Evidence of meeting #34 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was refugee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John McCallum
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Unfortunately we have a vote, with the bells going in just under half an hour. We have time for each presenter to speak for a maximum of eight minutes, and then we'll be just about out of time. I suggest that those witnesses who are interested wait until the second group of witnesses completes their presentations, then we can ask all witnesses questions together. Otherwise we'll have no time to ask you questions.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chair, we'll still have about 12 minutes after the two eight-minute presentations.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John McCallum
There are three presentations. That's 24 minutes, so we won't really have any significant time.
Mr. Cash.
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Given the fact that we've just embarked on this study, we have witnesses here and in deference to them and to the process I'd like to move a motion to extend the study for one more meeting to occur tomorrow.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John McCallum
I don't want to take more time than necessary—they've said no—because we have so little time, unless you want to present a motion. But the majority has said no.
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
The majority has said no, so the government is saying no to an extension of the study.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John McCallum
Right.
Welcome to the witnesses. The first one is Mr. Peter Showler, from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.
I would ask you, Mr. Showler, to limit yourself to eight minutes. Welcome.
3:30 p.m.
Peter Showler Former Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board, Spokesperson, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
Thank you, Mr. McCallum, and good afternoon to everyone.
I'm the former chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board and for the past 10 years I've been teaching refugee law at the University of Ottawa, but today I'm here as a spokesperson for the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.
We have provided you with a written brief that sets out the reasons why refugee claimants must continue to receive social assistance. Accordingly, CARL is asking you to either reject the amendments or amend them in such a way that refugee claimants and refugees continue to receive social assistance all across Canada.
In the short time available I'll address six issues very quickly. The first one is, and I hope this is clear, that the bill will allow provinces to deny social assistance to refugees. The wording of the bill only identifies certain groups, mainly citizens and permanent residents, who cannot be excluded from social assistance. The amendment allows provinces to deny benefits to refugee claimants and refugees, and refugees will be caught by any residency period eligibility because their eligibility for social assistance begins at the time they make their refugee claim. So the most vulnerable period is exactly that first part of their claim, which is important.
And to make it clear, that's what's going on with the refugee process. There is not a distinction in terms of social assistance between refugee claimants and refugees. That has sometimes been discussed, but there's not, because when they make their claim that's what's going on with the refugee claim process. They're trying to decide whether or not they are refugees.
At the first stage of that process before the refugee protection division, approximately 50% of those claimants will be accepted as refugees. That's important to remember.
Secondly, even those who are refused by the first level then have the opportunity to either seek an appeal before the refugee appeal division of the IRB or to seek judicial review.
I can tell you that statistically—and the statistics are very complicated, and if you want to ask a question I'll go through them all—you can accept as a fair and rough approximation that approximately 60% of those refugee claimants will ultimately be accepted as refugees. I'm making that point so when right at the start if you think you're only denying social assistance to claimants, 60% of those people will be eventually accepted as refugees. So that's I think the first important point to be made.
In terms of the timing, we don't know what the eligibility period will be. It could be different from different provinces, but essentially the first stage of the process is approximately four months and after that for claimants who are in the appeal or judicial review process it could be approximately another nine months before they're ultimately either accepted or refused.
It is important to remember that only 3% of refugees are actually found to have no credible basis to their claim, and that is really the measure of the number of—and I don't like to use the word “bogus” refugees—fraudulent refugees. We're only talking about 3%.
The reason I point this out is that it means that for that other group who are refused as refugees, even if they're not accepted as refugees it does not mean they did not claim in good faith. It means that we know that the majority of them are refused for technical reasons, even if they're ultimately sent back. They actually applied in good faith. They're here legally in Canada and they also are entitled to be receiving social assistance through the claim process, up to the point where they're either accepted or they're denied, they're removed, and then of course at that point they no longer need social assistance.
In terms of why refugees should require social assistance, the desperate need of most refugee claimants when they arrive should be obvious to everybody here. And I'm sure my colleague, Ms. Loly Rico, will be saying even more so. Most are without means. Some have means. We're only discussing refugees without means, but that is the majority of claimants.
It's important to understand that they do not have the right to work. Many refugees would love to work. Some can apply in the beginning, but it takes at least three months before they receive work permits, and if they are in special categories, it will take six months. We're talking about people who, if they don't receive social assistance, have no other means of support.
In addition, even among those who can work, several categories are unemployable: children, the elderly, and claimants who are psychologically or physically injured, including as a result of the persecution they suffered or the long flight they took to Canada. Remember, for some refugees it takes two, three, four, or five years for them to actually arrive in Canada. For the same reason, I would say that many refugees—and this should be obvious to everyone—are vulnerable people; that is the nature of refugees.
One of the reasons CARL is here today is that we know our claimants. We know the ways in which they are so vulnerable: sometimes they don't speak English or French; they aren't acculturated to Canada; and often there is tremendous fear and tremendous confusion because, especially in those first two, three, four, or five months—and that's the period of time we're talking about—they're being denied social assistance. That's important to understand.
The next point, which I think is also quite important, is that without means of support, it will be almost impossible for a refugee claimant to prove their claim. You may ask why that would be. First of all, not all refugees get legal aid. Approximately 70% to 75% do, but it doesn't matter whether they get legal aid or not, because there are a lot of costs related to a refugee claim that are not covered by legal aid. For example, there is tremendous difficulty getting documentation from their home countries. There are copy costs. You say, well, copy costs—what is that? Copy costs can be a couple of hundred dollars. There are interpreter costs and translator costs that are not covered by the government. There are transportation costs. If you are completely indigent, how do you, along with your two kids, visit the lawyer's office five times and then get to the board?
If a person is really without any means, they would not be able to effectively actually prove their claim, and of course that undermines the fairness of our entire refugee system.
It's a bad idea.
In my legal brief, I go into some detail around the legal responsibilities Canada, as a host country, has to refugees. I won't go into details here other than to say that there are both national and international obligations. They're set out in the brief; however, constitutionally the federal government has responsibility for refugees under section 91(25) of the the Constitution Act. The primary responsibility is that of the government.
Although I can't quote all of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to you, I do want to quote one paragraph from the objectives, which is this:
3(2)(a)...the refugee program is in the first instance about saving lives and offering protection to the displaced and persecuted.
That is a primary objective and the responsibility of the federal government. I could ask, just the way the act reads and setting aside the legal terminology, in what sense you think that denial of food, shelter, medical care, and basic necessities would be about saving lives and offering protection.
There are two more things I want to tell you. The first is in terms of comparison. I've been in front of this committee frequently. Whenever Mr. Kenney introduced changes to the refugee system, he often referred to other developed countries and their systems. In particular, the principal countries for comparison were the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. All three of those countries, as well as Germany, provide social assistance. We only had time to research thoroughly four countries. All of them provide housing, shelter, food, medical care, and basic necessities. They do it in different ways. Some provide housing, but all of them do that. None of them leave refugees destitute. If you'd like, I could provide you with a chart that has more details.
The last thing I want to say—
3:40 p.m.
Former Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board, Spokesperson, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
Okay. This is my final issue.
This is important, because the argument has been raised that these amendments do not deny refugees anything. They only alter the national standards for social transfer payments. Denying refugees will be done by individual provinces, and not through this act.
I have to say—and excuse me for saying so—that is a hypocritical, weasel argument. It does not work.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John McCallum
Thank you. That's a good note on which to end. I'm sorry. You've run out of time.
Next we have Mr. Bissett, who is appearing as an individual.
3:40 p.m.
James Bissett Former Ambassador, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I support the amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act because I think it makes good sense and logic to do it. The provinces are responsible for setting the residency terms under the health care act and it's the provinces that administer social assistance in their respective jurisdictions. It seems logical to me that the federal government should live up to its principles of allowing the provinces to carry out their functions without interference. This is an anachronism that exists in the law and I think it should be changed. Remember that there's no compulsion whatsoever on the provinces to make changes. It's removing a penalty and allowing them, if they wish, to impose residency requirements on individuals.
The only categories that are touched by this possible disaster—as outlined by Mr. Showler—are temporary foreign workers, temporary students, and visitors to Canada. It has been pointed out, by officials who have come before you, that these three categories are only allowed into Canada upon evidence that they can look after themselves and be responsible for their housing and their care while here.
If a province wanted to put on residency requirements—which is unlikely to happen—the two categories that could be affected are asylum claimants and the groups I've just mentioned. In terms of the asylum claimants it seems to me that's the problematic area. If you look at it carefully you'll find there is a lot of assistance available, financial and otherwise, for asylum claimants even if a province should insist on residency requirements.
The federal government gives grants to the provinces for assistance in the settlement of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. I have some figures here. In 2010-11 the provinces received $893.4 million for the purpose of looking after immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers and helping them settle. That's a lot of money. It's given to the provinces. In addition to that, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has a considerable fund to give grants to non-governmental organizations and other agencies in Canada that are responsible for looking after and helping asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants.
In the period from October 1 to December 31, 2009, over 200 organizations in Canada received more than $25,000 in grants from the federal government to carry out those functions. There were 60 organizations in Canada that received more than $1 million. The purpose of these individual organizations—that were mainly ethnic groups, non-governmental organizations, or other agencies in the provinces and in cities of Canada—was to care for and look after immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers who were in need. That's a considerable amount of money that's being paid.
The department—in 2010-11 in its estimates—set aside $651,749 for that; close to a billion dollars. If one of the provinces chose to decide to put residency requirements on asylum seekers I think there is plenty of opportunity for them to get assistance and help other than from the social welfare system.
I might point out that in the United States asylum seekers are not allowed to work for the first six months that they're in the United States and they get their assistance primarily from non-governmental organizations and other agencies that are funded by the U.S. government.
As I said, if by any remote chance a province might apply residence requirements on asylum seekers as a result of this amendment to the act, they would have ample opportunity to get the assistance and supplies they need without going to the federal or the provincial government.
I think another factor that's important here is that when we're dealing with failed asylum seekers, there was a time when there were many thousands of them. For example, in 2008 we had 33,000 asylum claims. They came from 188 different countries. We had 2,300 claims from American citizens. We had claims from 22 of the 26 European Community countries. But as a result of the, in my view, very needed and essential reform in the 2012 legislation, the number of asylum seekers coming in from so-called designated countries has been cut completely off. We're getting very, very few asylum claims from the United States, England, Germany, and Switzerland compared to what we used to get before the bill was passed in 2012. The result is that whereas it used to take up to a year, or two years or more, in some cases, to have an asylum claim adjudicated, it now takes between two and three months. There's a quick decision being made.
I would presume that most of the failed asylum seekers choose—because they choose to come here on their own—to go back to their country, where it's been proven that there is no concern, that they are not genuine refugees as defined in the UN convention.
My concluding word is that this is a housekeeping amendment. I don't see all of the dire consequences that have been outlined to you by Mr. Showler and others who will come before you. It's a simple housecleaning episode and we should get on with it.
Thank you very much.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John McCallum
Thank you, Mr. Bissett.
Now we turn to our third and final witness for this session: from Vancouver, from the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, Mr. Martin Collacott.
3:50 p.m.
Martin Collacott Spokesperson, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've been getting the French translation at the same time, so I wasn't able to hear most of what Mr. Showler and Mr. Bissett said. It's also hard to hear myself speaking because of the French translation coming through.
Can something be done about that before I start to speak, please?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John McCallum
What I hear is that we cannot stop it—unless nobody needs to hear the French translation—because if we turn off the French we turn off the whole video.
3:50 p.m.
Spokesperson, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform
I certainly wasn't fed the French translation the last few times I spoke by video conference.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John McCallum
It's a technical glitch. We're working on it. Does anybody require the French? If not, we can turn it off, I gather.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Chair, I believe we should make sure that translation is available in both official languages.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John McCallum
Well, then, I don't know if he can speak to us. We cannot take it off without unanimous consent.
3:50 p.m.
Spokesperson, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform
Mr. Chairman, perhaps all of the feedback could be cut off, then, and I could just speak. I won't be getting any questions until I'm finished speaking anyway.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John McCallum
I think that's what they're trying to do. Perhaps you could begin and see how it works.