Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022
Evidence of meeting #43 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session
November 22nd, 2022 / 4:30 p.m.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses.
I'd like to ask the representatives from The Refugee Centre to put on the record their recommendations for the committee, after which I have one very specific question.
Pierre-Luc Bouchard
Refugee Lawyer and Head of Legal Department, The Refugee CentreThe last recommendation, that we didn't have time to finish explaining, concerns extending the validity period of the refugee claimant document.
We witnesses are trying to convince you that there are a lot of administrative formalities. As Mr. André said, these are people who have a lot of trouble with computers and all that.
We therefore recommend that the validity period of the refugee protection claimant document be extended to four years from its current length, two years.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Thank you.
I'd like to ask all the witnesses this one very specific question. Given the situation that we know and the dangers that asylum seekers are in, should the Canadian government, at the very minimum, suspend the safe third country agreement?
Could I get a full round of responses from everyone, a clear answer and maybe a short bit on why that should be done?
I will start with Mr. Daoud.
Abdulla Daoud
Executive Director, The Refugee CentreYes, they should suspend the safe third country agreement.
Basically, we're forcing asylum seekers to go onto terrain that's very dangerous. We've already established that these are legitimate claims and that what they're going through is very unfortunate. In order to regulate the matter and ensure that the government and community organizations can service them correctly, we need to suspend it.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Do you have anything to add to that answer, Mr. Bouchard?
Pierre-Luc Bouchard
Refugee Lawyer and Head of Legal Department, The Refugee CentreNo, I think he summarized it well.
Excuse me.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Okay. Thank you.
I will move on to Ms. Rududura.
Eva-Gazelle Rududura
Vice-President, Unis pour une Intégration Consciente au CanadaIn view of what our community reports to us, we have to make sure that the people experiencing these odysseys are received with dignity. That is what we suggest. I don't think that agreement has anything to do with what these people endure. I think Canada can only control the way it allows people to get back to a normal life and contribute to society. Otherwise, for the rest, I think people go through all sorts of situations even before taking that route. We therefore have no recommendations on that point.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
If the Canadian government suspended the safe third country agreement, for example, people would not have to go through irregular entries. In fact, they could go through the official ports of entry without any fear. Right now, because of the safe third country agreement, they are not allowed to do that. When they do, they will be rejected automatically.
This is why I ask the question of whether the government should suspend the safe third country agreement.
I'm going to turn to Mr. André regarding the same question.
Frantz André
Spokesperson and Coordinator, Comité d’action des personnes sans statutI would reiterate that in my opinion, we have to eliminate the safe third country agreement. I think people would be much less afraid of migrating, knowing they are able to enter at a port of entry whose role it is to admit people with dignity. Taking a route where you are told that if you continue, you will be arrested, means enduring more stress and a form of aggression after being refouled by so many countries. That is why I strongly suggest that the safe third country agreement be eliminated.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Thank you for that.
The Canadian government says it's “modernizing” the safe third country agreement. That's the term it uses. It won't actually tell us what that means and what its plans are in the negotiations with the United States.
What we've seen, of course, is that the government, in a hidden kind of way, expanded the use of the safe third country agreement. In the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-97, a 379-page document, the government snuck in there the safe third country agreement application to the Five Eyes countries. That automatically turns people away if they try to seek asylum here in Canada.
Do you think that's right?
This question is directed to The Refugee Centre. I don't know who wants to respond to that.
Abdulla Daoud
Executive Director, The Refugee CentreGoing along with what we said, that's not right.
Given what these refugees are going through and given the legitimacy of these claims, we should not be rejecting them. We've already established that the alternative is not good and they would be facing danger otherwise.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Mr. André, I have the same question for you, please.
Frantz André
Spokesperson and Coordinator, Comité d’action des personnes sans statutThank you for your question.
Expanding that agreement with the United States to include the other member countries of the Five Eyes, instead of suspending it, would be an indication that Canada is increasingly closed to immigration and is ending up creating many more restrictions in the world for people who would like to come and experience our Quebec and Canadian values. Yes, I think the Canadian government is plainly not showing that it intends to cancel the safe third country agreement.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Thank you.
With the process around the brown paper and the delay, the government added this “entry for further examination” document. Is that new?
Abdulla Daoud
Executive Director, The Refugee CentreYes. We started seeing this in January 2022. They've always had the right to do it, but we've only seen that being established in January 2022.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
As a result of that, how much time has been added to the processing period?
Abdulla Daoud
Executive Director, The Refugee CentreIt's an additional 12 to 24 months, depending on the CBSA officer or IRCC agent who wants to issue the document.
The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal
I'm sorry for interrupting. Your time is up.
We will now proceed to our second round.
Mr. Redekopp, you will have two minutes for your round of questioning. Please begin.
4:45 p.m.
The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal
We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.
Ms. Kwan, you will have 90 seconds. You can please begin.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
On the question about the brown paper, which is so vital, would you recommend that the government issue that to the asylum seekers on arrival, Mr. Daoud?
Abdulla Daoud
Executive Director, The Refugee CentreYes, they should, as they have before.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Mr. André, what do you think about that?
Frantz André
Spokesperson and Coordinator, Comité d’action des personnes sans statutI think it is essential, certainly.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Ms. Rududura, go ahead.
Eva-Gazelle Rududura
Vice-President, Unis pour une Intégration Consciente au CanadaI would agree with that.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Canada used to have an exemption for the safe third country agreement, a second one, which would exempt individuals who are faced with a return back to their country of origin when it was not safe to do so. There was a moratorium for that to be in place. In 2009, the Harper government took that away.
To all the witnesses, should Canada be reinstating that in the face of the fact that they are not going to suspend the safe third country agreement, at least for those who are faced with gender-based violence, for example, or those who face gang violence?
Abdulla Daoud
Executive Director, The Refugee CentreYes, I think it's pretty clear.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Mr. André, go ahead.
Frantz André
Spokesperson and Coordinator, Comité d’action des personnes sans statutCertainly, yes.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Ms. Rududura, go ahead.
Eva-Gazelle Rududura
Vice-President, Unis pour une Intégration Consciente au CanadaI would agree with that as well.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Thank you.
On the question around the United States.... Right now, given the change in administration, some people would say that the U.S. is a safe country for these asylum seekers. Is it?
Mr. André, go ahead.
Frantz André
Spokesperson and Coordinator, Comité d’action des personnes sans statutNo, the United States is not a safe country. Every day, I hear about people who, like in Canada, are afraid of getting caught, of getting lost in the black hole, or being victims of abuse. So I think we have to put an end to the safe third country agreement.
The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal
I'm sorry for interrupting, but time is up.
With that, on behalf of all the members, I really want to thank all the witnesses for appearing before the committee. Thank you for your time and important testimony. Some of you are coming for the second time. Last time, we were not able to accommodate you because of the votes. I really want to thank you for taking the time once again and appearing before the committee.
With that, this panel comes to an end. We will suspend the meeting for a few meetings so that sound checks can be done for the second panel.
The meeting is suspended.
Thank you.
5:30 p.m.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I thank all the witnesses for their presentations.
My question is for Ms. Silcoff. On the issue around the United States, whether or not it's a safe country for asylum seekers, many people will advance that it is a safe country. I'm very interested to know what has been presented in the legal case to indicate otherwise in the current situation as it stands. Why is it not safe for asylum seekers?
Maureen Silcoff
Lawyer and Past President, Canadian Association of Refugee LawyersHere again, I think it's really useful to look at the very specific categories or classes of people who are experiencing lack of safety and serious deficiencies in the system. If the system doesn't function properly, people are at risk of refoulement, which means that they would be sent back to their country of origin to experience further persecution.
I was trying to speak before about the one-year bar. People who don't make an asylum claim right away can't enter into the asylum system. There are lots of reasons why people may not come forward—because they're traumatized, because they're ashamed, because of cultural reasons—so this particularly impacts gender-based claims.
We know that people may not come forward with their claim, and then if they turn up at the border and they're rejected because of the STCA, then they really have a problem in the U.S. because then they're in a system where they can't access the U.S. asylum system. So that's another category.
Also, there are people facing detention. We know that Canada treats detention very differently from the U.S. In Canada, detention is seen, both according to the case law and the policies, as a last resort. The UNHCR specifies that people seeking protection should only be detained as a last resort. The United States sees detention very differently. They see it as an immigration management tool. This was exacerbated during the Trump administration, but it pre-existed the Trump administration and it exists today. When somebody is in jail in the U.S., they're experiencing very serious difficulties, and that's very different from Canada, so that's another category of people who are vulnerable.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Thank you.
I want to get to gender violence asylum seekers, who are being rejected in the United States. In those instances, if people were to try to make a claim in Canada and Canada turns them away, they will be deported back to their country of origin to face the violence from which they are trying to flee. Is that not correct?
Maureen Silcoff
Lawyer and Past President, Canadian Association of Refugee LawyersThat's exactly correct. In the example I gave of the woman who hung on to the back of a freight train, that was her dilemma, because she knew that if she stayed in the United States, there was a strong likelihood that she would be deported to face renewed gender-based harm.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
On that basis, the safe third country agreement is actually putting people at further risk in terms of refoulement. For Canada to apply deportation to such individuals, Canada would be actually in violation of international law on refoulement. Is that not the case?
Maureen Silcoff
Lawyer and Past President, Canadian Association of Refugee LawyersRight. Canada is responsible for turning people back at the border, so Canada is not an innocent party in this, but there are fixes that—
The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal
I'm sorry for interrupting. I've stopped the clock.
So many side conversations are going on. The witnesses are here, so please provide them the opportunity to answer the questions, and please avoid side conversations. Thank you.
Please continue.
Maureen Silcoff
Lawyer and Past President, Canadian Association of Refugee LawyersI think when people are turned back from Canada, Canada does bear a responsibility, but we can do something about it. We can end the agreement or we can suspend it, but we can also look at the public policy discretionary exemptions, which this committee was concerned about in 2002 and UNHCR was concerned about in 2002. Now is the time to take these seriously and have a really serious look at what we can do with them.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Your first recommendation for this committee is for the Canadian government to suspend the safe third country agreement, at the very minimum, or to get rid of it altogether. Short of that, it's to bring back those exemptions, the public policy exemptions under article 6, to include gender-based claims, for example, and other vulnerable classes of people.
Is that your recommendation?
Maureen Silcoff
Lawyer and Past President, Canadian Association of Refugee LawyersExactly. We have only one exemption in place now, for people facing the death penalty. It's rarely used. There was one for people from countries that Canada doesn't deport to—that's gone. Gender-based claims are a perfect example. People who would return to face jail in the United States simply because they want protection, that's another great example. People who are barred from the asylum system because they've passed the one-year mark, that's another great example.
These are all discretionary public policy classes that Canada can put in place.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
On the issue around people arriving and the delay in the processing, we just heard from the previous panel that people were not able to access what they call the brown paper document in a timely fashion, and as a result they're living in poverty and they have to apply for income assistance.
What do you think the Canadian government should do in the processing? Should they be issuing the brown paper document on arrival for individuals so that they can access all the services that come with that very important document?
Maureen Silcoff
Lawyer and Past President, Canadian Association of Refugee LawyersI think we have to look at the reality of the situation. We know that budget 2022 put in place $1.3 billion for the CBSA, the IRCC and the IRB. There are finances there, available for resources, and I think people shouldn't be suffering. People should be getting access to settlement resources as soon as possible.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
I want to ask Mr. Desbiens the same question about the brown paper document. Should the government be issuing that on arrival so that people can actually seek the kind of support that they need to survive and to then look for employment?
Perla Abou-Jaoudé
Lawyer, Quebec Immigration Lawyers AssociationSorry, I'm going to take over.
Yes, we think it should be delivered as soon as possible. Another way of doing it is by having a point at IRCC where a claimant could go right away because—
The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal
I'm sorry for interrupting. Time is up for Ms. Kwan.
With that, our panel comes to an end.
I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing before the committee today. Thanks a lot for your important testimonies. If there is something you would like to bring to the committee's attention, you can always send written submissions to the clerk of the committee. They will be circulated to all the members, and we will consider them when we come to the drafting stage.
With that, we will suspend this meeting. All those members of Parliament who are participating virtually will have to log off and then log in to the in camera meeting for our committee business.
All the witnesses can leave the meeting.
Members, please log off and then log in for the in camera portion of the meeting. We will have a few minutes for committee business.
[Proceedings continue in camera]