CIMM Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, November 20, 2002

1540

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.))

Ms. Nan Berezowski (Barrister and Solicitor, American Immigration Lawyers Association)

1545

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. David Davis (Barrister ans Solicitor, American Immigration Lawyers Association)

1550

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Peggy Nash (Assistant to the President, Canadian Auto Workers Union)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Peggy Nash

1555

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Tamra Thomson (Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Renée Miller (Executive Member, National Citizenship and Immigration Section, Canadian Bar Association)

1600

1605

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy (Representative, Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition)

1610

1615

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Max Berger (Individual Presentation)

1620

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

1625

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal (Director, Canadian Auto Workers Union)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy

1630

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Renée Miller

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Renée Miller

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Max Berger

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

1635

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Max Berger

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. David Davis

Ms. Renée Miller

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

1640

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. David Davis

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy

1645

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Peggy Nash

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Peggy Nash

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Renée Miller

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Nan Berezowski

Ms. Renée Miller

Ms. Nan Berezowski

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Max Berger

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

1650

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. David Davis

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Max Berger

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Peggy Nash

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

1655

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Inky Mark

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Peggy Nash

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

1700

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Renée Miller

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Max Berger

1705

Ms. Renée Miller

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Nan Berezowski

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Nan Berezowski

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy

Ms. Renée Miller

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

1710

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. David Davis

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Max Berger

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Max Berger

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

1715

Ms. Peggy Nash

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Peggy Nash

1720

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. David Davis

Ms. Nan Berezowski

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Nan Berezowski

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

1725

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Max Berger

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Nan Berezowski

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Nan Berezowski

Mr. David Davis

Mr. Max Berger

1730

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 005

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, November 20, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)): Good afternoon. I'm going to call the meeting to order. I see a quorum. For the purposes of presentations, that quorum is three. I think we have to do this, because some of the deputations have planes to catch and other commitments, so we're going to proceed.

Other members will be coming in. Our apologies, but we were delayed due to a couple of votes in the House.

Mr. Fontana, who is the chair, is unable to be with us due to a death in the family, so I've been asked to fill in. As a former vice-chair, I'll try, with the assistance of the clerk, to remember what I'm supposed to do in order to see if we can get on with this.

Getting to the plan for this morning, we have regrets from one of the six deputations, VIVÉ. Unfortunately, they missed their plane and are unable to be here, so we'll talk with them about appearing at a future time. However, we do have folks here from the Canadian Auto Workers; the Canadian Bar Association; the Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition; one individual, Max Berger, barrister and solicitor; and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. So we actually have five presentations.

What I'm going to ask is that everyone make presentations while trying to stay within five minutes. I'll give some leeway on that, but everyone will make their presentations.

We'll begin with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, but since both the Canadian Bar and the coalition have to leave by around five o'clock—is that correct?—we'll try to get through the presentations and leave time for questions by members so that everyone can meet their schedules. If that is acceptable to the members, we will proceed.

On my list I have David H. Davis and Nan Berezowski, barrister and solicitor, from the American Immigration Lawyers Association. I invite you to begin your presentation, with about a five-minute overview.

Ms. Nan Berezowski (Barrister and Solicitor, American Immigration Lawyers Association): My name is Nan Berezowski. I'm a barrister and solicitor here in Ontario, as well as an attorney in the state of New York. We are here today representing the American Immigration Lawyers Association--AILA. This is an organization of approximately 8,000 member attorneys and law professors, headquartered in Washington, D.C. My colleague David Davis and I are representing the Canadian chapter of AILA today.

I just want to start by thanking the committee for giving us this opportunity to comment on the regulations. Before I comment on the regulations, I would like to mention just briefly that AILA, and AILA Canada in particular, is opposed to the agreement in principle. Essentially, our view is that the agreement is fundamentally flawed, in that it prevents or restricts prospective refugee claimants from choosing the country in which to seek protection. That having been said, and in that context, we are very appreciative of the opportunity to comment on the regulations and to point out what we hope are a number of ways in which the regulations can mitigate the impact of the agreement.

There are really two points I want to speak about briefly before I turn the podium to my colleague, David Davis. The first relates to what I call a difference in interpretation of international law, and the consequential obligations. Specifically, I want to speak about the differential impact the agreement is likely to have on gender-based claims of persecution.

Obviously the United States and Canada both adhere to the principles set out in the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol. However, in the intervening 50 years the respective countries have developed jurisprudence—a legal tradition—and a refugee status determination system that are really no longer that similar. So they come from the same root, but have become quite divergent in certain aspects over 50 years.

One area where this divergence is particularly acute is in the area of gender-based claims of persecution. The Canadian definition, or the Canadian interpretation of the convention's refugee definition, is considered quite generous by international standards.

I just want to read briefly from the chairperson's guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution. The chairman of the IRB states that

“Although gender is not specifically enumerated as one of the grounds for establishing Convention refugee status, the definition of Convention refugee may properly be interpreted as providing protection for women who demonstrate a well-founded fear of gender-related persecution by reason of any one, or a combination of, the enumerated grounds.”

That's the Canadian interpretation. That's not the American interpretation. Our concern at AILA Canada is that there are women in need of protection who would be accepted in Canada as refugee claimants—or would be eligible to make that claim in Canada—who would not be eligible in the United States.

This differential impact is acknowledged in the regulatory analysis statement, but the regulations don't specifically address it. Our recommendation is that given this differential impact, it should in fact be recognized in the regulations themselves.

So on that note, our drafting recommendation is that an additional subsection be added to section 159.6 of the proposed regulations. That addition would essentially make a provision adding claims such as gender-based persecution claims to the list of non-applicable provisions. I'll just paraphrase what we have put in our draft. That subsection might say essentially that where a claim, by its nature, would be unlikely to be eligible in the United States, but would likely be eligible in Canada, the person should nevertheless be exempted from the rules, and should be allowed to make that claim in Canada. So that's the first point I wanted to highlight.

¹ (1545)

The second point is of a similar nature, and essentially relates to differences in our respective countries' understanding of our international obligations relating to detention. In that sense, it is essentially the same argument. We come from the same source, but over the intervening fifty years have developed independent jurisprudence. It relates to a very different understanding of what our international obligations are in terms of detention.

Again, we would suggest an addition be made to proposed section 159.6, exempting from the agreement's ineligibility provisions those who would be subject to detention in the United States but would not be subject to detention in Canada.

Those are the two points I wanted to bring to the committee's attention. I'll now turn the podium over to my colleague, David Davis, who has additional points to make.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I always find when people say they will be brief they never are, but I hope you prove me wrong.

Mr. David Davis (Barrister ans Solicitor, American Immigration Lawyers Association): I'll try to bring some proof to that statement.

You have before you our brief. To get directly to the point, we feel that an immigration officer, who under the current wording of the regulations would be making the determination of eligibility, is really an individual who is being asked to comment on international legal principles. It is what this agreement is dealing with.

We don't feel that an immigration officer, who is representing the interests of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration particularly, should be given such a highly responsible and powerful tool. We suggest that the person should be automatically referred to an admissibility hearing before an adjudicator. Let the adjudicator, who is an impartial arbiter, make the decision and the determination as to whether or not the individual will fall under the eligibility or ineligibility provisions as they exist in the regulations.

Secondly, in terms of final determination, our main point is that under the agreement it specifically says that if someone comes through from the United States, for example, at the Emerson port of entry in Manitoba, the individual will remain in Canada until the person's judicial rights have been completely exhausted. In essence, the person can take the decision by the immigration officer--which we don't agree with--or by the adjudicator and seek leave to appeal in the Federal Court trial division.

We are recommending that an additional provision be added that allows the stay of execution of a deportation order to remain a stay until the judicial mechanism has been exhausted completely. Otherwise, the agreement that has already been signed by the two parties wouldn't be fully and completely recognized properly, if the person is automatically sent back to the United States while the leave application is being sought by his or her attorney in Canada.

Those are a couple of additional points I wanted to mention on behalf of AILA.

Thank you.

¹ (1550)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much. You were brief. Thank you.

We'll move now to the Canadian Auto Workers, Raj Dhaliwal, Peggy Nash, and Lisa Kelly. Again, you have five to ten minutes, or as close as you can to that range.

Ms. Peggy Nash (Assistant to the President, Canadian Auto Workers Union): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for letting us appear before you.

I am assistant to the national president of the Canadian Auto Workers. With me is Raj Dhaliwal, our human rights director, and Lisa Kelly, from our legal department. We do have a written submission to offer you, but I do want to make a few points from the submission.

The Canadian Auto Workers is the largest private sector union in Canada.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'm sorry. I should inform members that the document is only in English, so we have not distributed it. If you are going to send it into the committee, we would need it in both languages.

Ms. Peggy Nash: Okay, we'll do that, but I won't be reading from the document. And I apologize for the document only being in English. We only got our confirmation to appear before the committee a couple of days ago. We'll follow up with a translated version.

The Canadian Auto Workers represents workers in about a dozen major sectors of the Canadian economy. Like most segments of Canadian society, we are made up of immigrants and descendants of immigrants and many refugees and descendants of refugees. We take issues about immigration and refugees very seriously, as they do affect so many of our members.

Our union split from an American-based union about 14 or 15 years ago, based on a difference in direction between the two organizations. We felt quite strongly that being part of an American-based union limited our sovereignty to make decisions on behalf of our members here in Canada, and it limited our ability to democratically represent our members in this country. Since then, we have more than doubled our membership here in Canada, while the American-based union has seen its membership and its influence in the U.S. decline.

I raise this because here you have an issue of two organizations that had been part of the same organization. They faced different national realities, different choices, made different decisions, and created very different outcomes for their organizations. I suggest that this is relevant to this committee and the regulations before you, because we feel very strongly that Canadians need to think long and hard and be very careful about harmonizing our refugee and immigration policies. We believe there will be an impact on our sovereignty and ultimately on our democracy.

In a post-9/11 world, things have changed, obviously. September 11 changed what kind of access we had getting in here through security today. But there's a kind of odour about these regulations that somehow lax Canadian immigration and refugee laws created the attack on the U.S., which is simply not true. We therefore just want to say that we're opposed to the agreement and the regulations in principle. We think Canada's history, while imperfect, has been the history of a humanitarian country, even though we're home to only about 0.5% of the world's refugees.

There are many reasons why refugees choose to come to Canada. They come here for reasons of language, for example. Francophone refugees may choose Canada as a safe haven. They come here for cultural or religious reasons, because they believe they will be respected here. Many come because they think they have the best ability to establish themselves here. But many need to go through another country in order to come to Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that refugee claimants need the opportunity in Canada to present their case, usually through an oral hearing. The outcome of this agreement and the regulations, we believe, would be that cases would not be assessed properly. This could in fact be a breach of our charter.

Others have raised the issue of differential treatment of refugees by the U.S. There are certainly instances of refugees being detained based on nationality or racial profiling. For example, through Amnesty International, we understand that Haitian refugee claimants are automatically detained and that those claimants might in fact be seeking refuge in Canada. They certainly would be differentially impacted.

The issue of gender-based persecution has already been raised. We share a strong concern on that, especially for those who claim refugee status based on persecution for sexual orientation, which has only recently been recognized in the United States. And we also raise a number of other technical concerns with the regulations.

We don't want to create barriers to people seeking refuge. We don't want to close the door to refugees and open the door to smugglers and traffickers of humans. We certainly don't want people to die at our border while seeking refuge.

In summary, we certainly join with others, including Amnesty International and the Canadian Council of Refugees, who say refugees should have the right to choose where they come to seek protection. As a country, we should preserve our traditional commitment to protecting the rights of asylum-seekers, and not erode them with this agreement or its regulations.

Thank you for your attention.

¹ (1555)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the Canadian Bar Association, Tamra Thomson and Renée Miller, for five to ten minutes.

Ms. Tamra Thomson (Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're appearing today on behalf of the national citizenship and immigration law section of the Canadian Bar Association. The CBA is a national association with over 38,000 members across Canada, and the members of our citizenship and immigration law section represent lawyers from across the country who practise in all aspects of immigration law.

Part of the mandate of the Canadian Bar Association is to work toward the improvement of the law and the administration of justice, and it is in that rubric that we make our comments before this committee today.

In the past, the section has commented on the concept of a safe third country agreement, but given that the regulations are the subject matter of this committee's deliberations, we will restrict our comments to the operation of the regulations.

I'm going to ask Renée Miller, who is an immigration practitioner in Vancouver and a member of the section executive, to make the remarks, on the basis of the written comments you have received from us.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Ms. Miller, go ahead.

Ms. Renée Miller (Executive Member, National Citizenship and Immigration Section, Canadian Bar Association): Thank you.

The citizenship and immigration section of the CBA, which encompasses lawyers from across Canada, has taken quite a serious look at the regulations to the safe third country agreement and obviously the regulations for IRPA itself.

You have before you our letter, in which we set out a number of points. We make recommendations for changes and improvements to the regulations, including draft suggestions for how we'd like to see those regulations changed. I won't go through those points with you because you have them in front of you. What I'd like to do is talk to you about bigger issues.

Canada has one of the most highly regarded refugee determination systems in the world, and that is because our system is founded on and has been executed in accordance with very strongly held principles about refugees and how you decide who is a refugee. Countries from around the world, including many very well-developed countries, look to Canada to set the standard for how refugees are supposed to be treated and how a refugee determination system should operate.

The safe third country agreement sets out principles for moderating the flow of refugees between Canada and the United States. What we are suggesting is that the regulations need to be drafted so that the agreement is implemented in a way that is consistent with the principles of refugee determination that Canada stands for and that are throughout our refugee determination system. In a few instances the agreement itself is silent about some of these issues. Therefore, it's really incumbent upon us to draft the regulations in a way to implement the agreement in the best possible manner.

As several of my colleagues have pointed out, the refugee determination systems in Canada and the United States are quite different. Although they come from an agreement on the convention, the way the systems have developed and the policies of the governments are seriously different. The implementation of the agreement without close consideration of these differences can lead to some problems. For example, the decision about who is eligible to make a refugee claim in Canada is quite different from who is eligible to make a refugee claim in the United States.

Because of these differences, under the agreement it would be possible for a person to come to Canada's border seeking refugee status and be ineligible to access our system because of the agreement, then to go back to the United States and be ineligible to access their refugee determination system because of the domestic laws in the United States, and then to be deported to the country of origin they fled from in the first place without ever having the opportunity to have their refugee hearing. That's not what the agreement envisions. The agreement envisions that the person will be guaranteed a hearing in either Canada or the United States. So we're suggesting that the regulations need to be written in a way that ensures that.

The regulations need to include a provision that if a claimant is eligible for the refugee process in Canada but is not eligible for the refugee process in the United States, they will be guaranteed access to Canada. In the same way, we would hope that the Americans would impose a similar process whereby if the person was not eligible for the process in Canada, they would be eligible for the process in the United States. This would thereby guarantee that the claimant has access to at least one system.

Similarly, as my colleagues here on the panel have pointed out, the laws in Canada and the United States are distinctly different when it comes to women and the particular types of claims they make. Canada has well-enunciated, specific, and established recognition of the particular types of refugee claims that women typically make. The United States does not have this. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, in many cases for a woman to successfully argue a refugee claim based on grounds such as domestic abuse, female genital mutilation, or systemic discrimination against women. These are all claims that are commonly recognized in Canada, but, for example, female genital mutilation is not officially recognized in the United States. It's very difficult to make that kind of claim. So it's quite possible that women would be successful as refugees in Canada but would very unlikely be successful if they had to make their claim in the United States. Again, the agreement itself is silent on a particular issue such as this.

It's up to the regulations to specify how the agreement is going to be enacted and what the process is going to be. We would suggest that the regulations need to be drafted to implement the agreement in a way that is consistent with Canada's domestic legislation and the policies of refugee determination that permeate our system.

º (1600)

We would therefore suggest that the regulations need to be drafted to implement the agreement in a way that is consistent with Canada's domestic legislation and consistent with the policies of refugee determination that permeate our system. We have made some specific drafting recommendations in our letter, at paragraph 8.

Again, on a very similar point, the United States has a very different policy with regard to who is detained. Canada has quite significantly different guidelines about who is detained when they make a refugee claim. In fact, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has criticized the United States system quite consistently for their very broad detention policy. Their detention policy would capture, for example, unaccompanied children. Minor children who do not have a parent with them are typically detained in the United States, a situation that Canada tries its very best to avoid.

Another example would be refugee claimants who are travelling without identity documents. That's a very common example, because it's recognized that when you are a refugee, you have to flee your country any way you can. That often means they arrive without their proper identity documents. Those people are always detained in the United States but are not detained in Canada. The agreement is silent on this policy.

Again, what we're suggesting is that the regulations need to be drafted to implement the agreement in a way that is consistent with Canada's domestic policy and our domestic legislation. The regulations need to state that, when a person would be detained in the United States but would not be detained in Canada according to our legislation, they should be allowed to access our system so that they can go through the refugee determination system without being held in detention the entire time.

Lastly, the regulations allow for an exemption of the application of the agreement in a situation in which the person at the border who wants to access our refugee determination system has a family member in Canada who has either been accepted as a refugee or who has applied and has been referred for refugee determination from the Immigration and Refugee Board. This is consistent with the principle of family reunification that flows throughout the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Unfortunately, the regulations are silent or state that this policy would not apply when a person has made a claim for refugee status and they have a family member in Canada who has made an application to the minister for protected person status.

Convention refugee status from the Immigration and Refugee Board and protected person status from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration are two different decisions, but they are substantially similar. They consider the same evidence, they are an application of the same international agreements, and they result in the exact same status—the status of convention refugee or protected person status. What we're saying, then, is that the way the regulations are drafted now creates an inconsistency in our domestic legislation. These two decisions are not exactly the same, but they are very close. If the agreement should not apply in one set of circumstances when the person has a family member in Canada who is under consideration for protected person status, the agreement should also not apply in the second circumstance when the person has a family member in Canada who is under consideration for protected person status.

We're therefore recommending that the regulations be amended so as to implement the agreement in a way that really is consistent with our existing domestic legislation on the refugee determination system.

There are additional recommendations set out in our letter. Those recommendations tweak the wording of the regulations as they are proposed, in order to make the implementation of the safe third country agreement better, in our view, and also more consistent with our existing system. In some cases, the drafting suggestions that we've made are suggestions to prevent problems that can arise in the way the regulations are drafted now—what we consider to be unintended consequences of the implementation agreement, things that weren't thought about, or things that hadn't been considered. We're suggesting that you amend the regulations in order to avoid those situations.

You will also see in our letter that there is one recommendation for a circumstance that can be corrected by addressing the four points I've spoken about today. If those four issues are corrected, then some of the other problems with the regulations actually go away.

º (1605)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

We move on to our next presenter, Mary Jo Leddy, from the Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition. Mary Jo has provided us with one copy, but it's again not translated. We will have it translated and distributed to members.

We invite you once again to take five to ten minutes, and we should still have lots of time left for questions.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy (Representative, Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition): Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you once again.

I represent the Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition, which is composed of roughly 300 people, mostly drawn from church-based groups, who work with refugees along the border points of entry and in the shelters that receive those people. Myself, for example... for the last 11 years, 95% of the people I've lived with have come in from ports of entry along the Canada-U.S. border.

So we know the people you are speaking about. We know what this agreement will mean. We know the hopes that could be dashed and the lives that could potentially be lost, so we have taken these regulations very seriously.

We've made every effort to offer some very concrete suggestions that we think will be helpful. There's one regulation, regulation 159.6, that does seem to allow the government the possibility of honouring its commitment to justice and compassion for refugees. This seems to suggest that there is a country list, a list of countries so dangerous that Canada would not send people back to these countries and could accept them at the border if they are from these countries. In effect, this would become an urgent action list and would allow Canadians to maintain some distinctive approach to refugees, one not determined only by American foreign policy.

Such a list of countries would be very much in the public interest. However, it is you, elected members of Parliament, who represent the public interest and the national good. Unless there is some public oversight, some public involvement in the determination of such a country list, you will not only have locked the doors to desperate refugees; you will have thrown away the key.

It's imperative that it is elected members of Parliament and the minister who will assert some authority in regard to these regulations. I know many of you are uncomfortable with shutting the door to genuine refugees who are desperate. I believe you have the mandate and the power to do something about this.

I have mentioned regulation 159.6. However, the groups I represent—and we discussed these very seriously—could find no other regulation that we could see as being really workable. We say this because we do know what is happening even now at the ports of entry, and I ask you to question every statistic that is thrown at you.

The numbers at the borders have already dropped drastically. The shelters are now only half full. In the corridors of the Immigration and Refugee Board, there are empty hearing rooms. Question the statistics. Ask who's giving them to you, and ask yourself why they are giving them to you.

On paper and here in Ottawa, these regulations look sensible, clear, and workable. However, we anticipate a situation of corruption and chaos. We have detailed this in our recent declaration, A Civil Initiative to Protect Refugees, which is attached here.

This is what will happen. Corrupt and cynical people will take advantage of the desperation of people. Criminal organizations will profit from taking people across the border. The cost of crossing the border may force some into prostitution and forced labour. Children will be abused. Many will be robbed of their life savings. Some will die.

º (1610)

In the face of this, and this is for sure, church groups will take people across the border. They will declare sanctuary whenever and wherever necessary. This is clear.

We are particularly concerned about the issue of unaccompanied minors. There are already a thousand of them in Ontario. They are in my house. The kids are lost. Some of them are orphans, but some of them are kids whose parents have sent them ahead in the desperate hope that they can bring their parents out. It's a horrible situation. Wouldn't it simply be easier if families or parts of families could come to the border in an orderly fashion?

We do have a kind of orderly fashion at the border right now. The alternative is chaos and corruption. Hidden in the midst of the little regulations is the very important moral choice that you have before you today.

Thank you.

º (1615)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

Our final presenter is Mr. Max Berger, barrister and solicitor. I believe committee members have the presentation.

Mr. Berger.

Mr. Max Berger (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

I'm an immigration lawyer specializing in refugee matters and I've been appearing before the Refugee Board several times a week since its creation in 1989.

I am very much against the agreement, but if it is going to see the light of day, I'd like to use some of my experience to make sure that the regulations are as good as possible.

I have raised five points that I feel are particularly problematic with the proposed regulations, and I'd like to go through each of the five.

The first concern is that the principle that a claimant will receive a fair refugee hearing in either Canada or the United States is compromised by widely varying acceptance rates for nationals of specific countries, depending on whether the claim is heard in Canada or the United States.

Perhaps you can imagine a claimant from country X who wants to come to Canada and who is making his way from the United States. Suppose, for example, the acceptance rate in the United States for a citizen of that country is 55% and the acceptance rate in Canada is 80%. My point is that if the differential is that large, 25 percentage points, perhaps more and perhaps less, that person should be allowed to come to Canada to make his refugee claim in this country.

Looking at that another way, if the acceptance rate for citizens of that particular country is less than 50% in the United States and higher than 50% in Canada, such a person should be allowed to come to Canada to make their refugee claim in Canada. I believe this would live up to the spirit of the agreement, which is to ensure a fair hearing in either of the two countries.

The second concern deals with proposed paragraph 159.6(b). That regulation says that if you, the claimant, are charged with an offence in a country, presumably your country of citizenship, and that offence carries a death penalty, then the exemption will apply.

Here is the problem. What does the word “charged” mean? In the western sense we all know that charged with an offence means you are given a piece of paper, an arrest warrant, there's a court proceeding, but in third world countries, where most refugees come from, there is no such fine point of law. What can happen is the police will come in the middle of the night, pick you up, put you in jail, and you're never heard from again.

So the question is this. In this regulation, does the word “charged” encompass this sort of eventuality, where there are no formal charges, it's just the police allegations against you, and the consequences are that you'll be put to death?

So my recommendation is that “charged” should be defined with greater specificity to include formal as well as informal allegations, which I just described to you.

The other concern is the way the regulation is drafted presently the immigration officer at the port of entry will have to conduct a mini refugee hearing at the border to decide whether the death penalty applies or doesn't apply. And I put it to you that this is beyond the scope of the immigration officer at the border.

I would say, as a recommendation, that the immigration officer in a clear case can retain the power to apply the exemption, but if the immigration officer is not prepared to apply the exemption, then he should not be able to refuse it, but he should refer the matter to the immigration division, where an impartial adjudicator or actually a board member, as they are now known, will be able to make a determination on whether the exemption applies.

Concern number three is with respect to familial relationship. You know the regulations say that if a claimant has a close family member, the exemption will allow him access to Canada. And I'm sure you've heard this question from many of the panellists. Most refugees who come to the border either come with nothing or come with the most minimal documents, such as a birth certificate or identity card. If they have an uncle who is a citizen of Canada, which would entitle them to the exemption, very few refugees are going to come to the border with documentation to establish that the uncle is here in Canada. The result, which would be a finding of ineligibility, is a lifetime ban on ever being allowed to make a refugee claim with a hearing before the Refugee Board in Canada again.

That, in my view, is plain wrong. There are different degrees of ineligibility. You cannot compare ineligibility for being a war criminal, let's say, to ineligibility because you aren't able at the border to produce documentation to show that you have an uncle who's a Canadian citizen.

The fair way and the easy way to solve that problem is simply to allow a subsequent redetermination of eligibility if you have been refused your exemption because you didn't have the paperwork or documentation to show the familial relationship in Canada.

º (1620)

Concern four.... If you look at your regulation 159.5(c), there is an exemption available if you have a family member whose refugee claim has been referred to the Refugee Board. The oversight the drafters have not noticed is that there can be a lag period of four to six weeks or more between the time a family member makes his refugee claim--a typical inland refugee claim in a large urban centre such as CIC in Etobicoke as an example--and when it's actually referred to the Refugee Board.

If our claimant comes to the border and wants to argue that his family member has a refugee claim that's going to be heard by the Refugee Board but has not yet been referred because the family member hasn't yet received his interview appointment at the office in Etobicoke that is to determine his eligibility, then the claimant at the border will be found ineligible and sent back to the United States. That's also wrong.

The easy way to solve that problem is to simply allow that claimant into Canada and wait until the determination on eligibility and referral to the Refugee Board is made for the family member he's relying on.

The last concern, Mr. Chair, is again with respect to regulation 159.5(c) and is the one that would allow a claimant access to the exemption if they have a family member who has a refugee claim referred to the Refugee Board in Canada. But if that family member is under age 18, the exemption doesn't apply.

If you have a mother coming to the Canadian border and she has an 11-year-old son whose refugee claim has been referred to the Refugee Board with no decision yet, that mother will be found ineligible and sent back to the United States and will not see her child in Canada. That's simply done and is totally incompatible with the spirit of family reunification in the Immigration Act.

That would be my submission.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Ms. Ablonczy for ten minutes for questions.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, we are very proud in this country of our humanitarian and compassionate openness to provide refuge to distressed people from around the world and are very anxious to make sure that our system continues to be the best it can be to operate for these individuals. We're very fortunate, then, to have you here, especially your brilliant legal minds, speaking as a lawyer.

º (1625)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Diane, may I interrupt you for a moment? As you weren't here when I mentioned this, two of our groups--one, the coalition...Mary Jo Leddy has to leave at 5 o'clock, and the other, the Canadian Bar Association, has to leave at 5:15. As a result, we might want to put our questions to them early on.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That would be helpful. I also, Mr. Chairman, have a function at 5 o'clock and will have to leave in time to get to that.

I'd like to get back to the point I was making. I really appreciate the fact that we have people here with legal expertise who have taken the time to go over the regulations exhaustively and to provide us with some amendments and recommendations, particularly with respect to drafting, they think would be helpful. That does help the committee very much.

One of things I think we should keep in mind about our system is that we want to have it open to the most distressed people possible. I know people who work with those who are seeking entry into Canada want to make their job as easy as possible. We want to make sure people who are truly in desperate need of protection from persecution, and possibly even loss of life, are given priority by our system. That is one of the lenses through which I look at these recommendations.

We know from the deputy minister that 72% of our refugee claimants come through the United States. That was confirmed to me through a private briefing from the department. We want to make sure this system also leaves some opening for people from refugee camps, where conditions are truly terrible. In this whole discussion, even though we're concentrating on this agreement between the U.S. and Canada, we want to keep the big picture in mind, as Renée Miller pointed out. That would be very important.

There are just a couple of points that came to my attention earlier and I'd like to clarify. One is for Peggy Nash and Raj Dhaliwal. Buzz Hargrove has written a letter to members of the committee raising a concern about a side deal, with Canada agreeing to accept 200 nominees from the United States. I wonder whether that is still a concern, and if so, whether you could explain to the committee the nature of the concern.

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal (Director, Canadian Auto Workers Union): The letter our president Buzz Hargrove wrote in July was based on information available at that time. To our understanding, if I can use my wording, there was an exchange of 200 potential refugees unacceptable, for whatever reasons, in that country, who they requested be registered in Canada. We certainly have a very strong concern on that. U.S. history is full of examples of people who really are not refugees, in our minds, and, as a matter of fact, who acted in certain ways in certain parts of the world as a state authority, but they ask them to be kept somewhere. We do not think Canada should become a place where people we call the criminals in certain parts of the world, who act as state terrorists at some point, should be placed.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I think that will help us, particularly with the minister coming tomorrow. We may be able to find out more about this issue.

Another issue I would appreciate having some perspective on is this 51,000 backlog in our immigration system. I know that must be a real frustration for you who work in the system, trying to get people some certainty and some status, able to move on with their lives. I wondered particularly if you have any recommendations for us as to how we should urge the department to deal with this situation.

The Chair: Mary Jo.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Again, I think you should dig on that statistic. I've done my own digging, both out at Etobicoke and the IRB. I asked, why, all of a sudden, are there 20,000 more files? There is no big influx of people. I was told somebody discovered a whole bunch of backlog files in Etobicoke. Whether those are duplicates of existing files, old files, or out-of-date files somebody needs to find out, because that statistic is driving and legitimating certain decisions of this committee. I think you deserve to know if it is accurate. I think you have the people who can dig on this one. The digging I've done has revealed it's quite slippery, actually, what's going on.

º (1630)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Maybe when they closed the city hall they found some files. We'll certainly make some inquiries to find out if that's the case.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I really think you should.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Are there any other comments?

Ms. Renée Miller: It's really important to distinguish between the backlog that exists at Citizenship and Immigration for the processing of immigrants generally and any backlog that might exist in the processing of refugees. Refugees are quite distinct, as a group, from immigrants.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: This is the refugees.

Ms. Renée Miller: It's well recognized internationally among all the countries that have a highly developed and evolved refugee determination system, as we do, that the ebb and flow of refugees takes place outside our borders. That's one of the reasons this agreement has been drafted. It's clearly one of the principles of this agreement to try to generate a little more control over the ebb and flow of refugees. To a very great extent, that's outside our control. Our job is to create a good refugee determination system that is founded on good solid principles and is fair, so we can be certain that the people we do accept are genuine refugees.

So what we need to do is implement this agreement, which will allow the government a little more control over the flow of refugees and will work to resolve any backlog issues, but in such a way that we know the people are being treated fairly, in accordance with international principles, and the people we do accept as refugees as a result of our process are the genuine ones we want to provide asylum for.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Given that I'm only chair for a day, I hesitate to get too anxious, but let's try to stay on topic, if we can. We're dealing with the agreement between Canada and the United States.

Do you want to respond, Mr. Berger?

Mr. Max Berger: Yes. Again, this has nothing to do with the regulations, but a board member will typically hear two refugee claims a day, one in the morning, one in the afternoon. Some board members in Montreal have started scheduling three refugee hearings in a day, and it seems to be working quite well. There's no suggestion of any rush to judgment, and counsel seem to be satisfied with that. It's a way of getting through the backlog more quickly.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. It's my view at least that if we're going to make sure these concerns are dealt with in the process and in light of this new agreement, we want to make sure people aren't in a backlog, but will be dealt with. So I'm very interested in these comments. In light of our time constraints, I'll leave it at that, so others can have an opportunity.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thanks, Diane.

We'll go to Monsieur Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the witnesses for having shared their points of view. It is apparent that these individuals and these organizations have worked on this file with a great deal of attention. A lot of thought obviously went into the suggestions and amendments which the witnesses put forward.

Generally speaking, I take it from their comments that they see nothing very stimulating or exciting in this draft regulation. Some of you stated that you were basically opposed to it. This is Mr. Berger's case, in particular. They are suggesting amendments because they are people of good will. Amendments can always be useful, but these people began by telling us that they are radically opposed to this draft regulation.

In other cases, so many substantive amendments to the regulations were proposed that it amounts to the same thing, practically speaking. The negative or perverse effects of this draft regulation were highlighted, namely insofar as sanctuary is concerned, to such an extent that one wonders what could possibly have inspired this draft regulation.

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask our witnesses whether they were consulted by Immigration Canada and whether they had the opportunity of expressing their objections or of proposing substantive amendments to the representatives of Immigration Canada, when they met with them, if they did. And how were their proposals received by Immigration Canada? What objections did Immigration Canada have? The regulation does not have much in common with what our witnesses are advocating.

It is very important that all of this be verified, Mr. Chairman, because the amendments our guests are proposing would tend to restore Canada's decision-making power in keeping with its own laws and its own values. They pointed out that one could not compare the United States and Canada in this way and say that they are the same, as Ms. Atkinson from Immigration Canada stated. She stated that there was no problem, that the situation was the same in both countries and that some learned studies had been done on this topic. Those studies were not tabled, but we were told that they would look through their the files to try to find them.

The people here who are experts and who examine these things do not play politics. They do very specific things. They say that things are different and that when they are different, it is to the detriment of refugees and Canadian values. I would like these people to tell me how they were received by Immigration Canada representatives when they exposed their points of view, if they had that opportunity.

º (1635)

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Berger, do you want to start with a response to it? I think he meant to say “don't you agree”.

Mr. Max Berger: I certainly do agree with the comments. I can say so since I am perhaps unique in that I'm only representing myself here. I was not consulted by immigration on its proposals.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Davis.

Mr. David Davis: There was no consultation with our organization.

Ms. Renée Miller: The Canadian Bar Association did have the opportunity to meet with high-level officials from Citizenship and Immigration in late September. I raised the safe third country agreement with them at the time, and presented them with our objections or concerns over the proposed agreement.

Material is being sent to them about the discussions, but our presentation to you here today is in response to the publications in the Canada Gazette. We were not provided with the opportunity to review the draft regulations before they were published in the Canada Gazette. We are making our comments on them here.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: My understanding is that the Canadian Council for Refugees did meet with CIC about this.

For our particular coalition, all I can say is that some of our members who work rather closely with the officers at the border have discussed this matter with them. Together, they're perplexed actually about how this is really going to work, especially on the family thing. Are they going to need to have DNA tests? How do you do this? Are we going to set up DNA tests at the border?

It's quite perplexing. What is clear from the UNHRC, which was consulted, is this is the agenda of Immigration Canada. It's where the energy for this comes from.

It was confirmed in a recent editorial in The Washington Post saying this is not so much in the American interest. It's the Canadian immigration department's effort to control the flow of refugees, at this point.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): In fact we tried to get the Americans to do this for years, and they always repelled us and said no. So this was in this committee's report.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Again, I think it's this figure of the big backlog that seems to justify this.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Do the autoworkers want to respond?

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: We are a member of the CCR. I know the CCR was consulted in some fashion, but not exactly with these regulations after the agreement was made, and we're aware of that, and that's really all that took place. We were not privy to these regulations until they were published, as the Canadian Bar Association said today. That was the first time, really, that we saw them. There were some discussions with the CCR, of which we are members, so we do bear some responsibility for that.

º (1640)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): The full-time chair of this committee would want me to point out, though, that it was the first time, if I'm not mistaken, that a committee actually got to go through regulations the way we did with the last bill and for this. So this is a fairly new process even for us.

Monsieur Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, in certain cases, there were consultations on preliminary orientations. In other cases, there were none. In any case, I would like our witnesses to share some aspects of their analysis with us and tell us whether they find anything positive in the draft regulations. Does this draft regulation have any possible benefits for Canadians or for those who hope to become refugees in Canada? Feel very comfortable: if you see something positive, don't hesitate to tell us.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Davis.

Mr. David Davis: The regulatory impact analysis statement I always find to be the most interesting part of the regulations, because it's really the opportunity for the government to say in the RIAS what the whole goals are. We have a problem with the very first sentence. How can the Government of Canada and the United States try to control the flow of refugees around the world? This agreement and the amended regulations are not going to come even close to being able to do that.

The first major problem, and it's already been reported in the National Post and the Globe and Mail, is that this is only going to deal with land port of entries, not airports. So the solution is simple: you get on a plane and you land at an airport. You're not going to accomplish what you're trying to do.

If there's some major problem with people arriving in Canada through the United States, yes, we have many immigrants who come here, but is there a problem of multiple refugee claims in various parts of the world? Our understanding is there are maybe at most 200 cases out of the thousands that happen throughout a calendar year where there might be somebody who made a refugee claim in Britain or the United States, or some other western democratic country, so it's not a huge problem for which you even need to have the agreement to begin with.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

I think we'll go to the Bloc now. Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

As I am sure you know, this is about the sixth hour we spend on an agreement which is important and on regulations which are not innocuous. In theory, the deadline for our reactions is next Tuesday. Generally, when we want to speed through things, it is because we are not all that comfortable.

Like the witnesses we heard yesterday, who represented non-government organizations, you, who are for the most part professionals or who represent unions or NGOs have shared a certain number of recommendations with us. I would like the witnesses, particularly those who have to leave, to tell us which of the recommendations they have put forward they consider to be the most essential.

I have no illusions about the importance the government is going to attribute to the committee's report. They will receive it and that may be the end of it. So, I think that if there are recommendations that are more important than others, it might be wise to emphasize those recommendations and say that we absolutely want them to be included in the final version of the regulations.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mary Jo, I think you asked to go first, so why don't you lead off.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I think I identified the section that I think is crucial, 159.6, because effectively what this could allow us to say is these are the countries where the situation is so bad that we will never return people to them and we will allow people to come in. I am thinking right now of Colombia. Colombians are not accepted in the U.S., and there are 50,000 a year being killed, archbishops assassinated. They have to come; they're on the list.

My only question is, you have to say who's going to decide on the list. I think this is critical. All the other things are important too, but this is critical.

º (1645)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Do the Canadian Auto Workers have any response?

Ms. Peggy Nash: We made several recommendations in our specific brief. I think the issue of gender discrimination has to be one that needs to be addressed. Again, we're concerned about the whole agreement and the regulations, but really fundamental is the gender-based differential in the treatment of refugees and also the differences based on diversity and nationality that we raised--for example, the people coming from Haiti who get differential treatment in the U.S. and Canada. So that would be our priority.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Racial profiling really is what you're....

Ms. Peggy Nash: Or differential treatment based on national origin, yes.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Ms. Miller.

Ms. Renée Miller: The Canadian Bar Association thinks that the most important thing that needs to be addressed in this agreement is the question of making sure that people get access to one of the systems. It is completely abhorrent that we would create a system whereby a person would not have the chance to claim refugee status in Canada or the United States and that they would be deported back to the country where they are being persecuted.

I can give you a specific example. In the United States you are not allowed to make a refugee claim if you've been there for more than a year. So let's say you're a student and you're studying in the United States. You have a valid student permit but conditions in your country of origin change dramatically, your family could be killed, and you must have sanctuary. You are not allowed to make a claim for refugee status in the United States. You would not be allowed to make a claim for refugee status in Canada under the implementation of the agreement the way the regulations are drafted now, and you would be deported to a country where your life is at risk. It completely violates all of the principles that our system is based on, and it has to be corrected.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Anyone else?

Ms. Nan Berezowski: I wanted to point out that the agreement does have a provision in article 6 for discretion. Those are instances where the minister could override the regulations if it were in the public interest.

One possible way to resolve many of these issues would be to establish that discretion in the regulation and then to promote an active and helpful use of that discretion so that when there are problems with the regulations they can be overridden when it's in the public interest.

Ms. Renée Miller: I would note, further to what my learned friend has said, that although the agreement does allow for discretion, the regulations are silent on that point. There has been no regulation drafted allowing for the discretion that is set out in the agreement.

Ms. Nan Berezowski: That's exactly right, so that should be added to the regulations, set out in the regulations.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, Mr. Berger.

Mr. Max Berger: I would add that this agreement aggravates the very problem it has been, in my view, set out to solve. If it weren't for 9/11, I don't think we would be in this position.

I pity the poor customs officers who are at the frontiers trying to keep the bad guys out. As a result of this agreement you're going to have lots and lots of refugees sneaking into the country once they begin to realize that if you don't declare yourself at the port of entry, but if you declare yourself inland, you can go ahead and make your refugee claim. Those customs officers should be concentrating on keeping the bad guys out, not on dealing with refugees who have no other choice but to try to use illicit means to get into Canada.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

We'll go to Judy.

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

I appreciate the chance to jump in here, because this discussion around aggravating the problem came up yesterday with representatives from the union that represents the workers at the border, the immigration officers and others who are on the front lines. They were very clear about the fact that this agreement, which is supposed to make things easier administratively, will actually aggravate the problems in terms of the flow of people. So I think it's helpful to get that advice.

Really, it seems to me that what folks are saying is that we can try to tinker with these regulations all we want, but we're essentially dealing with an agreement that is very bad and should be stopped. I would like to know how many witnesses are aware of the fact that the agreement itself is not before us, nor is it before Parliament. This is a done deal. The minister announced it this summer. The side deal was announced at the same time in terms of the 200 or so people who we have agreed will resettle from the United States. We are left trying to tinker with the regulations that the minister can accept or reject, and the deal goes forward. So what advice do you have for us to stop the deal?

º (1650)

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I feel very strongly about this. I think this is against the principle of parliamentary responsibility. This deal isn't just about refugees, this is about national sovereignty. This is about our borders and about our country. Now the committees have a newly found power, so I think you can do something. You must do something, because this is not only about refugees.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I agree.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: It is against a principle of parliamentary democracy that a done deal can be signed outside of Parliament, outside of the committee, with you and us left here trying to find some semblance of normality. I'm telling you it's going to be chaos and corruption. The officers know it, we know it, and it just has to stop.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): At the risk of creating parliamentary debate, I should point out that there is such a thing as executive authority. The latest agreement we're dealing with—one that probably has a higher profile than this one—is called Kyoto. Executive authority is good if you want to support Kyoto, but it's not good if you don't support the safe third country agreement. So it's not outside of the parliamentary powers or the powers of the government for this agreement to be done.

I should also point out that it was this very committee, after doing extensive work and travelling to our land borders, that in fact said:

The Committee believes there is merit in again attempting to negotiate such an arrangement with the U.S., but cautions that it is not a “magic bullet” that will solve the increasing demands placed on our refugee determination system. It would be one tool among many. It is apparent that front-line border workers overwhelmingly favour the pursuit of a safe third country agreement. ...the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees...has guidelines regarding the application....

So this didn't fall out of the blue. This was the result of very extensive work done by this committee. I would add that it was not supported by all members, but if you listen to the debate you would assume nobody supports it, and that's not the case.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We should be clear that we did not have a thorough discussion. There was not a consensus. It was an idea that has been pushed by the government from day one—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): It's in the committee report.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —and now we're reaping the rewards of that kind of unilateral approach. And never mind executive powers, we're talking of transparency and accountability. If the government doesn't have the courage to bring this to Parliament and have a vote on something that's fundamental to immigration and refugee policy, then I don't know how we can talk about anything close to the definition of democracy.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I knew when I opened my mouth that we would have a debate. I'll try to get back to considering these witnesses who are here to speak to us.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. David Davis: Quickly, just to answer the member's question, regulation 159.3 asks to designate the United States, so if the committee agrees not to designate the United States, then the agreement will have no teeth.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Judy, do you have anything more?

I'm sorry, Mr. Berger. Go ahead.

Mr. Max Berger: If the question was whether or not we can do something with the regulations that will make the agreement good and just and fair, the answer is no, we can't.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Are there any other opinions on that? Sorry, but I missed a presentation.

Ms. Peggy Nash: We basically said we saw this as a challenge to our sovereignty and our democracy, and we fundamentally disagree with the agreement and the regulations. While we made recommendations around the regulations, we are of the opinion that no amount of tinkering with the regulations is going to change this agreement into something that is at all helpful for refugees.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can certainly say that having, on the surface, heard what a safe third country was but really never examining it in depth, I feel like I've been led down the garden path, certainly over the last two days of questioning here with witnesses. Even though there may be some benefits, when you really look at it there are very few advantages.

The problem with this 9/11 business is that it focuses on terrorists, and every refugee who comes here is not a potential terrorist. As I said yesterday, it's a simple solution to a very complex problem. You all know that Governor Ridge is going to sign this thing on December 5. That's already dated. We know that this agreement is a done deal.

I don't know where we go, to tell you the truth, in terms of.... If we really believe in our Canadian approach to refugee protection and if we are leaders in the world, then I think this agreement will tarnish our reputation in the world as giving refugees protection.

I have to tell you, honestly, I'm not sure what role we have in this committee, in terms of making changes, in terms of what opportunity there is to make changes in the regulations.

º (1655)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Was that a question?

Mr. Inky Mark: I don't know. I'm frustrated and stressed out.

Some hon. members: Oh!

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Life is tough as a member of Parliament, but you do a good job.

Actually, I wouldn't mind putting a question or two from the Liberal side, specifically to the CAW reps.

I agree with Mr. Berger. We probably wouldn't be here discussing any of this if it weren't for 9/11. That's a reality of life, but 9/11 happened.

There's a lot of concern expressed about not only the flow of people but the flow of goods, particularly in places like Windsor, and while I recognize that only about 25% of your membership is directly in the auto business these days, because your business has changed as everything else has, it would still be concerned about the flow of manufactured products such as cars into the United States. A lot of that is what's driving the concern about harmonizing as much as possible while still maintaining sovereignty.

Has your organization looked at that issue in terms of why we're here and how the flow of goods relates to this particular issue, if it does at all?

Ms. Peggy Nash: In our view, the flow of commodities is very different from the flow of people. As you know, the base of our membership is in the auto industry, and we're concerned about “just in time” in the auto industry and the ability to transfer goods across the border so that the auto industry continues to function and to play its primary role in the Canadian economy, as it has for the last several years.

I think there are a number of specific things that are being looked at in order to enhance the flow of goods across the border: pre-screening of vehicles, pre-clearance, that kind of thing, as well as investment in infrastructure so that there is greater access across the border at major crossing points, especially where the auto industry is based. We see that as very different from the flow of people. Goods aside, concerns of security should never be used as a mechanism to undermine what we all want to preserve, which is our democratic society. We just see the two--goods and people--as being very different questions.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): On the issue of the side deal that was raised the other day, I asked the staff why it was done as a side deal. I think it perhaps gets portrayed inaccurately at times. It is 200 people either way, though; it's reciprocal.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The draft side deal is not reciprocal.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'm sorry, but our ADM was here and said it was reciprocal, and that we had the right in the same way.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, they gave you the wrong information.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I just want you to give me your thoughts on that. We can disagree on whether it's reciprocal, but I'm going on the advice given by the staff in testimony here the other day that it is reciprocal.

It's to deal not so much with the ability of the Americans to slap a terrorist on our hands, but rather the fact that there are always cases where someone might not qualify in the United States but might have family in Canada, or vice versa; or they might come under some special situation that would make it more sensible for them to be relocated to Canada, or reverse that, to the United States, if we were not prepared to accept them.

Given the fact that you all hate the agreement, I understand that. I don't like it as a side deal, frankly. If there's going to be a deal, I think it should be in the body of the thing. But if the agreement or some such agreement were to come into place, is there some sense that we should have some flexibility in that?

Mr. Dhaliwal.

» (1700)

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: First of all, I can't get into whether it is reciprocal to both countries or not. I'm assuming what you're saying is right. Let's believe that, because we really have not gone that far in looking at that. But if we really look at that, there are two things there.

First, the history of the two countries is very different. If the U.S. asks us to take people, we do not believe this will be used in the situation of family unifications and other things. This is strictly, in the minds of the U.S., when they have undesirables. I really don't want to name any, but they've had many in the past who they've been able to accommodate around the world with their political influence. They want to use Canada as a place where they can place many, up to the level of state leaders, which they have done in the past. We do not see this has anything to do with family unification.

The legal people are here, so maybe they can give us a better answer, but we believe that could be achieved through the process of the unification, not having this 200-people side deal. That's our belief. Canadians will never send anyone like that to the U.S., because the history of Canada has never been that way. We have never been part of anything where we've tried to place people in different parts of the world. The history of the two countries is very different, and we're seriously concerned about that.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Is there anybody else?

Ms. Renée Miller: Why are you jumping on that? What you're really talking about is flexibility, right? The agreement itself envisions that, and says quite specifically that there should be discretion by both countries, which is what you're talking about. That means the discretion to accept people who would be better suited in Canada, or the discretion to send people to the United States who would be better suited to settle there.

Unfortunately, the regulations were drafted without that discretion. It's the work of the committee to ensure that the regulations are implemented in a way that accurately implements the agreement the way it's envisioned, and in a way that accommodates the principles of our system. The regulations should have a provision that allows that kind of discretion.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have a question for Mr. Berger.

In your first recommendation, you chose to refer to percentages. I would like you to tell me in which countries the percentage of accepted claimants is higher than in Canada.

[English]

Mr. Max Berger: I haven't gone to the trouble to specifically look that up country by country, but I understand Colombia is one example. In the United States, I don't think you're going to get that far as a citizen of Colombia. In Canada, you probably will be accepted. Haiti may be another country, I'm not sure.

The Refugee Board here keeps statistics of acceptance ratios that are published on a quarterly basis. I imagine INS similarly keeps those statistics. And those could be updated, as need be.

It's a workable solution, especially the second part of my recommendation. If you have a less than 50% chance of being accepted in the United States and a greater than 50% chance of being accepted in Canada, common sense would dictate that you should be allowed the exemption and allowed to make your claim in Canada.

» (1705)

Ms. Renée Miller: Mr. Berger's point works the other way, and Cuba is a perfect example. If you can land on U.S. soil, you're basically guaranteed residence in the United States. Cuba has a relatively low acceptance rate for refugees in Canada, but it's a method of access to the United States system through Canada. So it's another example of how the acceptance rate can vary greatly according to the principles of the country or the political agenda of the government at the time.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): We'll go to Judy first, and then Mr. Mark.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me start with the side deal issue, because I think the officials led us astray yesterday and were not forthcoming about the fact that this is not a reciprocal side deal. This is the quid pro quo for the agreement: the U.S. has agreed to this deal, the safe third country deal, and Canada has agreed to take minimally 200 undesirables from the United States to be used against our resettlement quota.

We're talking about people who the United States doesn't know how to handle, people arrested on the high seas, people locked up in Guantanamo Bay. It's too politically difficult for them to handle, so they want us to pick up the slack, and in return we're going to have this lovely deal and they'll lock up or deport any of the people who get returned south of the border.

I would like to know what impact specifically this side deal will have in terms of Canada's own resettlement policies. We know Canada sets a quota; there is a limit. What does this do just in terms of that issue alone, in terms of our ability to resettle refugees on our terms, according to need, established by our own laws and our own traditions?

Mary Jo might want to answer that before she goes. Anyway, go ahead, Nan.

Ms. Nan Berezowski: I was just going to say, if the agreement comes into place, we can expect 15,000 fewer refugees a year in Canada. So, irrespective of what you want to call the quality of the refugees, an exchange of 200 for 15,000 isn't going to have an impact in terms of our ability to resettle. I don't know that this is really the issue. There may be--

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's one side issue of the whole thing. I'm not looking at the biggest. It's one component.

Ms. Nan Berezowski: Right, but I think the thing to remember about this is that the agreement itself is part of the smart border declaration. That was 30 points, and it was obviously a political dynamic that resulted in this agreement.

You could say, from the Canadian perspective, if your idea is to reduce the number of refugees in your system, then Canada has done well, because we will likely reduce 15,000 refugees from our system.

If, of course, your objective is to ensure that people in need of protection have access to this system and are able to seek that protection, then of course the agreement hasn't been very successful at all from the Canadian perspective. It probably will be quite a failure.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: It just seems a terrible trade-off that we would be accepting 200 very questionable people in the name of defending our borders, and we are keeping out really innocent and desperate people.

I'm sorry, I have to go, but I have to tell you that desperate people are going to try to get in anyway. Very few people in countries around the world think of the U.S. as a safe third country, because they've seen it operate overseas. I agree with the suggestion here that the U.S. could be designated differently, but very few people will believe any of our words about the U.S as a safe third country, and they'll keep trying to come here.

Ms. Renée Miller: If I could just comment on that, the whole question of the side deal and the 200 people sounds like a lot, but when you think about how this agreement is going to be implemented and how many people it's actually going to affect, it's going to affect thousands, and that's when it becomes critical that the committee take care to actually make sure that the agreement is implemented properly, in accordance with fair principles about refugee determination.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chair, if you'll give me another--

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'll allow you another question, and then Mr. Mark, and if there are no other questions, I think we'll conclude.

» (1710)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think the question for all of us is the life of those 15,000 people and their inability to access safe refuge and due process, and I think this agreement, no matter how you amend it, fails people in terms of those basic criteria.

I want to raise one other issue. When the officials were asked yesterday about the fact that there is no appeal process when a decision is made at the border, we were told, yes, there is; they can go to the Federal Court. It was then pointed out to us by subsequent witnesses, how do you go to the Federal Court when you've already been sent back to the United States? Don't you need to have the wherewithal to find legal advice and be able to pursue it? Is there any kind of legitimacy to that argument in this context?

Mr. David Davis: Let me try to answer that. It says in IRPA that the immigration officer at the port of entry has 72 hours to make a decision whether or not an individual is referred to the protection division.

In those 72 hours, which are going to go by very quickly, that person who arrives at the border, who doesn't know English, doesn't know how our legal system works, doesn't know about legal aid and other ways of accessing lawyers who will take night calls and calls on weekends, is going to have to engage the services of a lawyer--within 72 hours--and put together a case very quickly to seek leave to appeal that immigration officer's denial of allowing them in. You've identified a very important point.

I don't see it happening that well, and you're going to have many people--thousands of people, as my colleague has identified--who will be sent back. They'll have to try to institute an argument. And you're only allowed 15 days, because when you're at the port of entry you're in Canada. It's an inland Federal Court application, so you're only allowed 15 days. At the visa posts abroad you're allowed 60 days. You don't have an appeal period of 60 days here: it's 15 days, which includes those 72 hours.

So it's a very difficult situation, and I think, as everyone has reiterated, the values we believe in are being seriously compromised here.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Berger, do you want to add to that?

Mr. Max Berger: Yes. Even if the claimant had the wherewithal to find his or her lawyer within the 15 days, it's unlikely the Federal Court is going to intervene, because the Federal Court does not intervene for humanitarian or compassionate reasons; it intervenes only on a point of law. If the regulations go through as proposed, likely the immigration officer would have been correct in his refusal or in his finding of ineligibility.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: On that same point, yesterday we were told the estimated numbers were about 5,000 to 6,000 who would be returned stateside. Yet at the same time, the regulation says if you access a country other than by land--I guess by ports of entry or by aircraft--you're free. As you indicated earlier, if you can fly here, if you can come here legally other than through ports of entry, you still have access to the normal system of refugee determinations. If that's the case, how will this agreement resolve the... If 14,000 is a problem for this government, what is going to change?

Mr. Max Berger: That's a very good point, and from my own client base, I'd say half of my clients are inland refugee claimants. What's an inland refugee claimant? Other than the small percentage of claimants who came here with a valid visitor's visa and declared themselves at the airport and later went on to make a refugee claim, an inland refugee claimant, by and large, means someone who has already sneaked into the country and made the refugee claim from one of our large urban centres. It's not such a hard thing to do; half my clients do it, and I don't think my clients are different from anyone else's clients.

What's going to happen now, I would say, is that of the 15,000 figure that Nan brought out, probably half, if not more, are going to become inland refugee claimants--which perverts, in a sense, the whole orderliness we should have in the system.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): About 95% of the numbers cross at the land, and only 5% at the airports prior to this.... It may change, but that's what it is now. How do you respond to the issue that a large percentage of the people who come across the border at the land have U.S. visas? They're in the country legally. They're either studying, they're working, they're visiting, or whatever, and basically they've gone there.

Let's be candid here. One of the things that drove this was the accusation by certain American politicians that Canada's border was a sieve and we're allowing all these criminals into their country. And when we went to the borders and found out the reverse was true, it put the shackles up on a number of us, including me.

So that's one issue that has driven this need to say to the Americans, “It's not our border that's a problem and our people who are a problem, it's yours”.

All 19 of the terrorists on September 11 were in the United States legally and learning how to fly planes. They weren't learning how to land them or take off, they were learning how to fly them. There's something wrong there.

Do any of you have any comments about the fact that a lot of the people we're talking about here, whatever the number is, have some kind of legal status in the United States, albeit temporary? And that status is about to run out, so they're basically saying, “Well, I'm not going to apply in the States. I'm going to go to Canada, because I hear they're an easier touch.” They usually hear that from the American congressmen or senators who are making those statements in the U.S. media, so that's where they go.

And we saw, at the end of I-95, 5,000 people get off the bus and walk across the border at Lacolle, Quebec, and declare refugee status from the United States into Canada. And in fact something in the neighbourhood of 50 did the reverse in that same one-year period.

Do we not have a problem that people can enter the United States legally? You may not agree that they're as safe a haven as us, but they are a free, democratic country. They can enter that country legally, get a visa, and then simply decide to go north and apply here. Is there anything in that scenario that should cause us as legislators or the Canadian people concern?

Peggy.

» (1715)

Ms. Peggy Nash: I'm not an immigration lawyer and I'm not an expert on this, but when you frame it that way--

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): You'll probably give us good advice then.

Ms. Peggy Nash: I try to reason it out in my mind. I could be studying in the U.S., I could be there on a temporary work permit, but I wouldn't want to take my chances of seeking refuge today if I'm from a Muslim country, or if some other reason makes me suspect in the United States. So I could be legally there, but let's figure that I am not going to be able to claim a haven as a refugee in that country. It doesn't mean that I'm not a legitimate refugee.

It sounds like you get off the bus and flood into Canada and nobody even checks your passport.

We have a fairly orderly system for determining if people are refugees, and it works fairly well. We take in a good number of refugees, but we're not swamped. We take in one half of one percent of the world's refugees. There are far poorer countries than Canada that have far more refugees per capita than we do with much less ability to shelter, clothe, and care for those refugees. We are not overdoing ourselves, in spite of our reputation of being a good country for refugees to come to.

Your introductory remarks leading up to this question in a way echoed what I had started off by saying, which is that I think this is all much more of a political statement. The whole agreement is more of a communication to the United States that yes, we don't have a porous border, we're tightening things up, than it is to really address any problem.

I'm not hearing what the problem is in Canada. A lot of people come here as refugees. I have personal friends who came as refugees, and they make a wonderful contribution to this country. I'm sure you know people as well.

So I'm not understanding what the problem is except that there was a perception in the U.S., because a politician said so, that there was a porous border between Canada and the U.S., which turned out to be false. So I guess I'm still unclear about what we're trying to solve. And perhaps I'm rambling a little, but I think perceptions are driving things more than the money.

» (1720)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): You may be right. As I'm sure you know—because your business is politics, the same as ours, but just from a different perspective—perception very often is reality. The fact is that the statistics show that something in the neighbourhood of 60% of the refugees to this country come through the United States. I think a lot of people were surprised to hear this. You might be right in determining that a lot of that is what has driven this. Nonetheless, this is where we are; this is where the car is parked at the moment.

Mr. David Davis: Just to respond to that point, I have three points to make.

Number one is that you can be in the United States—or Canada, for that matter—on a student or a work visa, and then discover many months later that your native homeland is not a safe place any more. That's happened to a handful of my clients. Then, of course, the issue becomes how credible is that refugee claim, since you've been in a safe country for many months now. This is another issue, but I think that answers your point.

Second, there is a new agreement that's just taken effect about a week ago, called NSEERS, which is a whole new database registration system. It's really George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four coming several years later. Only people from certain countries—talking about racial and ethnic profiling—have to have mandatory fingerprinting and photographing at the U.S. border. That's going to be stopping a lot of people from getting visas.

Some of my clients get what is called a ten-year, non-immigrant B visa for the United States. Getting that visa at a visa post outside of the United States is one thing. The INS, which rules what happens within the United States, is ultimately the one that decides whether or not that visa is going to honoured and respected when you arrive. So when you get a visa, say at the Beijing visa post in China, that doesn't mean you're automatically going to be allowed to get into the United States—especially in this post-9/11 era we're in.

Also, my understanding is that visas for entering the United States are not going to be granted as easily as it seemed before. I think your point is more pre-9/11. But post-9/11, I don't think you're going to have that situation now. I don't know if my point—

Ms. Nan Berezowski: I think that's right.

Another point I wanted to make is that the reason why so many refugee claimants come from the United States is not complicated. It's simply because that's where the flights often arrive. I don't know if you've ever travelled to South America, but it's pretty hard to go to Ecuador or Colombia and come back to Canada without stopping first in Chicago, New York, or Miami. That has been my experience. I know that's the case with potential refugee claimants as well.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): They get there legally. That was my point.

Ms. Nan Berezowski: Some do. I think David's dealt with that.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Sure.

We're rambling a little bit. We'll just be informal.

Go ahead.

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: I just want to make a comment.

Frankly, as you said, one of the reasons is 9/11 and what happened around it.

The second reason—or my personal view—is that there is a perception that too many people are claiming refugee status through the U.S., and that we should deal with it, stop it, or block it. It's based on a perception. Many times in the history of this country we have done things based on perceptions that later on turned out to be totally incorrect.

I just want to touch on the one that is very much connected with my own community. In 1910 Canada decided it would not allow anyone in from South Asia unless they were coming through direct passage. At the same time, an arrangement was made for CP ships to discontinue direct passage. So anyone who came from that point on was illegal.

Why was that done? It was done to address the problem at that time of an overflow of people into B.C. from a particular part of the world. After that we all agreed that it had been unfair. As a matter of fact, this was acknowledged by all of the political leadership of later times.

Really, there's a desire to somehow stop people from coming. The underlying reason is to find a way to do this; we are trying to find a way. I think we are really making a mistake in doing this. In the long run, it will turn out to be an error the way we are trying to do this. If we want to screen everyone to make sure refugees should apply, there should be ways to deal with this without just putting a block on it.

» (1725)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'm going to allow one more question each, if you have one.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm interested in the point you raise, Steve, about the reaction to 9/11 and the whole issue of security. We've heard over the last three days that this agreement could actually lead to human smuggling, trafficking, people finding a way, because they're desperate, to come into the country. From the point of view of security, wouldn't it make more sense to have an open door, do things on an up-front basis, and know who is coming into the country, where they are, as opposed to clandestine--

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): You're asking me?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm raising it based on your comment to everyone here. I wonder if you can help make this argument to the government members, who might be able to then go back and say...

Mr. Max Berger: The immigration department has a long history of not understanding or foreseeing the consequences of the laws they put in place. When the Refugee Board was created, if people's memories go back to 1989, we had this two-tier refugee hearing. First you had what was called a credible basis inquiry, and you had to establish that there was a basic minimum to your refugee claim. If so, you were sent to the Refugee Board. It turned out to be a complete waste of time, because you were duplicating the same kind of hearing. It was a good intention, but Immigration just didn't foresee the consequences of what they were doing. It's the same thing here. Immigration is just not foreseeing what's going to happen here. It's just going to make security matters, which it's intended to address, so much worse, with everyone trying to sneak into the country to make a refugee claim.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I was informed that UNHCR made the proposal that claimants be given a choice to claim either on this side of the border or on that side of the border. If that were the case, it probably wouldn't be a bad deal, even with the regulations that are in place. Why do you think Canada would not allow that to happen? It certainly would be in the Americans' interest, right?

Ms. Nan Berezowski: My understanding is that the Americans signed this agreement because they were getting other benefits in other parts of the smart border declaration. It was a trade-off. The Americans will assume responsibility for far more refugees now than they have in the past because of this agreement.

Mr. Inky Mark: So why do you think the Canadian government wouldn't agree to the choice, the single claim?

Ms. Nan Berezowski: I think they wouldn't agree to it because their real intention is to reduce the numbers of those who come to Canada.

Mr. David Davis: But they are agreeing to the single claim, because with IRPA, my understanding is--and I defer to my colleague Mr. Berger, because I think he practises far more in the refugee area than I do--that if you make a refugee claim and you lose, you cannot make another claim for at least one year, and when that one year passes, you can't duplicate what you argued a year earlier, it has to be only on new grounds that may have arisen because of a change in circumstances. So in essence, our new law is instituting the single claim.

Mr. Max Berger: Actually, just to be more precise on that point, if you lose your claim, you cannot make another refugee claim. If you leave Canada, the best you can hope for is that after six months you will be allowed into the country, not to make a claim to be heard by the Refugee Board, but to go though this new appeal called the pre-removal risk assessment, which we expect will have a 95% refusal rate.

» (1730)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Okay.

Thank you all for coming. I know you're on tight schedules as well. We appreciate your coming out and giving us your input. Thanks very much.

The meeting is adjourned.