants. Section 7 of the 1976 Immigration Act begins by requiring an annual report on plans for the coming year. However, clause 94 of Bill C-11 emphasizes a retrospective report on activities during the past year.

Future numbers are mentioned only in paragraph 94(2)(b), almost as an afterthought. Clause 94 should be redrafted to conform with the forward-looking aspect of section 7 of the present act.

Obviously it's important and we understand why the government, because of backlash about alleged neglect and so on, is very concerned to make sure that it will receive a report on the past year. The past year needs to be examined. It's even more important that plans for the future be set out clearly. Indeed, we think the government should announce each year a five-year immigration forecast, along with a detailed plan for the coming year for refugees and immigrants. That would help to assure that the necessary resources are in place where and when they're needed.

We also recommend that amendments to Bill C-11 establish a separate stream for processing and admitting refugees. Urgent refugee cases should have a more flexible and responsive process than the immigration selection process. This is a point that's made in the UNHCR—the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—brief, which I believe you received on March 5. We'll leave the details to them.

We would like to draw your attention to two more important issues. Refugees are accepted for settlement in Canada. They should not face the same family reunification criteria as economic immigrants. Deprived of homeland and all that home means, refugees have special need for the emotional and social support that comes only from family members. Special processes should be available for refugees who wish to sponsor family members.

Their spouses, independent children, and other close relatives should not be subject to landing fees and similar costs. They should not have to endure drawn-out admissibility tests applied to would-be immigrants. It is particularly unfair that a resettled refugee must pay the right-of-landing fee when sponsoring a spouse or a child under the family class, even if they too are refugees in their own right.

The changes we recommend would be proof of Canada's commitment to the objective set out in general in paragraph 3(2)(f). It commits Canada “to support the self-sufficiency and the social and economic well-being of refugees by facilitating reunification with their family members in Canada”.

Mr. Chairman, we also in general support those who are pressing for changes in Canada's humanitarian designated class. We agree it would be preferable to replace the list of designated countries with a general definition that could apply to any country where Canada has the possibility of operating a program.

Finally, we believe the Canadian government should be more active in educating Canadians about the rights and needs of refugees. Many causes—including high-profile media coverage of human smuggling, queue jumping, concern about their cost—all combine to produce the negative public image that is hostile to refugees. The government should contribute more to keeping the truth about refugees to the forefront.

We thank you.

• 1040

The Chair: I think you've started that by being here this morning. Thank you, Bernard.

Canadian Police Association, David.

Mr. David Griffin (Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the national voice for 30,000 front-line police personnel in Canada, the Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Through our 13 affiliates, members in CPA include police personnel serving in 275 police services in Canada's smallest towns and villages, as well as those working in our large municipal police services; the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway police; the RCMP members' associations; and first nations police.

We are proud of our relationships with parliamentarians from all political parties. Like you, our members want to make a difference in their communities. We have contributed to the deliberations on such issues as youth criminal justice, child pornography, impaired driving, sentencing, corrections and parole reform, criminal pursuits and organized crime. It is in this spirit that we welcome the opportunity to make submissions today.

I would like to start by making a few qualifications about the nature of this presentation. I apologize at the outset that I do not have a brief to table with the committee. The scheduling of this presentation comes at a very busy time for our association. But we have had an opportunity with the previous legislation to prepare some analysis for today.

We recognize at the outset that Canada is the best country in the world in which to live, and because of this, many people from around the world seek to make Canada their home. We know that of the more than four million people who apply for legal residence in Canada every year, only about 20% will be successful. We also recognize that the vast majority, more than 90%, of immigrants who make Canada their home will establish themselves as productive, contributing, and law-abiding members of our society.

I think this is indeed a testament to the fine work carried out on a daily basis by department officials. With the tools and resources at their disposal, they ensure that every effort is made to thoroughly process applications and refugee claims.

We are not qualified to speak on the variety of measures and processes contained in this ambitious legislation to address legal migration to Canada. Our association focuses its concern not on the issue of immigration itself, but rather on the methods of enforcement used when persons under the Immigration Act commit criminal acts—either domestically or abroad.

In this presentation, I will attempt to address several aspects of this issue: protection of our borders; deportation of convicted offenders; entry of criminals into Canada; ministerial discretion to supersede the requirements of the act; and resources. I will conclude by commenting on the provisions in the act that our association welcomes.

For several years, the Canadian Police Association has adopted resolutions at our annual general meetings concerning immigration and deportation enforcement, protection of our borders, and the growing phenomenon of organized crime. Given our close proximity to the United States, Canada is particularly vulnerable as a stepping stone for international crime.

International criminals recognize Canada as a point of access to the United States in the smuggling of illegal contraband, including drugs, child pornography, firearms, and even people—some planning to carry out terrorist activities. More importantly, Canada has gained an international reputation as a safe haven for criminals and as fertile ground for the growth of organized crime.

The Criminal Intelligence Service Canada has stated that virtually every major criminal group in the world is active in this country. According to its director, Richard Philippe, $6 million worth of heroin is imported across our borders over a 24-hour period, and 21 to 43 illegal aliens arrive every day.

The Canadian Police Association recently undertook a survey of the front-line police responsible for organized-crime investigations within their jurisdictions. There is virtual agreement among investigators across the country that existing immigration laws and enforcement are not sufficient to deal with criminals originating outside Canada.

The elimination of the ports police is but one example of how budget cuts have weakened the nation's security at its ports of entry. This highlights the need for coordinated protection service at Canada's borders.

Illegal immigration through human smuggling rings presents significant dangers to the human cargo, who—even when they reach their promised land—are subject to threats and intimidation to pay off their passage debts, and may turn to crime. Greater priority must be given to protecting our borders, preventing the illegal entry of contraband and criminals, and eliminating the climate of safe refuge Canada currently affords convicted criminals.

• 1045

We advocate the creation of a national border protection service, separate from the Department of National Revenue, to provide strategic and coordinated protection enforcement across Canada's borders and our points of entry. This should support existing RCMP efforts. Later in this presentation, I will talk about the tools and resources required to carry out this job.

Canada's deportation processes for convicted criminals often frustrate investigators of organized crime. We have repeatedly recommended that the transfer of immigration status of persons convicted of an indictable offence in Canada, and liable to imprisonment of ten years or more, should be referred to the original criminal sentencing court, and the criminal appeal process thereafter.

Allowing such offenders to be transferred back to custody in their own country of origin, with equivalent conditional release eligibility and financial compensation to the recipient country, appears both justified and cost-efficient. It should not be left to offenders to choose where they prefer to serve their sentences.

Deportation should be determined upon conviction for designated offences by the sentencing judge, not by a separate immigration tribunal process. Obviously, the savings could be significant; and equally, such an amendment would not likely impose a great deal of additional work on the criminal justice system, as such cases have likely already involved the same representations that would be required to determine immigration status.

We are on record as supporting the private member's Bill C-221, persistently reintroduced before successive Parliaments by Liberal member of Parliament Janko Peric, which would put these principles into effect. We are disappointed that a similar provision is not contained in Bill C-11. We are encouraged, however, by the minister's recognition that it is not appropriate to permit day parole to persons who are incarcerated for a criminal offence and who are to be deported upon completion of their sentence.

This is something we have advocated for some time, and we believe it should be applied consistently to any and all forms of conditional release. Persons sentenced to jail and awaiting deportation should not be eligible for any form of release into the community.

People who apply for lawful immigration into Canada and are denied it are frustrated by the manner of dealing with questionable refugee claimants. We believe that greater emphasis should be placed on pre-screening applicants before they enter Canada and on improving the quality of persons deserving refugee status—with greater emphasis on ensuring that criminality is not a concern.

It makes sense to streamline both the levels and the format of the appeals. It is important that savings generated by these changes be reinvested into an enhanced screening process. By increasing the thresholds for immigration into Canada, we also increase the volume of applications to be screened by immigration officials. We must assure there are adequate resources in place to meet these demands.

People who are denied entry into Canada through legitimate processes for non-criminal reasons are understandably frustrated by cases when people are admitted through shortcuts. I can tell you that officials working within the department are at a loss to explain why persons denied entry through the legislative process can seek exemptions through a purely political process.

I'm advised that some ministers have been less receptive than others to requests to supersede the requirements of the act. However, at present this is a serious concern for those responsible for carrying out the legitimate activities required under immigration legislation.

Our association remains opposed to the use of ministerial discretion to issue special permits to persons ineligible for entry into Canada due to any form of criminal activity whatsoever. Our borders lack the resources and technology to adequately inspect the large quantity of goods and people that enter and leave this country on a daily basis.

We need to employ more modern technology to screen the entry of goods and people. To do their jobs effectively, customs and immigration officers need greater access to information, including the police information system. Immigration officers complain that they lack the resources and are unable to meet increasing demands—as demonstrated by recent examples of large-scale immigrant smuggling on the west coast.

The Chair: David, how much more do you have in your presentation?

Mr. David Griffin: I have about two minutes, sir.

The Chair: Would you summarize? That's why I said it's more important that you summarize. If we had had that brief, it would have been helpful. If you could summarize for us, that would be fair to everyone.

• 1050

Mr. David Griffin: Yes, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I have to be fair to everyone.

Mr. David Griffin: My final points are the following.

In 1997, significant cuts to the department's budget resulted in the reduction of 25% of departmental staff. Despite increases in the budget for immigration officials, the levels remain below what they were a decade ago. We would like to see greater use of modern technology, more resources for officials on the front line in the immigration department to deal with these issues.

We are pleased with a number of the changes that are in the bill that deal with human trafficking, counterfeiting penalties, asset forfeiture, money laundering, access to certain criminals and organized crime, but we find it incomprehensible that the minister would be able to exercise discretion to override these provisions.

Overall, we think there are positive improvements contained in this bill, but we submit there are still opportunities to strengthen this legislation and improve the immigration enforcement system in this country.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. David Griffin: Thank you very much.

The Chair: And you will give us a copy of that brief, David?

Mr. David Griffin: Yes, sir.

The Chair: And we'll get it translated. Thank you very much.

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Welcome.

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham (Evangelical Fellowship of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you.

I think you have our brief before you, and if you turn to the last page you will see our specific recommendations.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is an association of 32 Protestant denominations. Its membership includes numerous church-related organizations, churches and individuals. Some of our members have master sponsorship agreements for sponsoring refugees. Others provide a variety of assistance to refugees, and still others are refugees to Canada.

In 1997 we established a religious liberty commission to address issues of religious persecution worldwide. Our comments and recommendations on Bill C-11 are limited to the refugee determination, with particular emphasis on those persecuted on the basis of religion. Right now it is estimated that over 200 million people worldwide are being persecuted for their faith.

Canada must treat genuine refugees with fairness and compassion, and from what I have heard this morning there is certainly a will to do that. We are concerned, however, that some of the provisions of Bill C-11 keep it from attaining its objectives of saving lives and offering protection to the displaced and persecuted.

Specifically, we are concerned about the bill's provisions on identification documents, serious criminality, and prior claims. We also have some general comments about the overseas resettlement program.

Identification documents: Refugees may be refused identity documents, subject to long delays, or are unable to apply for these documents due to desperate circumstances. As this committee has previously found, the flight to freedom is often fraught with peril, speed, and the necessity to use whatever means are available to reach safety. While we do not endorse the use of fraudulent identity documents, we recognize that this is a fact of life for many refugees.

Clause 133 of Bill C-11 seems to acknowledge the situation of refugees by proposing an exemption from prosecution for refugee claimants while their claims are being processed and if they are found to be refugees. Yet clause 106 requires the refugee protection division to consider a claimant's lack of identity papers when it considers the credibility of the claimant. If the claimants are refused refugee status, they may then be subject to prosecution for using false identity papers under clause 122, and this carries a penalty of up to 14 years in prison.

Our recommendation on this is the deletion of clause 106 from Bill C-11. There was an amendment from Bill C-31 to clause 133, but then clause 106 seems to counteract this.

We also encourage this committee to review the possession offence in clause 122, to determine whether it is consistent with the charter right to be presumed innocent.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada announced increased overseas interdiction, and I believe you've already heard about this issue from Amnesty International this morning. The discovery of fraudulent identity papers may place refugees in the interdiction process in jeopardy in the country they are attempting to leave. If that country has laws against the possession or use of fraudulent documents similar to those proposed for Canada in Bill C-11, this discovery could lead to refugees being imprisoned. This discovery may also result in the return of refugees to countries where they are at risk of being persecuted.

• 1055

We are pleased with the definition of serious criminality in clause 101, on ineligibility. Clause 101 includes the opinion of the minister that the foreign national is a danger to the public in Canada, along with the conviction of an offence outside of Canada of an act that would be an offence if committed in Canada.

This potentially addresses the situation of those who have been convicted falsely. Persecution by one's government may take the form of unjust criminal charges and incarceration.

We recommend that paragraph 112(3)(b), on pre-removal risk assessment, be amended to mirror clause 101.

Clause 112 includes a broader definition of serious criminality, and we think may be in violation of the UNHCR's Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, which specifies that a “serious” crime must be a “capital crime or a grave punishable act”. The definition of serious criminality in paragraph 112(3)(b) is not limited to these grave offences.

Turning to prior claims, Bill C-11 proposes to make anyone who has made a previous refugee claim in Canada ineligible to make a new refugee claim. We understand the concern that the refugee system may be abused as a revolving door for repeat refugee claims. We do note, however, that there are legitimate reasons for a refugee to make a repeat claim, such as a change in circumstances, for example.

Bill C-11's provisions on prior claims may keep refugees from receiving a fair and thorough review of their claim. For this reason, we recommend that they be reconsidered.

You've already heard this morning about concerns about family reunification. The object for family reunification for refugees, in the definition clause, clause 3, seems to be dependent on the economic contribution of family members of a refugee. This is compounded by the fact that there will be no right of landing.

We recommend that the objective of family reunification for refugees contained in paragraph 3(2)(f) be amended to mirror the objective for immigration found in paragraph 3(1)(d).

Now to the general comments in overseas resettlement.

The Chair: Dr. Janet, we're pressed for time, unfortunately. Could you get to your main recommendations, because here we may have some questions.

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham: I have been dealing with them as we go through—

The Chair: Yes, I know.

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham: I'm now at the very last one.

The Chair: Okay.

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham: Our first recommendation on the overseas resettlement is that the selection criteria should be the same, whether inland or overseas, and it be made clear that the criteria are the same.

We also recommend that there be an increase in the number of Canadian visa officers in or near areas of conflict. Especially if there is going to be increased interdiction, you need to have more people where there are areas of conflict and there is likely to be a higher level of persecution.

Thank you. Those are my comments.

The Chair: Thank you.

Gurmant, do you have questions?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I highly appreciate the presentation by all the witnesses. The recommendations by CPA are of particular interest to me. I have two questions, one for CPA and one for FCM.

The first question is for CPA. In the light of safety and security being of paramount concern to Canada and Canadians, and also knowing the limited sources and limited training of our front-line immigration officers, would the CPA agree, or would it be satisfied, with the screening process to catch criminals and terrorists when they apply for visas, and then subsequently for citizenship? Would it be appropriate for the department to make independent inquiries to Interpol, and would it be a recommendation from CPA? Or would you like to highlight on the screening process, if I understand it right?

My second question would be to FCM. I understand the importance of local-level and community-oriented settlement for refugees and so on. Cost of settlement is a really important factor, because we hear from the mayor of Toronto that the federal government didn't pay $30 million towards the settlement of refugees in the greater Toronto area. And we hear similar stories from Montreal and Vancouver. Is the non-payment by the federal government to the municipalities a very important issue at this time, and what is the gravity of the situation in terms of dollars, and so on? I would like to hear about that.

• 1100

The Chair: I can remember Mel asking the federal government to pay for snow removal at one time, but that's beside the point.

David.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But we're talking about refugees.

The Chair: Yes, I know. I was trying to joke.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: When we talk about snow, we'll talk about that.

The Chair: I was talking about Mel Lastman.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Let's talk about immigrants and refugees today.

Mr. David Griffin: I'll try to be brief.

In talking to officials who are dealing with the screening on a day-to-day basis, they have said they have to do more checks with fewer people, fewer resources, and they don't have access to all the information that they feel they should have in the field.

I think there's a strong legislative framework being established here. Certainly there are things we would like to see improved, but this only goes part way. You need the resources in place, the tools and the people who are going to conduct these checks, and they have to have access to all the information that's available.

The Chair: And with regard to FCM...?

Mr. Cliff Dezell: Cost is certainly a significant factor. We hear, again from Toronto specifically, that last year in any given month some 8,000 social assistance cases are estimated to be refugees, and an additional 6,000 are immigrants receiving social assistance. On any particular night during the winter, some 475 inhabitants of emergency shelters are immigrants or refugees. Toronto estimated last year that their additional cost was something in the range of $24 million.

The rationale, whether it's true or not, from provincial governments is that because the federal government has downloaded responsibility and cut the transfer payments, therefore they do the same thing to municipal governments.

In Vancouver, more than 60% of children in many of the inner-city schools have English as a second language. So additional funding is a significant issue for our members. That's why we need to be at the table to talk to the provincial governments and to the federal government.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The other issue, in the remaining time I have, is about ministerial permits. It was mentioned very slightly, but I understand that the use or abuse of ministerial permits is politically oriented many times, and this discretion is used after the applicant is ineligible and doesn't fit in any of the other criteria. Would the Canadian Police Association recommend abolishing ministerial permits?

Mr. David Griffin: Yes, that is our recommendation. We've passed consecutive resolutions calling for the abolishment of ministerial permits. It's our view that it's particularly frustrating for officials who work within the statutory framework, who process the applications and follow the letter of the law, to see those applications then overruled based on political considerations.

The Chair: I'm happy to see that Bill C-11 addresses the removal of ministerial permits and replaces that with something a lot more in keeping with what you were saying, David and Gurmant.

Mr. David Griffin: I would respectfully submit that it doesn't go far enough. One example is organized crime, suggestions that a person has links to organized crime. What this bill permits is the minister to allow that person to have entry unless it's established that there's a specific danger to the community. We think that's not strong enough.

The Chair: Thank you.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I know we're out of time, but I have a couple of questions or comments.

I wonder if the gentleman from FCM would recognize the payments in lieu of taxes that are paid to all municipalities that have federal institutions within their boundaries, for which the municipality is required to do virtually nothing in return—my own being Mississauga. Having been a former municipal councillor, as well as chairman of budgets for seven years in my community, I'm well aware of the revenue that flows to our municipality, and justifiably so, without requiring any additional efforts. So that might offset some of the costs that municipalities face due to social service cutbacks, and so on.

As a comment on the Notre Dame presentation, the government is looking at a three-year plan, as opposed to five. Five years is a little long for any government, considering the length of term of a government. As well, it's hard to bind future governments. So I think three years is probably the maximum we're going to get.

• 1105

Right-of-landing fees are not charged for refugees. That was eliminated. And currently a refugee, under this bill, will have a one-year window in which to bring family members in. These family members can also come in as refugees and not pay the right-of-landing fee. That's only paid when landed immigrant status is obtained.

And I'd like to ask the police to respond a bit to the question about more screening before entering. I wonder if you, David, or your group, had an opportunity to visit any of our foreign officers and actually sit in on some of the interviews and the screening of refugees that takes place?

I personally have done it in many countries around the world, including a refugee camp in Africa in the desert. And the screening, I think, is really quite outstanding and the efforts our staff put in are quite remarkable. In fact, I consider them to be true heroes.

To the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, I just have a concern about eliminating clause 106 from the bill. It seems to me this just might lead us to be wide open to abuse and eliminate any opportunity for due diligence to ascertain who it is who's coming into the country. I think you'd send a signal out to undesirables around the world. And you yourself used the word “genuine” refugees—that we should help genuine refugees. This would then lead me to believe that you would support the principle that if someone is not a legitimate refugee, they should not be able to slip through the cracks.

The Chair: A number of questions there. The first question was to FCM.

Mr. Cliff Dezell: Mr. Chairman, it's been our belief all along that the federal government, along with provincial governments, should pay property taxation like everybody else. We're appreciative of the grants in lieu that go a long way towards paying the fair share that is required. But it's a stretch to say that property taxation or grants in lieu pay for no services.

Federal buildings are within our cities and receive the same kinds of services that every other property owner does.

A voice: Not airports.

Mr. Cliff Dezell: This is a different issue, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Second question, David.

Mr. David Griffin: In answer to Mr. Mahoney's question, I haven't specifically visited overseas, but I have met in Canada with officials who have been involved overseas, returned to Canada, and discussed their perceptions about the system. I agree they're doing an outstanding job. But certainly there's a high degree of frustration that has been relayed to me with the tools and resources at their disposal and the overall volume of work they're required to do.

The Chair: Bernard, did you have something?

Dr. Janet, do you have something with regard to refugees and family and fees?

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham: With respect to clause 106, the refugee protection division must take into account, when dealing with credibility, whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation and if not, whether they provided a reasonable explanation. That could be okay. It just depends on what level of proof is required. It's very difficult for a refugee claimant to prove he applied for a document and didn't receive it.

So this could be okay, because they must take this into account. We know so many refugees do not have appropriate documentation for a wide variety of reasons. It is the level of proof that is really the higher level of concern.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's why it allows for a reasonable explanation, by the way.

The Chair: Bernard.

Mr. Bernard Daly: I sense, in the concern about costs for refugees, a continuation of the myth that immigrants are on the positive side of the ledger and refugees are all on the negative side. Refugees, as soon as they come into the country, begin using services and goods at the same rate as an immigrant. The definition of one as economic and the other as something else is quite offensive, I think, to the reality.

Secondly, when we start adding up the millions—even if we go up to $300 million as the cost for refugees for a year—Canada is approaching 31 million people. So $300 million is about $10 per year per capita—the cost of a hamburger, some fries, and a coffee. That's what we're paying for refugees, these supposedly exaggerated costs.

The Chair: I thank you for clarifying that. I would suggest that perhaps your organization, as well as Dr. Janet, might want to meet with the FCM and make sure that the balance sheet is clearer to mayors and councillors of cities across the country who talk a good line about economic value of refugees and then turn around and say that they're a big drain on their municipal coffers.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Since time is running out, I will make two brief comments and then ask Mr. Griffin a question.

• 1110

Some of you are calling for refugee sponsorship fees to be eliminated. I think I agree. I clearly think the committee should seriously consider allowing a fresh refugee claim where an appeal is dismissed.

My question is for Mr. Griffin. You said you had many reservations about the minister's discretion with respect to crimes. Do you have the same reservations in connection with refugee claimants?

[English]

Mr. David Griffin: Yes. I understand that there's probably a different threshold when we're dealing with cases on humanitarian grounds than perhaps with other types of cases for people seeking immigrant status. But certainly there's a good deal of perception—publicly and within the system—of cases of abuse of the refugee process. I think those cases very much stain the legitimate process that this country is attempting to carry out on humanitarian grounds. It speaks to the concerns that have been raised about educating Canadians about the value of our system.

But within the system, there's concern that people are abusing the refugee process and then, through ministerial permits, are able to achieve something they may not be able to achieve otherwise.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: There was a very recent case that everyone must recall. It was the case of a Tunisian student who had claimed refugee status. He was unsuccessful and was deported. As soon as he got to Tunis, he of course wound up in jail. He was retried. He spent three years in prison and was apparently tortured. So if you do not let the minister exercise her discretion in some cases, I feel this definitely puts us in a position that is inconsistent with one of Canada and Quebec's important values, namely compassion.

[English]

Mr. David Griffin: Again, I'll try to be brief.

I think there's a really delicate balance to be found here. I'm not sure where that balance rests, but certainly, when we look at acts that are crimes in this country and how they would be prosecuted in this country, there's a concern how other countries may establish their justice system—we can look at the Supreme Court decision dealing with capital punishment. Obviously Canadians would have a concern if somebody was convicted of a relatively minor crime and was sent back to another country where they would be sentenced to the death penalty. But there are other situations where people have committed very heinous crimes and multiple murders and where that society has decided that there's a certain level of penalty.

I don't profess to know where that balance rests but I think there has to be the framework here to allow the officials to apply the law.

The Chair: Jean, one question quickly.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I know that we're pressed for time. I will therefore reserve my questions because I know that we have several different witnesses who will be coming before us and there will be other opportunities. But I want to take a couple of minutes to compliment the Notre Dame Cathedral-Basilica of Ottawa for its presentation and for its work in helping and being part of the partnership that encourages and supports and sponsors refugees, and in this specific case, this refugee family.

I think what all of you have brought to the table is the concerns we need to address in this bill. I want to take the opportunity to thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

With regard to family class, are there any comments as to whether or not the definition of family class ought to be broadened to consider brothers and sisters? I know that questions come up by committee members, because as you know now, there is a definition that defines parents and defines dependent children over the age of 22, I believe, or under 22. Any comments as to whether or not that family structure ought to include brothers and sisters?

• 1115

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham: Generally, we would certainly be supportive a broadened family class, particularly when we are dealing with situations where cultures are more extended-family-oriented than many families are in Canada. Brothers and sisters and broader family members are very important to keep together as family communities.

The Chair: Bernard, any comments?

Mr. Bernard Daly: Our committee as such hasn't gone into these kinds of details. We've been dealing with the nitty-gritty of cases. We're looking now at another case where we would be sponsoring the sister of somebody who has come to Canada as a refugee. So, in general, yes.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

To the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Notre Dame Cathedral, Canadian Police Association, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, thank you very much for your input, and we look forward to your further comments and input. Thank you.

We're adjourned till next Tuesday.