CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 26, 1998

• 1106

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I'd like to call the meeting to order pursuant to Standing Orders 110(1) and 111, an examination of order in council appointment P.C. 1998-36.

Thank you very much for appearing before this committee, Anna Terrana. There has been a request to have you appear, and according to the rules and regulations and orders of council in the past, the deliberations this morning for the next half hour will pertain to your qualifications to hold the post within the convention determination division, pertaining to your qualifications, your experience, your knowledge and your background, and those are the parameters in which the directives or questions will be addressed to you. All right?

The opposition will present the first questions. I'm sorry. Just a moment, please.

What was the question, Ms. Augustine?

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Were we going to give her a chance to say anything before getting into the questions?

The Chairman: I don't know. I haven't received any requests from Anna Terrana for an opening statement, so we will just go ahead.

Ms. Anna Terrana (Member, Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Determination Division): Mr. Dromisky, I sent you some information.

The Chairman: Yes. We do have your curriculum vitae here with other documents that are accompanying it. Thank you very much for all that information.

Ms. Anna Terrana: So I am here to answer questions.

The Chairman: Yes. Thank you.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Terrana, for coming here today.

I'd just to preface my first question with a little bit of information about the Auditor General's report, where he states:

Board members must make complex decisions that could have a major impact on the life, liberty or security of the claimant and on the integrity of the system—an impact that makes their role akin to that of a court judge. There must never be any doubt about their competence or their independence. It is therefore essential that the selection of Board members be based on merit and that the selection process be transparent.

We noted that in a debate you engaged in in the House on Bill C-44 in September 1994, your comments seemed to line up with the A-G's statement. If you were to be in a position to appointment someone to the IRB, what three specific qualifications would you say would be essential?

Ms. Anna Terrana: I believe that competency is extremely important, and sensitivity is another important quality. Some people may think that maybe a different background is important, and I admit it is important, but there is a lot of necessity for the understanding of what cultural sensitivities are about and what a person who is going through in a growing experience of immigrating or coming here as a refugee. Again, sensitivity is extremely important.

• 1110

The other qualities that I think are extremely important are good judgment and understanding of people.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you. I noted that when you were appointed, at the same time there was another member to the IRB appointed, a Mr. Donald Galloway, who is a professor of law, an author and a recipient of a national fellowship in human rights research. We see from your information here that you were the executive director of the Italian Cultural Centre Society in the Vancouver area, a past administrator of the B.C. Police Commission, and a former MP, and we note your extensive community and Italian cultural experience in other areas. How are you qualified to interpret statute and case law pertaining to international human rights legislation?

Ms. Anna Terrana: I think I have a very good knowledge of the world. I came as an immigrant. I travelled quite a bit. I also have a degree in languages, so I have also done that part. I have a knowledge of the history of various countries.

I am also very interested in the area of human rights. I was involved with multiculturalism and whatever has to do with multiculturalism and immigration for twenty years before I got into politics, and that is one of the reasons why I was elected.

My involvement with the Italian community was one of the involvements in communities. I used to have a newspaper in the 1970s in Italian and English and sometimes French. I'm not a journalist, but there was a need for a second newspaper, and I surely dealt a lot with the issues you are talking about in the newspaper. Not only that, but my first job was in immigration when I came to Canada. I was one of the people who was invited to come to Ottawa when the Immigration Act was discussed in 1978. I was also one of the people to whom they came when the particular statute came about that was establishing an IRB. So I've been extremely involved with all of these issues, and surely human rights is one of my main concerns.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks. How are you qualified to act, given specifically now looking at statute, case law and acting in a judicial capacity as would a judge? That's what the Auditor General's report recommends IRB appointment people have, that ability to deal with complex analytical and legal questions. How does your experience allow you to do that, to look at law, to balance what somebody says against the statutes that are already in place, and basically the legal perspective that's needed for this position?

Ms. Anna Terrana: I think as an MP you do get a lot of that experience. In fact I used to sit on this committee, among other committees, and I was also here when we voted on the amendments to the Immigration Act.

I also have to say that I have sat for six years on the National Parole Board, and I was a community board member. I only saw lifers, and that gave me quite an insight into statutes and understanding of law. Plus, I was an administrator to the B.C. Police Commission for ten and a half year. I was one of the people who was instrumental in putting together in 1974 a police act for British Columbia. Also, later on, we had another act that I was involved with, the security guards act.

I have been involved a lot in even writing laws.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks.

The Chairman: On this side, is there someone who would like to direct a question to Ms. Terrana? Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: First of all, I want to say how pleased I am to see a colleague back with us in front of a committee on which she sat and made quite significant contribution, and also to say that I am not someone with a background in law, but at the same time, I know on a daily basis all of us as MPs deal with judicial matters, with statutes, with rules, with policy direction, and I think the four years or so that you spent here, apart from the wealth of experience you had before you came to Parliament, is a good ground and a good preparation field for that semi-judicial or quasi-judicial board.

• 1115

In terms of the communities that you see coming before you, the people from various countries you see coming before you, what are some of the issues you deal with that you think are important for us to know?

Ms. Anna Terrana: I'm not sure what you mean by the issues that we see in front of us. Persons who appear in front of us are persons who have run away from some terrible situation in their country. As the people person that I am, I see the difficulty, the misery in some of these cases. At the same time, I also have to be able to judge whether or not those persons fall within the convention criteria, because that is our mandate, that is our role. If they don't, then we cannot deal with their issue.

With only two months on this, I'm very new, but from from what I've seen of the process, I think the process is a very good one. I think the people are very.... It's a very heavy task. It's very demanding. It means many hours of work and it means that you have to live with your conscience as well as with statutes.

So I don't think there are very many issues that I can see that would come up, because this is what we see every day, this is what we are dealing with every day, and I think Canada has been very fair in this process.

The Chairman: Ms. Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Terrana, thank you for appearing before the committee. I have two questions.

First, you mentioned that cultural sensitivity is very important in this. From having sat on the committee with you in the previous Parliament, I know you were always very quick to speak up on behalf of refugee claimants and refugees in this country when we were dealing with issues. I would like to ask you a question as to whether or not you feel you would be able to look at issues when things are not always what they seem to be or what a person indicates them to be. When there's a conflict or a disagreement between the issue of the refugee applicant and the best interests of Canada, I just wonder whether you, having been an advocate for refugees and immigrants in the past, would be able to make the tough decisions.

Ms. Anna Terrana: I've also been an advocate for Canada, so I want to say that I'm a very fair person. All my life, I've lived on my credibility and my reputation. I've spent my life judging people, unfortunately, because I've been the one running most of the offices that I've been in, so I think I have good judgment. I very rarely made a mistake when I hired a person.

When it comes to this job in particular, you apply, of course, because there are also rules to this system. At the same time, though, again we fall within certain criteria, those being the Geneva Convention, and unless we can apply the five requirements or grounds of the convention, we really cannot accept the person. At the same time, it all depends on who the person is, and I think I'm very good at detecting whether a person can be a good citizen or is a good citizen or has anything in his past. Of course, there are times when you don't have all of the information and when you have to have the assistance of the ministry—or of the police for that matter, if that's what you mean.

Ms. Val Meredith: I guess my concern was more whether or not you could make the tough decisions and say no to refugee claimants because you do not believe what they're telling you or you have factual information that they are fraudulently giving you information, whether or not you could say no to such people and send them back to a situation that may or may not be pleasant.

Ms. Anna Terrana: Absolutely. I've already done that. I'm sitting as a second member, but it's already happened.

Ms. Val Meredith: For my second question, I'm going to page 8 of your CV here. You name a whole bunch of government appointments, and there are quite a number of them to which you've been appointed. I assume those appointments have come from various levels of government. I'm wondering if you applied for this position yourself or whether this position was offered to you because you were a failed member of the candidates in the Liberal Party in the last election.

• 1120

Ms. Anna Terrana: No, I don't mind. I sent in an application on June 17 when I came here to close the office. I was looking at options. I knew there were vacancies in this area, so I put in my letter and they asked why I would qualify for this job. There are four areas in which I felt I could apply for this job. And then I gave my references, none of whom was a political person. And then I got a letter back from them on June 30 saying that they had received my application and they would consider it.

In probably August I was interviewed by Margaret Ford, who was the person who conducted the interviews in Vancouver. She asked me the questions she had to ask. I later heard through the grapevine that I was recommended by the committee, and that's all I know. I was in Italy when I heard I had been appointed.

Ms. Val Meredith: So to your knowledge you were not given special treatment and you did not know that there are people who applied before you did who were considered and not given the job because the job went to you instead?

Ms. Anna Terrana: I think my curriculum vitae speaks for itself. Again, I didn't put any pressure on, I just went through the process. And that's why I sent you all of this information. I apologize for having sent so much. It's only some of it, by the way.

Ms. Val Meredith: I appreciate it. I'm just asking you if you feel very comfortable that you got this job, this appointment, because you are more qualified than others who would have applied as well?

Ms. Anna Terrana: I am very well qualified. I'm sure that there are others who are also very well qualified. I don't know who is on the list of those who have been considered.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two things. First of all, I want to thank you for showing up and actually facing the challenge of establishing your credibility within a couple of hours and explaining how a lifetime has prepared you for this. I think it's an interesting challenge you have here.

I think Mrs. Augustine just referred to the fact that we are elected members of Parliament because people feel we can do the job. I don't know of any university training to become a member of Parliament. The population judges us on the judgments we have and the beliefs we have, and this is the very first criterion.

Second, in my mind, at the time when our society is valuing more and more on-the-job training in terms of acquiring the true knowledge of the job, I think your appointment should be commended.

The third point, and to me it's quite important.... I understand Ms. Meredith's line of questioning. In substance, I think it's a fair line of questioning. But I think she gave herself the answer to her own questions when she recognized the job that my former colleague was doing on this committee. So if she was doing a good job around this table, most probably I think Ms. Meredith already had her answer.

I have one question I would like to ask. When you decided to apply for this kind of job, what was your...? Surely when you apply for a new career you apply for something with emotion. What was the driving force behind your decision to apply for this kind of position?

Ms. Anna Terrana: I'm a people person. I have seen them come before me in many ways. As a member of Parliament, I had a person who only looked after immigrants. It's a very big issue in the area where I am. And even in my capacity as a member of Parliament I was able to tell people, look, why are you here? It's not just because they were constituents, but they were getting what they wanted.

This is the last piece of the puzzle. I have been in all facets of immigration, and that's the reason I applied.

• 1125

Also, when I was on the National Parole Board, in spite of the fact that in the beginning I didn't want the job, I just felt that I wasn't made for prisons. If someone went to prison, he had to stay in prison—it was only men; that's why I said “he”.

Still, it was a great experience. I learned fast that when you have a statute, a mandate, and you have a system, you have to respect the system and you have to make it work. That's why I felt I could compromise with this. At the beginning, I didn't really know if I wanted the job, but I'm enjoying it thoroughly, and it was one of the jobs I applied for. But it's mainly my intestest in people and the humanity of it all.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. Just one final quick question, if I may.

I would like to clarify something. When you had some questions concerning your ability to decide, because you are a people-oriented person, when to reject or when to refuse refugee status to an applicant, you answered that you have already done it. I understood, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you said at the same time you are a Canadian. Should I understand by that that to preserve all those who deserve to be refugees, you are prepared to take action to reject those you don't think should be refugees, whatever the human cost of it?

Ms. Anna Terrana: Absolutely. I also do not like people who lie. I do not like people who try to.... You see it very clearly when you are in a hearing room. You see the consistency of a person. Credibility is the most important part of our hearing process, and you can see if the person is consistent or not, with the questionnaire with the information they give us. They give us a whole questionnaire and then they also give us a narrative, where they tell us where they come from, who they were, etc., etc. Yes, I can definitely reject those who are not genuine refugees.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Any further questioning? Yes, Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I'm pleased to meet you, Ms. Terrana. As a new member of Parliament elected last June, I did not have the pleasure of meeting you before.

I think it is important to emphasize that members of Parliament acquire a wealth of experience, a lot of which can be put to good use. You are familiar with the policy set out in Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration. Given your new role in the Convention Refugee Determination Division, the experience you've acquired in that position since January and your past and present experience, what would you recommend we do to improve the situation of refugees here in Canada?

[English]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Just a point of order, please?

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Ms. Girard-Bujold referred to a policy. It is not a policy, but rather a report, which was followed by a press release.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That is true, it is a report. I apologize for my mistake, Mr. Saada.

Ms. Anna Terrana: I don't think I have enough experience to answer your question. At the moment, I am still learning and familiarizing myself with the situation. I am learning to manage. However, I think the changes made to the system will result in greater productivity.

The current problem we are facing is that we have to interpret natural justice and apply it. That is why our hearings are sometimes very long, and these long delays are one of the problems of the system. In addition, of course, there's a shortage of resources.

As I was saying, I am new on the Board, and I would like to have more experience before making any comments.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: How long is your term?

Ms. Anna Terrana: I was appointed on January 19, 1997 and my term is for three years.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Although you are new to your position, you have been working with the people there for a long time. What have you found in working with them for the last three months? What important points do they think we should improve? What view would they like to pass on to the government? What have you found in talking with them?

• 1130

Ms. Anna Terrana: As you know, many more people are coming to Vancouver now than formerly. I think I recall hearing that 210 people arrive in Vancouver every month. We have to provide hearings for many individuals, even though our staff resources are inadequate. We also have to adapt to change. That is what I intend to talk about. However, I would like to emphasize again that in the past three months, I have had to familiarize myself with the work and prepare for it. I have only been present in the hearing room for the last three weeks.

The next time I see you, I will be able to tell you more.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Very good. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Are there any further questions? Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Some quick questions, please, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Terrana, you mentioned the Parole Board and your service there, saying that you didn't really want it but you ended up doing it. I'm wondering how that came about. I'm wondering if you sought out this position or if somebody asked you to consider applying for it.

Ms. Anna Terrana: I was administering the B.C. Police Commission at the time and I had a good reputation among the police, so I was asked to apply for a position. It's not full-time, by the way; it's a position as a community board member and you see only lifers. They needed someone who spoke French and they had nobody in Vancouver. They only had one person, whose term was coming up, so that was one of the reasons why they asked me to apply. I eventually discussed it with my chair at the B.C. Police Commission, who was a provincial court judge. I said that I didn't know if I could do the job, and he said, “Anna, you can. Don't worry.” That's how it happened. Again, I was not a full-time member. I was still administering the B.C. Police Commission and I was going about four or five times a year.

Mr. Grant McNally: So then were you also asked to apply for the IRB?

Ms. Anna Terrana: Yes. I was also asked to request that.

Mr. Grant McNally: There is one other question I have for you. You mentioned that you rarely make a mistake. And I guess this job is one that is a great responsibility, as you mentioned, and in fact, the A-G points that out when he says that the impact of the decisions you make is akin to that of a court judge's decisions and that when we're dealing with people's lives and the safety of Canada and balancing that.... I guess I'm just a little concerned about your statement of rarely making a mistake in this particular context, if you think of judges making mistakes.

Ms. Anna Terrana: No. What I mean is that I rarely make a mistake in judgment. But again, you are right. I made mistakes on the National Parole Board. I was not alone. This is the thing. If there are two people, there is a much better way of making a decision because you have the balance and the counterbalance. But with time.... I was probably a bit quick in saying that I never make a mistake. I've made my mistakes, thank God, but the thing that makes me feel comfortable is the fact that I have good judgment and that I am fair. That is what I think makes me feel comfortable on this commission, this board.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Grose, do you have a question?

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Do you mind if I walk you through a hypothetical case rather than...? You know that I don't like fencing with words. I like to know what a person's mindset is—if you don't mind. Someone is brought to this country from Portugal when he is three years old, never became a Canadian citizen, has an extensive criminal record for robbery with violence and assault and this kind of thing, and is under a deportation order. What do we do?

The Chairman: Just a minute. This is a hypothetical situation—

Mr. Ivan Grose: Oh, yes. This is.

The Chairman: —and it really doesn't directly relate to the standing orders that you're abiding by at the present time, so you don't have to answer that question if you don't wish, Ms. Terrana, because it's just a hypothetical question.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I would have no problem if Ms. Terrana did not answer.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if I may, the hypothetical case that my colleague is posing, while it's not so much that I.... The problem is it doesn't fall within the jurisdiction of our witness. That is the immigration appeal—

Mr. Ivan Grose: I realize that.

• 1135

Ms. Maria Minna: It is not fair to ask her a political question that she is not responsible for adjudicating. That falls within the immigration appeal and not the refugee board appeal. Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfair.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Fair enough, I withdraw the question.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I am thinking about what you said. You were saying that when you noticed that a position was vacant you expressed your intention to apply for it. When you express your intention to apply for a position, you must have some idea about the position for which you are applying. You were saying earlier that you could not answer my question because you had not been in your position long enough.

When you sent in your curriculum vitae and expressed an interest, you must have had some idea about the things that you could change. You had been a member of Parliament and were aware that there were problems, including a shortage of staff, and yet you wanted to be part of the process. You already had some idea of what was going on. What did you want to change when you expressed an interest in the position?

Ms. Anna Terrana: I did not apply for the position with the idea of changing things. I think changes are made as a result of concerted efforts by people working together. I am just one member of the team. I am a team worker. I never thought about changing anything. When you are part of the system, you see what needs changing and you work with your colleagues to make these changes. When I sent in my application, I was certainly not thinking about changing things.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: At our meeting, yesterday, we heard from federal public servants working in other parts of Canada who said that changes should be made in the refugee system. Everyone says the same thing.

[English]

The Chairman: Just a moment please. We realize there have to be changes, there is no doubt about it. Ms. Terrana has been in this position for one month, with a very specific role. To make references to the entire immigration and citizenship department is out of order. She is not in a position to respond to a question of that nature.

I would like to terminate this interview at this time because of the time allocation.

I would like to thank you very much for coming. We have great faith in the kind of work you have in a sense committed yourself to. We are very impressed with your qualifications, and knowing you personally and knowing about you from people in Vancouver I feel that whoever made the decision made a very wise decision. The true nature of Ms. Anna Terrana truly came out in this discussion this morning. I am very pleased that you are working for the Canadian people. Thank you very much for appearing. And thank you very much, Keith.

Ms. Anna Terrana: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, everybody. It was a pleasure to see all of you again and meet you. I wish you all the best. If there are changes to be done it is up to you, ladies and gentlemen. I have done my bit. Good luck to you, and thank you for having me here.

The Chairman: Good luck to you too. Thank you.

We will suspend for five minutes.

• 1139

• 1142

The Chairman: I call this meeting to order pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of recommendation 155 of the report of the Legislative Review Advisory Group, entitled “Not just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration”, particularly issues relating to removal and detention.

We're very fortunate to have people here who are representing the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group. Where are you located?

Mr. Alex Neve (Member, Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group): We are from Toronto—

Ms. Jean Augustine: Etobicoke—Lakeshore!

Mr. Alex Neve: The working group itself is an Ontario-wide coalition.

The Chairman: Are all four of you here as witnesses from the same group?

Mr. Alex Neve: No. Mr. Virani and I are from the working group.

The Chairman: So it's Alex Neve and Arif...?

Mr. Arif Virani (Member, the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group): Arif Virani.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing. What is the format for your presentation?

Mr. Alex Neve: We've been told that we have about five minutes to make an opening statement. I believe our colleagues from Vancouver also have an opening statement to make. And then, we were told, we would have a general discussion.

The Chairman: Okay. And from the Canadian Bar Association, the British Columbia branch, the immigration section, we have with us Badiako Buahene and Brenda Muliner.

Mr. Badiako Buahene (Secretary, Refugee Committee, Immigration Section, British Columbia Branch, Canadian Bar Association): Yes.

Ms. Brenda Muliner (Coordinator, Immigration Duty Counsel, Immigration Section, British Columbia Branch, Canadian Bar Association): Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing.

We will hear the presentation from Alex first and then we'll go to your presentation, Ms. Muliner and Mr. Buahene. Then we will have an open forum. In an open forum, some individual, a member of the committee, introduces a concept or concern related to anything that any one of you four has stated, and the others in the committee can jump onto that bandwagon, deal with that concern until it's exhausted and go on to some other concern. So if you feel that you have anything to contribute regarding any of the questions that are being raised, don't hesitate to contribute. Do you understand? In other words, there's no sequential order. Deal with the issue. Strike while the iron is hot.

Let's go ahead, Alex.

Mr. Alex Neve: Thank you very much, and good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

As I indicated, we are here on behalf of the Inter-clinic Immigration Working Group, which is a network of lawyers and community legal workers in the Ontario community legal clinic system who have an interest in immigration and refugee issues.

As some of you may know, there are a number of legal aid clinics in the province of Ontario—71—which are funded through the Ontario legal aid plan, and at the present time 28 of those clinics are members of the immigration working group, which means that in the course of their work they find that a significant amount of concern arises around immigration issues. We've found it useful to join together for networking and common advocacy.

• 1145

We serve immigration and refugee clients in a variety of ways, including a great deal of individual casework and summary advice, but also a considerable amount of public education, law reform work and public advocacy.

We certainly welcome the opportunity to meet with you this morning to discuss concerns and experiences and reflections we have about the immigration detention and removals processes. Those are two aspects of the immigration and refugee area around which legal clinics in Ontario have long been very active, primarily because of the fact that legal representation from other traditional sources is very difficult for those two areas.

People who find themselves in situations of detention or possible removal often lack financial resources to hire a private lawyer, obviously. The other side of the Ontario legal aid system, through which private lawyers are funded to do work at legal aid rates for individuals, does not cover either detention or removals issues. It is for that reason that a large number of people in those situations end up on our doorsteps. We have over the years I think developed a considerable wealth of experience and expertise in those areas.

There is obviously a whole host of issues that we could share with you this morning, and I am sure once the discussion gets rolling we will, given that our opening comments are meant to be brief. We just wanted to focus on two or three aspects, dealing firstly with detention.

I just wanted to remind the members of the committee—I think it's something we have to remind ourselves as lawyers, and something we have to remind the Canadian public about—that detention, even in an immigration context, is a very serious matter. We find that often there is a tendency to somehow view detention in an immigration context as something less serious or of lesser concern than other forms of detention, obviously most notably criminal detention.

I think it's really important, whenever we're having discussions about detention in the immigration context, that we bring ourselves back to realizing and affirming and understanding that there's a very fundamental human right at stake, and that's the basic right of liberty.

Now my colleague Mr. Virani will share some concerns we have around the frequently arbitrary and inconsistent nature of decision-making in the detention context.

Mr. Arif Virani: Thank you very much.

Just before beginning, as Alex mentioned, we are here representing an umbrella group. The specific clinic I am representing is called the African Canadian Legal Clinic, which is based in Toronto. Part of its mandate is to deal with race issues and racial discrimination, specifically with respect to the black community.

[Translation]

Unfortunately, we do not have the French version of this text for the time being, but committee members may have a look at this brochure, which is in French.

[English]

By way of detention, just to make it absolutely clear, the people who are detained at various detention centres around the country are detained in a circumstance that's known as basically “immigration hold”. The government is awaiting to deport them, to remove them from the country, and they are awaiting travel documentation or other necessary administrative measures.

We would like to highlight three aspects of the detention—the arbitrariness, the lack of consistency, and the racial discrimination that we feel plays a factor in terms of this detention.

On the bottom of page 2 of the document we have provided you with, we discuss the provisions at present that allow a person to be detained. A detention occurs when the immigration officials believe that a person either will not appear at their appointed time for the immigration proceeding, or poses a danger to the public.

Our position is not necessarily with these criteria, but with the way they are administered. One of the difficulties we have—this is on page 3—is that in the decisions to detain and the decisions to release, very rarely are reasons or explanations given by the senior immigration officers or by the government in terms of why this is happening.

• 1150

What ends up happening is a detention that's supposed to be based on the international law norms or the norms in the system itself—a minimal detention for a short period of time—extends to an extended period of time. The statistics are quite telling, and these are statistics we received from the government department itself. What we are seeing is that the average amount of detention per detainee, before they're either released on bail or before they're actually expedited to the country of their deportation, is eight months of time. We find that unacceptable. That amount of time is not justifiable. Forty-five percent of the detainees are detained at least six months, and the average time of detention is eight months. This is for a population of 184 detainees.

The second thing the statistics tell us is not only that these people are being detained for an extended amount of time, but who is being detained. Here is where our role as the African Canadian Legal Clinic, as part of this umbrella organizations of clinics, comes into play, because the information we received from Citizenship and Immigration tells us, for example, that the number of persons who are of African-Canadian descent and are now in detention is 49% of that population of 184 people. The number of simply Jamaicans who are being detained is 39% of that population. The number of people who are not white, who are racial minorities, are 86% of that population. Clearly there is a race element, just based on the statistics of who is being detained here.

The Chairman: If I may I interject here for a moment, you have a collection of data there from the immigration department. You are talking about statistics. Could you see that we get copies of that as quickly as possible?

Mr. Arif Virani: Certainly.

The Chairman: I would like the exact figures you have, to be shared with members of the committee. Thank you.

Mr. Arif Virani: What these statistics are pointing our clinic towards and what we are hoping to bring to the attention of this committee is that based on the fact that detentions and removals are done in this arbitrary nature, where reasons are not given, one is led to believe, judging by the statistics, that race is a factor in terms of who is making the decisions and what kinds of decisions they are making.

The other highlight we would like to make is the actual conditions of the detention. Not only are people being detained for eight months on average, but at the same time, the conditions are quite deplorable. This came to a climax last August when there was an actual hunger strike by many of the detainees at the Metro Toronto West Detention Centre. That hunger strike was fueled by the lack of hygienic conditions and the lack of adequate medical treatment, the inability to contact your own legal counsel, the inability to make significant contact with family members that really put the psychological and physical state of these detainees in peril. That is something we would like to see rectified as well.

There are guidelines on detention that are being proposed by the ministry. But we would emphasize, and hopefully this committee will take note, that those guidelines on detention are issued towards the Immigration and Refugee Board. Those are not guidelines that are aimed specifically at senior immigration officers, who are repeatedly making these decisions to detain people and for months at a time. They come up for a 30-day review, and it's usually just a rubber-stamp procedure whereby they're continued in detention.

The Chairman: Could you clarify a little bit of that process you are talking about? Who sends what to whom, and who is being...?

Mr. Alex Neve: The guidelines to which he is referring, of which the committee may have already received copies, are the recent guidelines that the Immigration and Refugee Board has issued for the adjudication division. Those guidelines are meant to be applied by adjudicators in detention reviews, and I think all groups involved in working with detainees welcome those guidelines.

In some ways we might like to see the guidelines go further, but beyond that, I think what Mr. Virani is saying is there is a need for guidelines that apply to senior immigration officers themselves, who of course are the ones who make the initial decision to take someone into detention. It may well be two, three, or four days later before the person comes in front of an adjudicator, at which point these guidelines would come into play. But we think there is a need for the same kind of guidelines that begin to take us towards consistency and transparency around the initial decision to detain, as well.

The Chairman: So what you are really telling us—and I may be getting the wrong message—is that those guidelines are applicable only to a certain group and not to another group that is supervising a subordinate group?

Mr. Alex Neve: The guidelines only apply to adjudicators, who are the ones who carry out detention reviews. The initial decision to detain someone is made by a senior immigration officer. There needs to be guidelines that ensure that initial decision is similarly being made in a consistent and fair manner.

The Chairman: Okay, I have that straight now. Thank you.

• 1155

Mr. Arif Virani: The point would be that in the context of that hunger strike I mentioned, a working group was struck, which we're very appreciative of. The department, specifically the Ontario enforcement branch, agreed to strike up a working group that would review the detainees' files, do case-by-case reviews, look at the most grievous situations and hopefully get these people out of detention. We're seeing that as a positive step, a step in the right direction.

However, in light of the “Not Just Numbers” report, we see discussion about things such as provisional status and what would constitute provisional status for an individual in having people under provisional status potentially being subjected to detention. We'd just like to flag for this committee to take note that if the provisional status provisions mean more detention as opposed to less in the future, that simply would be a regress from the progress that was made starting from last August. We'd like to flag this as an issue that working towards less detention for a number of reasons, for the benefit of the government and its resources and for the benefit of the individuals, is in the best interest of all parties involved.

I think Alex is going to speak to you a little bit about the removals themselves—once you've been detained what happens at that point.

Mr. Alex Neve: I wanted to, again on the detention front, raise the concern about legal representation, and I'm speaking of course from an Ontario context. I think you'll hear of some different reality perhaps from British Columbia.

There's grave concern within Ontario about the fact that individuals in immigration detention—again coming back to my earlier remarks that what we're talking about is a serious human rights issue—are often unable to access any kind of legal advice and representation. There are real problems within the Ontario legal aid system around that. It's something that desperately needs to be addressed. Obviously it's a provincial matter, but I think it's something about which in the process of your deliberations and considerations about the detention context you need to very much be aware, that there are a large number of people in a serious human rights situation who aren't getting access to legal advice and representation.

It's very clear that when it does happen, when people do have legal counsel, it makes a big difference. People are better able to understand their plight and the law, are better able to present their case, know what kinds of evidence they need to bring forward and things happen differently.

There's also a really strong sense that there's a different level of comportment and accountability on the part of both adjudicators and immigration officials when there is outside counsel in a hearing room. People are simply treated differently when there's that kind of outside involvement. So it's a serious gap and it very much needs to be addressed.

I'm conscious of the fact that we're going on with time. We wanted to just touch briefly on a couple of removals issues, which of course is a vast area, and we'll have a chance to explore some of the other areas perhaps in discussion.

One thing we wanted to share with you from our experience again is the frequency with which we're finding that serious human rights situations are being overlooked or not given the kind of attention they require in the removals process.

In many instances what we're talking about are family-based rights, removals decisions being made that separate families. And we're talking about the core nuclear family: separating dependent spouses from each other, possibly one or both parents from dependent children, and also broader family situations that may not have the direct nuclear relationship but may have strong situations of dependency. I think what has been a growing concern for us within the clinic system is that we're finding it increasingly difficult to have officials look at those issues for a variety of reasons, as the committee's probably well aware, in the case of permanent residents who are facing removal and who have perhaps been certified to be a public danger. They no longer have access to the appeal possibility at the immigration appeal division, at which point they were able to make these kinds of family-based arguments.

But even more broadly for people who may not be a public danger, the only opportunity they really have to bring these concerns forward and avoid removal is to make a humanitarian application. And you'll see that for some of the reasons we've addressed here and which we can perhaps get into in discussion, the humanitarian process has really in a lot of ways broken down and is from our perspective unreliable and can't be counted on to protect those kinds of rights and others in the removal process.

• 1200

Lastly, we want to end with a real life story to bring a human face into our presentation.

Mr. Arif Virani: This case, briefly, involves a gentleman whose name is Roberto San Vincente, who, by most accounts, was a significant contributor to Canadian society. He was a graduate of McGill University, had never been on welfare benefits, and was making his way in the world. He was convicted of a criminal charge, the sentence for which he completely served.

After having served that sentence, he was detained by immigration authorities, without any reasons being given to him, for the purpose of having him deported. Mr. San Vincente, considering his arguments against even the fact that he was being considered for deportation, that point aside, was actually detained for a period of 25 months in Toronto—again, after having fully served his criminal sentence. So we're looking at an issue of sort of double punishment for one crime, so to speak.

That was even despite—and again this is where we really get into having some problems with these danger-to-the-public ideas—the judge who actually convicted him of the criminal charge submitting a letter to immigration authorities as a reference. He also had a reference from the director of the halfway home where he was being reintegrated into society, urging immigration officials not to deport him.

No only were those letters of references disregarded, but the immigration authorities proceeded to deport him to Venezuela, even flouting—and this was really somewhat unprecedented—a directive from a body called the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. What this body did—this is an external body and a body to which Canada is a party—is ask the immigration authorities, specifically the minister, to stay the deportation until they could undertake a full investigation. That was completely disregarded. And that's only the second time on record that Canada, this government, has ever flouted completely a directive from an external international body. Owing to our recognition and our belief in international human rights, international human rights norms and documents and treaties, we've generally had a lot of respect for such bodies.

The second legal issue was that an appeal was actually pending for Mr. San Vincente to the Federal Court, dealing with his refugee claim. He'd had a refugee claim that was turned down. He had an appeal pending to the Federal Court, and even in light of that pending appeal, he was deported.

The last issue that made this case quite distasteful, in our opinion, was the method by which his deportation was carried out. This gets to real procedural issues that deal with these bureaucrats who are carrying out the actual deportation procedure.

In terms of providing his family, either in Toronto or in Venezuela, with details about his flight so that he might either be seen off in Toronto or be received by someone in Venezuela, all of that was kept secret. They were alerted to the fact of his deportation 24 hours before the fact, no longer. They were refused any contact with him, no goodbyes. It got to the point where his wife was asked to bring his belongings so that he could take them to Venezuela. She wasn't even allowed to give them to him personally. She had to give them to an immigration officer, who then proceeded to give them to the individual. This, in our opinion, smacks of intolerance and inhumane treatment.

The delays in information are something that's really problematic. From our perspective, we are presuming that the repeated delays in disclosing the fact that an individual will be deported until 24 hours before the fact is really a veiled effort to stymie any potential legal proceedings or any legal challenges being brought in an attempt to stay the deportation.

So that's the case of Roberto San Vincente, and we think that really highlights what happens to certain individuals who are detained for extended amounts of time and then deported in really deplorable conditions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll hear now from Brenda. Who is going to speak?

Ms. Brenda Muliner: I'm co-presenting with Mr. Buahene.

Mr. Badiako Buahene: I will go first, as I'm speaking on a more general level about chapter 8.

The Chairman: All right, go right ahead.

Mr. Badiako Buahene: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee, for inviting us today. I'm representing the refugee committee of the Canadian Bar Association, immigration subsection of the B.C. branch.

I would like to make a few comments about chapter 8 specifically. It raises the issue as to what actually the fundamental concern is—and I suggest that it's never really addressed in the report. Is the concern that we're not detaining enough people or that we'd be detaining more people? Is the concern that we're not removing enough people? Is there a concern that we are internationally viewed as not having enough backbone to detain and/or remove people?

• 1205

Certainly the tenor of the report seems to emanate from the section that discusses a crisis of confidence, in other words a public perception that Immigration is not doing enough. I suggest that the recommendations that result from this perception don't actually address very much. In fact we would argue that it is inconceivable how the system suggested in chapter 8 for a more expeditious detention and removal would actually be more efficient than the one we have now.

Certainly, if it were implemented, it would lack fairness, it would lack equity, and it would criminalize every refugee claimant essentially from the very moment they came to Canada.

It would also be unprecedented in Canada that we would have the enforcement section of the citizenship department be the police. They would have the ability to issue the arrest warrants, the authority to detain the person, the authority to review the person's detention, and the authority to continue the detention of that person, all within the same department.

We would argue that that certainly violates the whole notion of, to put it colloquially, fair play, this inability of an independent decision-making body, such as the adjudication we have now, to review whether or not a decision made by a senior immigration officer is actually a reasonable decision for continued detention.

As I was saying, the recommendations to impose a provisional status and to impose detention on individuals who don't cooperate or individuals who fail, for example, to give their address—and I'm speaking specifically of the refugee claimants—tend to criminalize or certainly dehumanize the refugee claimant from the very moment they arrive in Canada. I'm not too sure if the people who wrote the report are familiar with any of the processes that actually occur at the port of entry and whether or not they have been in the field, so to speak, because when refugees come to the airport, many of them are traumatized.

Their immediate reaction is not to not cooperate. The uncooperative refugee claimant is a very rare breed in the first place. You will find they are very willing to help. They are making a refugee claim, they want Canada to hear their refugee claim, and they cooperate to that extent.

To impose mandatory terms and conditions that with the slightest infraction would result in detention violates an individual's rights here in Canada. As was said earlier, detention is a serious matter. I don't think we are recognizing that for a refugee claimant, who may have been in detention themselves abroad, and that was one of the reasons they fled in the first place, being in detention is a strong, traumatic experience.

You also have refugee claimants, certainly within the Vancouver environment, who are often put into detention situations with our Canadian criminals, yet they are not criminals themselves. In this scenario that is recommended, the failure to report an address could result in detention and could result essentially in an innocent individual having to be in a detention facility and system with our own hardened Canadian criminals.

Finally, I'd just like to point out that what the report does not seem to address in chapter 8 is that fundamentally we're dealing with human beings. We're dealing with refugee claimants who come into the country and are often traumatized to varying extents and degrees, and we're dealing with immigration officers, specifically the enforcement branch, who fundamentally have a very cynical, very contemptuous attitude towards refugee claimants.

• 1210

So the ability of enforcement officers to abuse the system, even inadvertently, is quite strong if you do not have a system set up, as we do now, with the adjudication division. This is one in which the adjudicator can independently verify and confirm that the detention was a proper and acceptable mode to hold the person.

If you allow the entire process to remain within the department, a department that is very negative towards refugee claimants from the very outset, and has a strong belief they should not be here and should be removed immediately, we will have a very strongly abusive process. Speaking from a Vancouver perspective, I think it is quite disrespectful in general.

My colleague now will be speaking specifically on the duty counsel program in Vancouver, which is unique in Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you. Go right ahead.

Ms. Brenda Muliner: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, for this opportunity to speak today to the standing committee.

The immigration duty counsel committee is a subsection of the CBA immigration committee in Vancouver. It was formed in November of 1995 by a group of lawyers, including myself, Mr. Douglas Cannon, and Ian Goldman, in response to what we saw as a specific need at the immigration detention centre in metro Vancouver.

At that time it was coming to our attention that detainees were having great difficulty accessing legal aid. It was also brought to our attention by adjudicators that they were becoming extremely frustrated with situations where persons were being detained weeks and weeks without being able to get legal representation.

Hence, a group of lawyers got together and drew up a roster. We have volunteer lawyers who go to the immigration detention centre on a daily basis and provide legal representation to unrepresented persons who need advice.

The program has been running for two and a half years, and is very successful. It has received very positive feedback from adjudicators, and I believe it is providing a valuable service in the immigration community.

A couple of problems have come to our attention over the course of time. One problem we have consistently encountered is the length of time detainees are in detention by the immigration department before they are even brought to the attention of the adjudication division. For roughly one-third of all detainees there is a time lag of over 48 hours before the adjudication division is even notified that this person is in detention. This is contrary to the provisions in the Immigration Act that specify that the person should be brought to the attention of the adjudication division within 48 hours, or forthwith, as soon as practical. So that is one problem we have identified.

The other problem we have identified is related to the fact that volunteer immigration duty counsel in Vancouver is there with the cooperation of the immigration department. The department has been cooperative, in the sense that they have allowed us to use their interpreters, and they have scheduled the hearing for that day anyway to assist us in interviews and detention. One difficulty we have encountered, though, is that duty counsel do not have face-to-face access with detainees. We rely upon immigration officers advising us that so-and-so detainee asked to see duty counsel.

Perhaps there has been a breakdown in the communication system between the detainees and the immigration officers. Some detainees have made later attempts to get the attention of duty counsel, and perhaps have misunderstood the explanations by immigration officers of what duty counsel is. By and large, though, in the context of duty counsel representing detainees at inquiries and detention hearings, I think the program runs very smoothly.

As my colleague pointed out, there is a problem with the detention centre in Vancouver in that there are questionable conditions under which detainees in Vancouver are held. I have been at that centre. It is not a place where I would like to spend any amount of time; I don't even like visiting there. Detainees are held with the criminal population.

There is a smaller centre called the Skyline Detention Centre. I understand that the department is closing that down and is in fact downsizing it.

We have real concerns about where women and children in detention will be held in the future. Will they be locked up with men in the Vancouver pre-trial centre? That would be most inappropriate.

• 1215

As has already been outlined, detention is a serious human rights issue. I would certainly agree with that. Just looking at chapter 8, I have serious concerns about the possibility of persons, for example, losing the so-called provisional status, and being subject to detention for a so-called lack of cooperation.

There is a lot of what I would say is vagueness surrounding this term in chapter 8. What does a person do that would have them deemed uncooperative by an immigration officer? For example, would the immigration officer deem asking to have counsel present for an interview as uncooperative? Potentially yes.

As I said, there's a lot of vagueness in chapter 8, and there certainly is room for massive discretion in terms of when an officer could lock someone up or not.

Now, I've been told by the Vancouver manager that it costs the taxpayer roughly $200 a day to have someone locked up. That's what they have to pay through a contract with the Vancouver detention centre. I have one question as a Canadian taxpayer: Would I rather be spending $200 a day to have a refugee claimant locked up? That is someone deemed uncooperative because they looked at an immigration officer in the wrong way. Would I rather have that person out working and paying taxes while they're waiting for their refugee claim to be processed? Well, I'd rather have that person out working and paying taxes than spending $200 a day of my taxes. I don't think that's been addressed, and I think it certainly should be.

The cost of detentions is massive. In some places in the U.S.A., they have set up immigration detention centres. I understand the Americans have spent massive amounts of money on maintaining massive detention centres. Again, I see no value in that, and I see an extreme waste in terms of taxpayers' resources and also in terms of human dignity and liberty.

The Chairman: Just a moment please. Oh, you were just signalling for.... I'm sorry, go right ahead. Try to keep it short because of the time factor, as we would like to get some discussion going.

Ms. Brenda Muliner: The only other comment I wanted to make, of course, was on the suggestion for the removal of the adjudication system, the adjudicators. I think this would be an extreme disservice to Canadians. It would be setting up a system where an immigration officer would effectively act as jail or jury, judge, prosecutor, all in one. I wonder how Canadians would tolerate that in the criminal context. For example, if a person who is charged with a criminal offence was being jailed, prosecuted and tried by the RCMP officer who made the arrest, I think Canadians would consider that a Star Chamber tactic.

I think that persons on Canadian soil deserve to be treated with dignity and humanity, as we would treat anyone else who is in this country.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. McNally, do you have a question you'd like to ask?

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your information. You presented us with a lot of things to consider. I agree with a lot of what you say in terms of timelines, shortening those timelines, people's lives being in limbo, and, as you mentioned, the eight months in which people are in detention.

Of course we now also have a system based on voluntary compliance, and the fact is that some refugees don't comply with the system and do slip through. You gave an example that you know. I have an example from the neighbouring community where an individual raped several women while going through this whole process.

I guess we're here on the committee to find a balance. What is the answer? What do we do to keep a balance of people's individual rights while at the same time protecting Canadian society in these instances?

The vast majority of refugees, of course, are going to comply; they're not going to be any problem. Again, it's often a few who cause problems for the many. Maybe the report is going to address this, is intended to do that, or whatever.

What would be the answer for the individuals who don't comply, or the individuals who, as you had mentioned, are in the field, and someone does disappear, evaporates? I think that's what the report is trying to get at. We as a committee need to address that, as well. What would you see as the best solution?

Ms. Brenda Muliner: Well, I don't think it's realistic to want every refugee claimant—or most refugee claimants—out because there are a few bad eggs in the barrel. Chapter 8.3 of the report says that perhaps disproportionate publicity given to a few cases is not in context with the reality.

• 1220

Mr. Grant McNally: The thing is, though, just one case is one too many. That person in the neighbouring community to where I'm living is a human life that's been destroyed—that person and that family, and that network of the family.

We're trying to get at the balance here. I've been suggesting that we allocate the resources closer to the front of the system and deal with people more quickly, whereby they're not in detention, they're dealt with in a faster way and it's quickly determined whether they're a true refugee or they're not. Would you say that's the way to go, putting the resources at the front end?

Mr. Alex Neve: In regard to this issue of public danger, people who do end up committing crimes, we want a clear easy answer on that front, and unfortunately there isn't one.

Mr. Grant McNally: I know.

Mr. Alex Neeve: All of us agree that if clearly someone is going to be a danger to the public then detention is appropriate and it needs to happen.

I think what we're concerned about is that we too often see cases of perhaps the rapist you're talking about not picked up at all by the system for whatever reason and at the same time large numbers of people who have been declared a danger to the public for very vague spurious reasons. For instance, Roberto San Vincente, who ran afoul of the law, had his brush with the law, did his time, has glowing parole recommendations and a reference letter from the judge who sentenced him. But too often there seems to be this automatic assumption that if you have a criminal record you're always going to be a criminal, you're always going to be a danger, end of story.

I think what it raises is that there's obviously a need for some serious training issues around how do you assess if someone is going to be a danger to the public. Maybe we need to think about giving adjudicators and immigration officers training along the lines of what parole board officials get. It's a whole different dimension of decision-making, which is difficult.

I think the last piece, which I always feel very strongly about, is I know we'd love to expect that all refugees and immigrants will be perfect and that they will never commit crimes and that this can be the reality, but it's not the reality. That doesn't mean that I in any way excuse or overlook a tragic instance where a refugee or an immigrant does commit a crime, but it will happen.

We constantly need to revisit those cases and see if anything did go wrong. Why was that rapist not picked up? Was there evidence someone should have seen that the person was a danger to the public, or was there no evidence, no reason to believe that this was going to happen, and suddenly for whatever reason something snapped or something when wrong?

Mr. Grant McNally: This particular individual had several prior charges as well and had actually left the country and returned several times.

Mr. Alex Neve: I think that in a lot of those instances when we go back and revisit them we can see where something went wrong, when someone made a wrong decision.

The Chairman: Those points were made already. Are there any further questions regarding this one issue we are dealing with right now?

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I find your presentations very disturbing. You raised a number of issues, but I would like to start by focusing on a particular one, and perhaps come back to others later on.

I would like to refer to the presentation made by Mr. Virani. You mentioned some figures that I found astounding. You mentioned 39%. I believe you were referring to a west Toronto detention centre. Is that correct?

Mr. Arif Virani: Metro West.

Mr. Jacques Saada: And you said that 39% of the detainees were from Jamaica. Is that correct?

Mr. Arif Virani: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: And you also said that 86% of the detainees were non-white?

Mr. Arif Virani: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Is it reasonable to assume that 39% of asylum seekers are not from Jamaica? Is it reasonable to think that this percentage does not match the percentage of refugee claimants who are Jamaicans? In other words, the percentage of Jamaicans in detention is much higher than the percentage they represent among all refugee claimants.

• 1225

Mr. Arif Virani: If I understood your question correctly, you ask me whether the percentage of refugees who...

Mr. Jacques Saada: Let me rephrase my question. Am I right in thinking that this figure is extremely high, abnormally high, compared to the total number of detainees?

Mr. Arif Virani: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Am I right in thinking that the fact that 86% of detainees are non-whites is an abnormally high number and a disturbing one?

Mr. Arif Virani: Yes. You have the figures before you, do you not?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes.

Mr. Arif Virani: Right.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I am very concerned about what you said. This is not the first time I have heard testimony of this type at this committee. A number of groups, including the NGOs that appeared last week, have already alerted us to the problem.

I'm going to ask you a very simple, direct question, and one that I am quite sure is very controversial. Is there any racism in the way refugee claimants are treated?

Mr. Arif Virani: It is impossible for me to answer this question directly. The only thing I can mention with respect to the figures, is that the statistics we got from the government do in fact lead us to conclude that there is discrimination based on colour. I am not in a position to demonstrate clearly that racism does in fact exist here in Ottawa or in Montreal, but that is what the facts seem to imply. Generally, when we study the case law or issues of discrimination, we find that there is usually an attempt to find other reasons. There is an attempt to find rational or logical reasons for choosing or hiring one person rather than another.

We cannot find any answers to that, but we do conclude that racism is a factor.

[English]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Could I ask you just one complementary question? These figures that we have here, which are from June 1997, and which are provided for the Ontario region—do you know if these figures would be roughly the same throughout the country? I mean, do we find roughly the same trends throughout the country?

Mr. Arif Virani: I think we would find some of the same trends, but different country groups. For instance, in Montreal I don't think we'd see a predominance of Jamaicans. We might see a similar predominance of Haitians. In Vancouver, it may be a different ethnic community that feels it is being subjected to a higher rate of detention.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

Ms. Brenda Muliner: Just a point: in Vancouver we have an informal reporting system where we have our duty counsellors send us a report, and one of the questions, “Do you see any differential treatment...different ethnic groups?” is something they can address if they like. This is just an informal survey of the results, but duty counsel point to problems of racism in terms of systemic or direct or indirect racism, in terms of non-white persons being more likely to be detained, more likely to be picked up for detention than white persons.

I would love to see somebody do a formal study on this. I think it would be a great area in which to actually have a formal study commissioned.

The Chairman: Ms. Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna: I want to pursue this discussion, as I had made a note of it when you presented it, because it's important to me.

I don't want you in any way to think of my question as belittling or suggesting there aren't any problems with the system, because we wouldn't be here if there were no problems. I want to look at the question.... You may not have the figures, but I've asked the minister's office, certainly, through the chair, also to give them to us, because what's important to me is to see the number of people who are coming from different parts of the world.

• 1230

My understanding at this point—and I could be wrong, because I need to check, and that's why I've asked for the figures—is that by far the majority of refugees in any case coming to Canada are from Third World countries or at least from developing countries. Just if I were to go from my own office alone, I don't think in the last four years that I've dealt with more than one or two non-visible minority refugees, whether you're talking about Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Africa, Vietnam, or even China, if you're looking at the whole issue.

So given the numbers of where the refugees come from and the countries they come from.... That's why I want to take a look to see whether in fact we have the high numbers, apart from, for just a moment, specific countries, which we will get into in a moment, because Jamaica is very high, but then Vietnam from here is quite high compared to some others.

Looking at the global figure you gave, which was 86%, I want to get a handle myself. Is 86% due to the fact that 86% or close to that is what's coming into the country to start with as claiming refugees? Or is it 50-50? Are we getting as many refugees from non-visible minority countries, such as Europe? Are we getting that many? I don't know.

I suspect not. The numbers I've seen more recently show that by far the largest number of refugees come from the countries I just mentioned, because they're the ones I've personally dealt with. I'd like to see how that shakes out, because I'm concerned about making a statement and not then looking at it to see whether in fact it breaks down to all sorts of specific countries, the issue you're talking about, or it's a more global issue.

I would want to take a look at that, because my sense of it right now is that the majority of refugees do come from countries such as the ones I mentioned before.

A voice: The former Yugoslavia.

Ms. Maria Minna: And the former Yugoslavia, that's true, but in terms of larger numbers is what I'm talking about.

Mr. Alex Neve: That's an important quest to embark on. Could I just encourage you, Ms. Minna, to broaden your request for statistics? Because we're not just talking about refugees.

Ms. Maria Minna: Okay.

Mr. Alex Neve: Detention impacts on people who try to enter the country as a visitor and for whatever reason are disbelieved at the airport by an immigration officer who doesn't think they're really here to visit.

Ms. Maria Minna: Fair enough, but I'm not saying you're wrong because the figures you've given disturb me. What I'm saying to you is I want to take a closer look at the breakdown of the people and visitors as well. I want to analyse that.

Mr. Alex Neve: I'm just encouraging you to ask for statistics broader than just refugee claims.

Ms. Maria Minna: And I think we should. That's my way of telling the chairman that we should take a look at those figures.

Mr. Alex Neve: It should be people who seek to enter the country in all categories, because they are all affected by detention. There you do broaden out much more. You're quite right, obviously, that with refugee claims, the majority do come from parts of the world that we consider developing countries. But when you add in visitors and landed immigrants who are now being deported for reasons of criminality or whatever, it's a much more global context.

Ms. Maria Minna: So I'd like to see those figures, and I'm glad you raised the issue. What I'm saying is we need to analyse that as a committee and make some conclusions from that. So through the chair, if I could make sure we get that kind of data....

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Badiako Buahene: I'd like to agree with that comment Alex made, because it's been my experience from the Vancouver perspective that many of the people I deal with in detention in fact are not refugee claimants. They're of colour, but they're not refugee claimants.

Ms. Maria Minna: Again, that's another factor that wasn't presented before.

Mr. Badiako Buahene: Yes.

Ms. Maria Minna: It's important for us to look at that, so I would like to see the data.

The Chairman: Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: That was precisely the point I was going to make. It's important to note that the people who come into the system.... This is why I've been asking the question to some of the witnesses who have come before us the race, place of origin, and colour. If in the general society we find those are factors that are operational in our everyday dealings in every institutional setting, why do we think that immigration officers or the bureaucracy that deals with citizenship, immigration, and refugee issues would be different from what we see in the general society?

It is a fact of the reality of our Canadian society, and this is why we have to work very diligently at ensuring that equity and equality and all those things are in our society. When you walk around as a person of colour and a visible minority person, the world is not as equal as the rest of you around the table would like to think it is.

• 1235

The constant refusal to believe that when you go to the Celebrity Inn or to any of these places and you look at the colour of the faces there and the people who are there, it's disproportionately.... You look at the representation and you ask what's happening here. We can say the same thing about very poor people, people caught in serious socio-economic situations, and the way they're dealt with. It's all part of the institutionalized way in which we deal with individuals.

When we detain or put people in substandard facilities, when we feel they might run off on us and we put them in shackles, whereas in other situations we might nicely say come with us, there is a car out there waiting.... When we treat people in a discriminatory fashion, that is just part of the system. This is where training is so essential for the officers and people who deal with landed immigrants and refugees.

This is a reality, and this committee has to get around to dealing with it, to addressing it. We can't go through the denial that we are such perfect Canadians that it's not in our society.

Ms. Maria Minna: I would ask the chair to get some data for this committee that deals with detentions on the basis of race and place of origin, as my colleague said, and whether they are refugees, visitors, or landed, so that we can look at the numbers, see where the issue is and maybe try to get close to it and address it. As much information as we can—that would help us a great deal.

The Chairman: We'll search for that.

Mr. Arif Virani: I'm glad these statistics are as startling to the people in this room as they were to Alex and myself.

An additional detail that members of this committee might want to be aware of is that in light of the “Not Just Numbers” report, the minister proceeded to engage in consultations in five cities. Toronto was one of them, but not a single African Canadian or group was on her list of groups to consult.

Various other visible minority groups were consulted. In Vancouver, a lot of Asian and Chinese groups were covered. There was the Canadian Arab Federation in Toronto and the Metro Toronto Southeast Asian Clinic. But our clinic, the African Canadian Legal Clinic, which Madam Robillard knows reasonably well—I'm not sure she loves us, but she knows who we are—no groups were on that list. If you'd like a copy of the list of groups she consulted, I could provide that to you, but not a single African Canadian representative, whether the Black Inmates and Friends Assembly or Jamaican Canadians Association or the African Canadian Legal Clinic was on her list of people to meet. That was a problem for us.

Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order, please.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I haven't been able to attend all the things around, but at those I attended I saw a number of minority groups being strongly represented and making good presentations before this committee. I witnessed them myself.

Mr. Arif Virani: I'm talking specifically about—

Ms. Jean Augustine: He's not talking about minority groups. He's talking about African—

Mr. Arif Virani: Right.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I don't want to get into a detailed look here. I do not want to break it up. I have seen groups representing black minorities making presentations. I've seen Asians. I don't think it was a factor in any way, and when I saw the things taking place, it never struck me that some groups were left out.

The Chairman: I think that's a moot point right now, but I'm glad you brought it to our attention. We are aware of what committees appeared before the minister as she went across the country. However, we have note of that. If there are other related and affiliated groups you're associated with, please send us the names of all the groups in your area.

Mr. Arif Virani: Certainly.

The Chairman: Or even national or provincial groups.

Mr. Arif Virani: Sure.

The Chairman: We should have access to that type of information in light of the fact that we have been introduced to a crucial issue here, and that has to be addressed in the months ahead. Thank you very much.

Mr. Grose.

• 1240

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As usual, I'm not going to be popular. As far as I'm concerned, these figures are silly. The mainly white countries in the world do not have anyone who is a refugee. They don't have anyone who wants to be an immigrant either. So naturally these figures are not going to show them. No one is going to come here from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany or Britain as a refugee.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): What about Argentina?

Mr. Ivan Grose: The figures aren't on here.

Let me finish. What fascinates me about these figures is that we've used Jamaica. Jamaica is a democracy and a Commonwealth country. There are no armed guards around the Canadian High Commission. How do we get 50 undocumented people here without proper documentation? They could go to the Canadian High Commission to get this documentation. So that's another thing that skews the figures.

Thank you.

Mr. Alex Neve: The statistics aren't only about documented or undocumented. They may have been detained for any reason. We don't know the details of why those 50.... In the case of Jamaican Canadians, it is often around issues of criminality. So documentation probably wasn't an issue in their case, which brings us back to the issue we raised earlier about the reliability of the process by which people are determined to be dangerous to the public and put in detention and even scheduled for removal.

We're trying to share with you our concern that we see many cases where we honestly and genuinely feel that the people who have been detained aren't a danger to the public. We also know that there are many other cases where people who perhaps are a danger to the public haven't been detained, and that better work needs to be done to make sure those decisions are the right kinds of decisions.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Fair enough. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I thank the witnesses who have appeared today. I'm cutting you a wee bit short because we have to evolve from this committee level into a steering committee. It's going to be a lengthy meeting and we have question period at two o'clock.

Thank you for appearing and thanks for the information. You have stimulated us and raised a number of areas we're going to have to look at. Thank you on behalf of the committee.

The meeting is adjourned.