:
Thank you very much. We're all very pleased to be here to address you on Bill , the government's balanced refugee reform legislation.
As you know, Bill proposes to reform our asylum system by giving faster protection to asylum claimants who truly need it, reducing the abuse of our system, and providing for faster removal of failed claimants.
[Translation]
We are aware of four areas of concern for the committee: the safe country of origin list; matters concerning humanitarian and compassionate claims; timelines for initial interviews with claimants and later hearings before the board; the hiring and independence of the officials who carry out interviews and hearings at the board.
Today, we will address the first two matters. I understand the committee will later be hearing from representatives of the board, who will address the latter two concerns.
[English]
As you know, Mr. Chair, as part of the proposed reform measures, the government would develop a safe country of origin list. Most Canadians and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recognize that there are places in the world where the persecution of people is less likely to occur compared to other areas.
In his testimony to the committee earlier this week, Mr. Abraham Abraham, the UNHCR representative in Canada, noted that the UNHCR does not oppose the introduction of the safe country of origin list, as long as it is not used as an absolute bar to the consideration of an asylum claim. A safe country of origin list is a necessary tool to reform the asylum system. We have no way within the current system to rapidly address surges of asylum claims that could prove to be unfounded, such as claims from individuals whose countries have strong democratic, judicial, and accountability frameworks to protect their citizens. Without such a tool to help manage claims, our only other recourse is to impose visas.
Mr. Chair, we are aware that the proposal concerning this safe country of origin list has prompted concerns. As you know, the minister has stressed his desire to be flexible on this matter, and his appearance here on May 4 indicated his willingness to work out amendments either to the bill or to regulations that would clearly delineate the process for designating safe countries and the associated criteria.
As you know, Mr. Chair, the list of safe countries would include those that do not normally produce refugees, have robust human rights records, and offer state protection to their citizens. The safe country of origin list, however, would not be exhaustive, including countries from A to Z.
I would like to note that in developing the proposed list, we would not close the door on refugees seeking Canada's protection.
[Translation]
All eligible asylum claimants, regardless of where they came from, would continue to receive a fair hearing before the board just as they do today.
I would also like to underline that under this proposal, asylum claimants from safe countries of origin would receive the same hearing and access they receive under the system today.
In order to be even considered for the list, countries would first need to meet quantitative criteria. For example, only if the volume of asylum claims from a country exceeded a specified threshold and the acceptance rate for these claims did not reach a specific threshold, would that country be considered for the list.
[English]
These thresholds will be articulated in revised regulations, a draft of which will be provided to the committee, as agreed to by the minister.
Countries meeting the threshold would then undergo a thorough assessment, based on objective criteria. Such assessments would consider whether the country had a strong record of providing its citizens with human rights protections, and the availability of state protection and redress. The goal of these is to clearly delineate the criteria for the designation of safe countries of origin, including the factors that would trigger a review of a particular country, and ensure that the minister would not have discretion to designate a country that had not undergone a rigorous assessment.
This assessment would be done by a panel of experts from a variety of departments. It would make recommendations to the minister about which countries to include on the list once the country assessments were completed. We would also seek the input of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in this process.
Using a safe country of origin mechanism to deter and manage spikes in asylum claims is not unique to Canada. Our approach would be consistent with similar policies in many European countries, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.
[Translation]
In addition, most European Union states also have accelerated asylum procedures for the nationals of other EU member states, which are considered to be generally safe.
Furthermore, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has noted that the principle of developing such a list is not inconsistent with acceptable asylum practices.
I should note that Canada already makes determinations on country conditions, such as when ministers receive advice on which countries should be placed on the temporary stay of removal list.
[English]
This is also the case with visa policy decisions. Countries are treated differently. Some countries have a visa exemption and some countries do not.
[Translation]
Developing a safe country of origin list would fundamentally help reduce abuse of Canada's asylum system by those who are not truly in need of our protection.
[English]
Mr. Chair, we also realize that the proposed provisions on the humanitarian and compassionate program are prompting some concern. It is worth noting that the original intent of the H and C provision was to provide the government with the flexibility to approve exceptional and compelling cases not anticipated in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It was never intended to be an alternate immigration stream or an appeal mechanism for failed asylum claimants. It should be reserved for exceptional cases.
[Translation]
But what has happened is that some failed asylum claimants use the humanitarian and compassionate provision in another process to try to remain in Canada. In fact, more than half of the humanitarian and compassionate backlog is now made up of failed asylum claimants.
[English]
The government has therefore proposed a one-year bar on humanitarian and compassionate claims following the last IRB decision, in order to discourage failed claimants from seeking to remain in Canada.
[Translation]
The idea here is to recognize that, since failed claimants would have just had their risk assessed, most would have access to an appeal and all could seek leave from the Federal Court.
[English]
In addition, these H and C applications often raise issues related to personal risk and country conditions, factors that are already considered by the IRB when it assesses the asylum claim. As a result, the proposed reforms also include removing the consideration of certain kinds of risks from humanitarian and compassionate applications.
Specifically, this concerns risks as defined under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which are also assessed as part of the refugee protection process and in a pre-removal risk assessment. This reform would clarify the distinction between H and C decision-making and the refugee protection and pre-removal risk assessment processes.
Under the proposed measures, H and C decisions would focus on considerations such as establishment in Canada, the best interests of the child, relationships in Canada, the country of origin's ability to provide medical treatment, and risks of discrimination in that country, as well as generalized risk in the country of origin.
In conclusion, as the minister has said, the proposed measures meet and exceed Canada's domestic and international obligations and maintain the balance and fairness that are the principles of our entire immigration, refugee, and citizenship systems.
Thank you very much.
:
Mr. Chairman, I have always believed and thought, having applied it personally, that the way to manage or prevent a flood of false refugees—let's call them that—was to enforce a visa policy. We did it with Costa Rica, in particular, when we were in power, and it worked.
Putting forward a policy that asserts that such and such a country is a safe country strips Canada, in its scheme of values and its most firmly established program, of all its power to say that each case is specific. That means, for example, that Mexico could be perceived as a safe country, whereas, at the time, more than 1,000 refugees from Mexico were accepted. That's only one example among many others.
Instead of starting to consider refugees or future refugees as people who may abuse the system by suggesting that they are from such and such a country, why not do what we did with the United States, and sign a bilateral agreement with exemption measures, like the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement? That would be better than starting to prepare a list of all safe countries, whether it be Greece or other countries. Ultimately, such a list will give refugees certain impressions. There may be abuses because, in order to take the pressure off his shoulders, the minister will be free to respond as he did during the Olympic Games. To one refugee claimant from Japan, he answered that Japan was a safe country and that that made no sense. We don't know what is going on in one country or another. There may be problems for reasons of sexual orientation, religion, gender or other matters.
So why put two fundamental elements in this act? I think we have to retain humanitarian and compassionate grounds—we can discuss that later, when my colleagues talk about it. However, why add this matter of designated safe countries, when all we wanted was to establish a much fairer process, similar, for example, to the provisions on the Refugee Appeal Division that we agreed on in Bill ? I'm entirely in favour of that. We didn't need to say that we're going to establish a list of safe countries and subsequently send somewhat contradictory messages.
Saying that you'll have a panel means you're in favour of the principle.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, everyone.
I have a number of questions, but I'm going to start by making two comments on your presentation. I think some points need clarifying.
You talked about the high commissioner's position that it may be appropriate to prepare a list of safe countries. That's true; he came and told us that last week. What he especially told us is that that list could be used for procedural purposes, but definitely not to reduce the rights and privileges of people from countries appearing on the list. My colleague Ms. Chow asked the question, I asked it in turn, and the High Commissioner clearly said it in his statement. So we should back off a bit when we try to give this act the moral approval of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. This bill doesn't just create a list—the principle of which the High Commissioner supports—but it also provides that the people affected by the list have fewer rights than those who are not. There's quite a gap between the two.
A second remark somewhat surprised me: you said that people from countries on the list would enjoy the same protection as that currently provided. That's not true. Of course, they don't currently have access to the Refugee Appeal Division, but they nevertheless have the opportunity to file an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, just as they have access to the pre-removal risk assessment and to the temporary resident permit, all things to which they will no longer have access under this new act. In addition, they will no longer appear before a board member, with all the independence that entails, but simply before officials. Those people will really experience a decline relative to the treatment currently provided.
That being established, I wanted to ask you somewhat the same question as I asked you the last time, when the minister appeared before us. I asked you why the minister was depriving himself of his right of appeal in the case of nationals from a country appearing on the list. That seems contradictory to me. By putting a country on the list, the minister declares that it is not very likely that the people from that country are real refugees. However, if an official rules that a person from that country is a real refugee, even if it's not very likely, the minister, under the bill, specifically waives that power to appeal.
Why is this contradiction in the bill?
:
All right, this is what I have to put up with here.
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: We've have had some comments with respect to the eight days in this policy. For example, we've had lawyers and others who have said, well, people could come and they could be nervous, and people could come and be terrified because of here they have come from. Also, people have said that there might be a language problem.
Therefore, the question remains: that this information that is given during those eight days is wrong, for whatever reason; they didn't understand or they didn't have proper advice as to what to say. Therefore, that testimony or that information--whether you call it testimony or information--could be used against them later, even though it's inadvertently incorrect.
I suppose, finally, that one could compare this to a...I suppose I'm out of line in comparing it to this, but it could be, for example, like a police examination, where someone has been charged with something and the police are examining a witness, possibly even before they're charged. Those people are entitled to counsel. Counsel may be there and may say that they don't have to answer that or whatever.
So I'd like you to elaborate on this eight-day business. I'm sure you have seen all of the testimony that has been given on this. Could you respond to some of those comments about the right to counsel during the first eight days?
:
I'll deal with some of the concerns that you have flagged distinctly.
First of all, with respect to language, there will be interpretation facilities available.
Secondly, in terms of trauma, if there is a claimant who exhibits trauma or vulnerability, or who has special considerations, such as a child, a trafficked person, or someone who has been subject to domestic violence or some other form of vulnerability, then there is a discretion to adjourn that interview.
With respect to the right to counsel, again, the claimant has the right to have counsel present; it's just that it wouldn't be regarded as essential for the interview. The interview would not be adjourned in order to make counsel available, because it's not meant to be an adversarial setting. It's not meant to be an examination. It's meant to be a process by which an IRB official facilitates the claimant in describing their claim story.
And it's not even meant to be definitive in that regard. The IRB officer is intended to make every effort to make sure it's as complete as possible to prepare for the hearing. The official will also define the expectations for the claimant for the next steps, including the right for counsel and how the hearing will actually operate, but in between that point, that interview, and the hearing itself, the claimant has the right to amend that record. They will have the right to add to that record with the assistance of counsel right up to the end of the disclosure period in advance of the hearing.
Again, it's certainly not meant to be adversarial. It's not meant to be an examination. It's really meant to be an information gathering stage to substitute what's happening now between the port of entry inland officers at the point a claim is made and the very elaborate and convoluted personal information form that is filed at the 28-day mark. The--
:
We welcome almost everyone here, sir. You're welcome to the committee.
We have four groups.
We have Mr. Raphael Girard.
We have two people from the Fédération des femmes du Québec: Ms. Alexandra Pierre, community organizer responsible for anti-racism and discrimination issues, and Nathalie Ricard, who is with the same group.
We have the Coalition des familles homoparentales du Québec.
We have the Canadian Arab Federation, represented by James Kafieh, who is legal counsel.
By teleconference, all the way from Kitchener, we have the Honourable Andrew Telegdi, a former parliamentary secretary and former chair and vice-chair of this committee.
I'd like to welcome all of you. We will start by giving each of the groups up to seven minutes to make a presentation. The Fédération des femmes du Québec is a group, so that would mean a total of seven minutes for the two of you.
We'll start with Monsieur Girard.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll try to get through this in as short a time as possible, but I warn you that my presentation is meaty and full of precise technical terms. I've given a copy of my text to the clerk so that the interpreters can follow.
Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, 25 years ago, I led the task force that produced the existing refugee determination system for Canada. It was the first time we embedded the right to claim refugee status in Canadian law.
I can also say I don't envy the people who are going through the reform. What strikes me most about the debate surrounding Bill is how little the objectives and the problems have changed, despite more than 20 years of experience with the phenomenon of refugee claims in Canada.
Looking back to 1985, the Singh decision forced the department to change the ad hoc processes it had for dealing with refugee appeals against removal. The backlog created at that time was decades long. Reform was essential.
Flora MacDonald mandated me to form a task force, and I must say that the objectives we had then and the objectives for Bill today are virtually identical. Everyone wants a rapid and fair decision-making process, early recognition of valid claims, and prompt removal of failed claimants to discourage frivolous claims by those who would exploit the determination system for other purposes.
Despite our best efforts, the system we delivered in 1989 failed. It was dysfunctional from day one. There was a conflict between the design and the law.
The design concept was based on the premise, a very important premise, that an independent tribunal should be available to those, and only those, whom Canada would have an obligation to protect if they met the definition of “convention refugee”. We rejected the idea that Canada had an obligation to facilitate claims by those seeking to come to Canada from other signatory countries such as the United States, Germany, and other western European countries whose performance in protecting refugees showed them to be in good standing.
Although provisions to achieve this were present in the bill that became law in 1989, the essential restraints on access to the independent tribunal were not enacted by the government, and the system was therefore left vulnerable to overload, despite the enormous budget of $100 million that was made available to the IRB in its first year. To compound this issue, the IRB adopted an interpretation of the convention that was and remains broader than that used in any other signatory country, leading to an acceptance rate of claims that approached and sometimes exceeded 50%, which in those days was easily double that of the next most generous country.
Since then, the system has been chronically backlogged. As a result, there have been episodes of wholesale abuse by bogus claimants.
Bill has some interesting features to expedite the process and limit appeals, but it fails to come to grips with the underlying problems that plague the existing system. The bill replaces order in council nominees with public servants at the hearing of first instance, which will make the appointment process simpler; however, the hearing format with counsel remains the same.
An additional element has been tacked on at the front end, which you talked about earlier, and the de novo is available at the back end on appeal from a refusal at the hearing of first instance, which can include a second oral hearing in some cases where credibility is an issue.
These three steps replace the single encounter the claimant now has in the current system. The Bill C-11 reforms risk making the overall process more complex, not less.
It's difficult to believe that a more complex system can be faster despite the time guillotines that are intended to be imposed. I don't know of any tribunal that isn't backlogged and that values timeliness over integrity of process.
Currently, appeals against sponsored immigrant refusals made to the IRB take up to two years to be heard. Spousal cases in this group command the highest priority in the immigration firmament. And applicants don't seek delay. They want to come to Canada and be reunited with their families.
If two years is the best the IRB can do for high-priority people who don't seek delay, is it really realistic to think that the IRB can do better with a bigger and more complex challenge with regard to people for whom delay can be a positive feature that they in fact often seek?
The underlying problem with is that everyone will have a right to a hearing before an independent decision-maker. This is neither necessary nor practical. Where there is no protection issue, there should be no involvement by the IRB.
Neither the charter nor the 1951 UN convention obliges us to hear claims of refugee status. The convention only obliges member states to refrain from refoulement, which is the forceable return of refugees to a country where they face persecution. Removing people from Canada without a hearing of a claim to refugee status does not contravene the convention nor the charter if it is done in a way that does not expose them to refoulement.
For example, will allow the continuation of the absurdity of the current Canadian system, which has been abused wholesale by claimants from the Czech Republic and Hungary.
:
Good afternoon. Thank you for receiving us and allowing us to make this presentation.
The Fédération des femmes du Québec, la Coalition des familles homoparentales, the Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, or CLES, the Regroupement québécois des Centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, or RQCALACS, and the Table des groupes de femmes de Montréal all work to promote and defend women's interests and for the recognition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, LGBT people.
We support the objective of a faster refugee determination system, to the extent that speed does not jeopardize refugees' fundamental rights, and we welcome the introduction of an appeal division under Bill . Despite this progress, we wish to express our serious concern about the rest of the bill.
As a result of the proposed amendments, certain asylum applicants will not have access to the appeal division as a result of their nationality and origin. The introduction of the term “designated country” or “safe country” violates the fundamental principles of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which clearly establish the right to equality.
Domestic abuse, crimes of honour, genital mutilation, rape and commercial sexual exploitation are all forms of violence or persecution suffered almost exclusively by women. The women from countries that might be characterized as safe are not protected from these violations of their rights. In some countries, discrimination and mistreatment are open, even legal, whereas in others, they are more concealed.
I'm going to tell you about the case of a woman whom the signatory groups to this brief have supported. That woman from Honduras was detained in an apartment by a criminal gang that accused her friend of being a police informer. In that woman's presence, the friend in question was mutilated and then decapitated. The woman was subsequently raped by the members of the criminal gang. She then had to leave her husband behind and seek asylum in Canada. She said that, since the police was corrupt, she could not inform on those police officers because otherwise she would be dead.
At her IRB hearing, the panel found that, based on the national documentation binder, Honduras was a country that cracked down on criminal gangs and enforced laws against such crimes. In spite of everything, however, the government of Honduras is still incapable of eradicating this type of sexual violence, which is quite common.
Thank you for allowing me to speak and for listening to me.
With regard to gender violence, I'm going to continue and talk more specifically about sexual minorities. It must also be understood that, when a country decriminalizes homosexuality, that does not necessarily mean that its social and police policies will also protect sexual minorities.
A lot of gays are collectively violated, for example, their families blamed, hurt and dishonoured, and these people won't go to the police to file a police report because, once again, there will be victimization and often blackmail.
What is reported is a lot of blackmail, the rejection of families, scorn and sexual violence. The same is true of women. For example, we have women in our association right now who come for Mexico. These women, who may at first seem entirely heterosexual, are not; they are lesbian, and people think they are heterosexual because they have children.
So that also has to be taken into consideration; that is to say that there is no protection for same-sex couples or recognition of gay parentality or maternity in a number of countries. So one of the threats these people face, and one of the reasons why they do not reveal their homosexuality, is that they can lose custody of their children. That is why it has to be taken into consideration, and it is not because a country might be considered safe—one could think of Mexico, for example—that there is any security for sexual minorities, and especially for women.
I've been working with immigrants and refugees for 20 years, and you may be certain that, when women appear before you, they definitely have a history of sexual violence that will take a lot of time and a number of meetings before it is ultimately revealed. In addition, the time frames currently granted under the bill are too short to enable a person to really prepare testimony that is meaningful and that reveals her situation.
:
The Canadian Arab Federation is the national organization serving Arab Canadians. Since 1967, we've advocated on a wide range of topics. However, our 500,000 Arab Canadians have a special interest in Bill .
We come from a part of the world that is generating a lot of refugees and we have a special interest in this legislation. There are six areas that I want to touch on with regard to the specific concerns we have about Bill .
We would point out that not all aspects of the proposed changes are negative. For example, the Canadian Arab Federation applauds the inclusion of provisions for appeals on the basis of merit and also more timely hearings for refugees.
However, there are also very disturbing changes embedded in the legislation. As the lives of refugees are at stake, these aspects require special attention today.
Of the six points to touch on, the first is with regard to the interview at the Immigration and Refugee Board. A fair and expeditious process for assessing the refugee claimants is a common goal; however, “fair” and “expeditious” are not alternative choices.
The requirement for refugee claimants to give details of their claim at an information gathering interview within eight days of a claim being referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board is insufficient and prejudicial to legitimate claimants.
Refugees undergo traumatic and gruelling processes to arrive in Canada. They will understandably require more time than is contemplated in the legislation just to recover from their odyssey. In addition, they legitimately need to consult legal counsel prior to presenting their narrative. Legal aid certificates often require longer than the eight-day period allotted just to be issued.
The initial interview requirement undermines due process, so we say that the initial interview should be deleted from the legislation.
The second point is with regard to the hearing date scheduling. The present scheduling of hearings is profoundly problematic. Refugee claimants should not have to wait years to have their claim adjudicated; however, many refugees will necessarily require more than the 60 days allotted under the legislated to prepare their case.
Evidence of persecution may be difficult to obtain from dysfunctional parts of the world. States that generate larger numbers of refugees are often the very states that are most oppressive and chaotic. In addition, even evidence gathered in Canada, such as medical or psychological assessments and reports, may take much longer to be produced than the 60 days being contemplated in the legislation.
The right to an expeditious hearing should be clearly stated in the legislation. However, hearings should generally be scheduled on the basis of when they are ready to proceed, with long-term time limits setting out maximum time limits.
The third item is with regard to the first instance decision-makers. The move away from an Immigration and Refugee Board that is uploaded with political appointees is a welcome measure; however, limiting the decision-makers of first instance to civil servants will undermine the objectivity of the refugee process. A process that handles appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board without political interference or partisan consideration would be a welcome measure. Decision-makers should be appointed for fixed terms and qualified candidates, both from inside and from outside the civil service, should be considered for this role.
Number four is with regard to designated countries of origin. Provisions under the legislation that would enable the minister to designate countries of origin would unnecessarily politicize and undermine the integrity of the refugee determination process. Such determinations also violate international law by discriminating on the basis of country of origin.
:
I will slow it down a little bit.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Mr. James Kafieh: Such determinations also violate international law by discriminating on the basis of country of origin.
In addition, they carry with them the real spectre of endangering legitimate refugees by leaving undefined the terms of “safe countries of origin” and “safe” itself . Indeed, the criteria on which a country of origin could be listed as safe by the minister are non-existent. We understood from the earlier witnesses that this might be something to be defined very shortly through the regulations, but it is still not available to us at present.
Ultimately, the provision establishes a two-tiered refugee determination process. The designated countries of origin provision should be deleted from the legislation.
Fifth, the establishment of a refugee appeal division is a welcome measure. A genuine appeal process that allows for the inclusion of new evidence is long overdue. Indeed, the primary concern lies in the definition of “new” evidence. Historically, evidence that could be added to the record has been limited to “evidence not reasonably available” at the time of the hearing or initial adjudication.
This can be remedied by generalizing the concept of what new evidence can be added to the record on appeal. To achieve this objective, the legislation should be changed to make clear that all relevant additional evidence may be presented by a refugee claimant at an appeal.
Sixth, the barring of anyone from a pre-removal risk assessment unnecessarily creates a risk to refugee claimants. The Immigration and Refugee Board--not the office of the minister--is the correct venue for determinations as to whether or not a person can be removed without risk.
The legislation does not contemplate changing circumstances that could legitimately raise new issues of risk beyond those that existed at the time of initial adjudication. The pre-removal risk assessment restrictions should be removed and authority for administration of this provision should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
I should say finally, regarding the humanitarian and compassionate applications, that definitions of who is a refugee are narrowly defined and restricted in international and domestic law. Refugee claimant cases and situations are usually complex. There is often no simple way to compartmentalize legitimate refugees from persons who may also have legitimate cases that raise genuine humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
For example, a legitimate refugee claimant case may also independently raise issues of what is in the best interests of a child. Such a consideration would not be relevant to a refugee adjudication, but would be central to a humanitarian and compassionate application.
The arbitrary barring of refugee claimants from also accessing the humanitarian and compassionate application process will undermine Canadian values and law. The provisions in the legislation that bar access to humanitarian and compassionate applications for refugee claimants should be deleted and the administration of these applications should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Subject to your questions, that is the formal submission of the Canadian Arab Federation.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to be here.
Let me say that some things don't change. I used to have all sorts of problems with the parliamentary secretary when I chaired the committee, but we worked it out.
First and foremost, I think it's important for committee members to know that I'm a refugee from the class of '57 following the Hungarian revolution and was one of approximately 40,000 people who got asylum in Canada after the uprising. So this is an issue that is close to my heart.
When I dealt with issues related to immigration and citizenship, I always operated in a pretty non-partisan fashion. I disagreed with my government at one point and I resigned as parliamentary secretary. I served as an associate member of the committee for a number of years because I would not be put back on as a member. Then, when the situation changed, I got elected as chair and, subsequently, vice-chair.
It is an issue that I'm very much interested in. As I said, when I was chair of the committee, I challenged the committee members to operate in a non-partisan fashion and I defended the committee decisions to government and advocated for them.
Looking at the changes, I'm really glad that Mr. Girard is here because he talks about coming back 25 years after he helped draft the original IRB system and about identifying many problems.
Mr. Chair and members of committee, I hope you are not going to be coming back after 25 years have gone by and having somebody else come back and say that the problems haven't been solved.
One of the things that concerns me most about Bill is the proposed timeline. I hear you talking about going to clause-by-clause and that causes me a great deal of concern, because I think issues such as Bill and its implications should be very transparent, and input should be sought. I can't understand why you as a committee would not want to take your time to make sure you get it right, because we don't want to have Mr. Girard's experience repeated.
In terms of the bill itself, I just want to give you one example of a case I dealt with when I was parliamentary secretary. It was the case of a young woman from the former state of Yugoslavia who felt that her refugee claim was turned down because the board member of the IRB did not believe there was collusion among the government, the media, and the police in the former state of Yugoslavia.
She was set for deportation and was going to be sent out of the country—this was back in 2000—on a Monday afternoon. She was going to arrive in Belgrade at 10 the next morning and NATO was scheduled to start bombing at noon. How ridiculous a situation can you have? Certainly, incompetence of board members existed at the time, and changes have been made to ensure greater competence.
Another issue I'm very cognizant of is the fact that we fought to get the board appointment process right. Back in 2006, we had a backlog of 20,000 claimants, and now the backlog is over 60,000 claimants. What happened was that the vacancies on the board were not filled up in a timely fashion, which resulted in growth in the backlog. In a lot of ways, we had solved much of the problem by getting the backlog down to 20,000, and it was going to go down further.
Also, the changes to the system mandated that we have a refugee appeal division, and that was not put in place. But it was on the verge of being put in place once the backlog got down to 20,000.
My recommendation to those of you on the committee--and I make this as an individual and I make it in a very non-partisan fashion--is to take the time to get this right. Make sure that the stakeholders and Canadians have a genuine opportunity to have input into this legislation, because I think it's legislation that Canada, in its past history, can be very proud of.
We want to make sure of that going forward. The fine aims of the legislation, such as speeding up the system, are laudable, because the quicker we can bring certainty to an individual, the better off we all are, including the individual.
:
There are a number of reasons why it may be difficult to describe these experiences of abuse. You were asking how much time it could take, and it's very random.
Yesterday I had a meeting with representatives of the Mouvement contre le viol et l'inceste, and they said that, taking into account all the meeting time frames, it took at least three interviews, and that's in the case of a woman who meets another woman in an organization specialized in specific sexual violence cases. So if you consider the matter in a broader context regarding other issues, as I do, and I work in community health, it can take more than a month, even six months.
Sometimes the person won't reveal the situation because she has suffered incest at the hands of her father or because these people are very close or perhaps because they are linked to a political class in their country. Consequently, talking about sexual violence will also hurt the people who have stayed behind in their country.
It must be understood that this isn't about giving false testimony. It's about understanding that rape is unacceptable here, that it's criminal, that you can talk about it and that there are rights. It can take a little time for people to simply get that information into their cultural frame of reference, to think that it's possible that there might be justice in these matters. Then they can assert themselves and say they need this safety because, if they go back to their country, they will lose too much, it will be terrible and they will die. There are a lot of decisions to make, deadlines that must be met and ethical issues that must be considered.
So it's not about lying and circumventing the system, but rather about establishing your own cultural frame of reference and also fitting it to theirs.
Often, when a woman does not speak to us or look us in the eye, one may believe she is trying to conceal facts. However, it may be an offence for a woman to look a man directly in the eye, all the more so if it's to tell him what has happened to her. You have to be very sensitive to the various situations that people experience.
You're right. Some people who would like to slip through the system will take advantage of the situation, whereas others who are traumatized will be left out.
:
I'm not sure that's a point of order.
However, I was just repeating what the immigration critic of the Liberal Party of Canada said last Tuesday, only two days ago, that he had no difficulty with designating safe countries. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what I heard. I've heard it several times since this bill came out.
I know that you're based in Quebec. Have you had conversations with some of the members of Parliament other than Mr. Mulcair or those from the Bloc? Have you had conversations with other MPs that give you comfort that perhaps some of them might change their minds?
Because, you know, next Monday will be the last session for hearings. Then, by Tuesday afternoon, we will be going to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, which is being rushed through. Then, before midnight on Thursday, June 3, this bill will finish at this committee and go to the House of Commons the week after, probably landing in the House by Monday or Tuesday, where there will be final debates and approval or non-approval.
So it is being pushed through. There are many clauses in here and you will notice that because of the rush we have not even had time to put together some amendments, but that seems to be what has been put together, unfortunately. Have you had many conversations with other members of Parliament?