Citizenship and Immigration Committee on July 24th, 2018

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Would you have something to add to that, Ms. Woolger, because you do provide emergency shelter?

[Anne Woolger]

I would agree that we don't have the same model as Montreal. In fact, we were speaking the other day and I was also feeling a bit envious. I think it's something that we could aspire to, and I would love to do that. Yes, it's always been the case that there's no direct support, particularly for refugee claimant shelters, in Ontario from any level of government except the municipal government, where it's just a matter of homelessness—their homeless category. Unfortunately, there are just not enough decent and appropriate shelters specifically for refugee claimants. That is actually why I became the founder of Matthew House, a private charity, because there is that kind of need.

I'm feeling encouraged, I must say. I know everyone seems kind of depressed right now, but I'm feeling encouraged. Actually from my perspective, I sometimes felt like a voice crying in the wilderness; and now I'm feeling like, oh, all the different levels of government are sort of waking up and realizing, hey, maybe these people actually would benefit from our support with shelter and housing, because in the long run everyone benefits. Refugee claimants are such wonderful contributors to society, and so everyone wins the better we work together. I see this as a huge opportunity, actually.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Madam Mendès.

I don't think we're depressed. I think what we are reflecting on is the great privilege that it is to be members of Parliament and to hear stories both from a refugee claimant and from those who are working to make our country better. I think that's what you're hearing: not depression, but maybe a little bit of calmness.

Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to express my thanks to all of you for the work that you do to protect the world's most vulnerable.

By way of sharing a story, two summers ago we were sitting in the immigration committee in the middle of the summer. This seems to be a trend. The reason was that shortly after the last federal election, when I was appointed as opposition shadow minister for Citizenship and Immigration, a man had come to meet with me and what he said in my office changed my life. He told me about some of his relatives who had been in captivity and had been forced to eat their children who were boiled in front of them. He was a member of the Yazidi community. About two weeks later, I had an opportunity to meet with Nadia Murad, who was not really well known to the world yet. I had never before sat with someone who had been through that type of trauma. I just remember feeling, even just talking about it, the sense that we needed to do something, as well as anger and disgust. We needed to do something. We had meetings during the summer. We pushed a motion through in the House of Commons. From there, this committee pushed subsequent studies. I pushed a subsequent study because I knew that these women weren't getting adequate support when they came to Canada, that they had experienced extreme trauma. It was not so much about the condemnation but about an opportunity for us to change our processes to get this right.

I'm very proud of that work, because it reflects the fact that one of the special things about Canada is that we are not discussing “if” we should have immigration, but “how”. I fully believe that we have a responsibility to protect the world's most vulnerable, and it's an important one. I think that Canada also has a role to be an advocate for change that instills those concepts to improve global asylum processes. When I criticize the United Nations it's because I don't understand why those women were not in the UN selection process. Our committee was just in Uganda and we met with members of the LGBT community. There is not one person here who wasn't deeply affected by that meeting. This is why we moved a motion in the House of Commons to extend the rainbow RAP program and make it permanent. I think it's about how. Where I would like to see this debate go is to really asking how.

Ms. Woolger, the comment that you just made was that you were encouraged to see support for long-term integration, because when we invest in the integration of humanitarian immigrants, they have a better experience in Canada and their potential is unlocked. I'm the first person who will admit that somebody who is coming to Canada, who has escaped persecution, has trauma to overcome. They're in a new country. They have challenges to overcome before we can even start talking about English language training—or French language training, pardon. I'm from Alberta.

To me that is where we've kind of lost the dialogue in the last 18 months. That is my concern. When we're asking questions about how we're going to pay for this, it's not out of a pejorative place; it's from a place that we can't lose the narrative and we can't just say that our obligation ends when somebody crosses the border. This is why we have to ask how. We had meetings in Uganda with very senior officials from the government, and I was very struck to hear the Government of Uganda say they don't expect the world to resettle everybody who's here. We can't. So the question is how, and what do we do, and how do we intervene with aid? I think where we've lost the narrative is that I cannot accept that we have 800 people in college dormitories with no plan to house them. I can't accept that we don't have some sort of projection or plan on the needs that people have. I can't accept that we're not talking about how to budget this. As a parliamentarian I can't accept that I can't scrutinize budgetary figures as a result of Canada's treating this in a piecemeal solution, because that is not compassionate.

What's been very, very disappointing to me, as somebody who has advocated for refugees and the world's most vulnerable in this country, is to watch this debate go into one about.... Do you know what it's like to read articles about being called racist, after I've done this for the last two years? It's not about me; I don't want the debate to go there. I want the debate to go back to the “how”. We've lost that narrative. That's why we called these meetings this summer.

This is why I would like to see a report come out of this study. We might disagree on how, but we can't shy away from that debate. We can't shy away from looking at article 31 of the refugee convention. When it was put in place, France wanted to make sure there wasn't the capacity for asylum claim shopping. Does that still apply in today's global context? I would argue yes, but under what circumstances? Are the review criteria for the safe third country agreement still valid? The government argues yes; others will argue no; but we're not even having that discussion right now. It's just nothing. Then there are 800 people; I don't know where they're going to go in a week. Sadly, after six hours of meetings, I don't feel any more enlightened. But I would encourage my colleagues, especially after hearing the testimony that we had here, that we get back to the how.

I will ask a very simple question of you at the end of my time. We might disagree on how, but after your testimony and after what's happened here today, would it be useful if this committee tabled a report with the House of Commons and asked the government for an official response?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You have 10 seconds to all respond.

That's your seven minutes.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here with us today.

In particular, I just want to highlight you, Mr. Mohammed, for your bravery, the fact that you made a journey to get to safety. Your life matters and it should be valued, and I'm so glad that Canada valued your life in granting your asylum claim.

Now what we've heard, of course, and what I know in my heart, is that you didn't have to go through the risks that you took in crossing from the United States to Manitoba, that you didn't have to risk losing your fingers, right? If we actually suspended the safe third country agreement, you might have actually crossed over at an official point of entry, and therefore not risked your life and seen your friend and others go through the same experience.

From that perspective, that's why I'm calling for the suspension of the safe third country agreement. Would you, as somebody whose experienced this journey yourself, call on the Canadian government to suspend the safe third country agreement?

[Seidu Mohammed]

Yes, I would like that to be done, because as you said, it wasn't safe for us, the immigrants. If it were safe, we could go through the border and ask to seek for asylum, and the process would start from there. But we didn't. The way the agreement went, that's why we sneaked in and came in, because we didn't want to go to the border for them to take us back to the United States, which we are very afraid of. Making that journey was very, very hard because we couldn't have imagined.... We didn't know we are going to survive that kind of journey, because for 10 hours in the cold at least you are already gone. But the safe third country agreement, that's what causes a lot of damage to most refugees and immigrants, so we would like it to be suspended.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

We've heard that from Mr. Neve, and I think we've also heard that from Ms. Woolger as well, on the suspension of the safe third country agreement, if I could just get a quick answer in the affirmative.

[Anne Woolger]

Absolutely.

I will just say that, because I have worked 30 years with refugees, for half of my career there was no safe third country agreement, and I would have to say that things worked so much more smoothly. Everyone just came to the border. It was in everyone's best interests to present themselves in an orderly fashion. They were properly screened. They were properly processed. Nobody would want to go to an irregular point. Why would they? It was safer, more secure, more efficient, and made much more sense.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

[Alex Neve]

If I could echo that, I made the case as to why, from a human rights perspective in Amnesty International's view and many others', it's vital that the agreement be suspended. This is because by no measure does refugee protection in the United States meet the required standards of the agreement, or international standards.

I think this other point, that there's also a border management argument to be made as to why suspending the agreement makes sense, to bring back a sense of orderliness and oversight to how refugee claims are handled at the border, is in that interest as well.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I have two other areas I want to address, and I know I'm going to run out of time very quickly.

I know that some people argue it's semantics, using the word “illegal” versus “irregular”. From my perspective, it is not semantics. It is what the law itself says. The law is very specific about it. It says that when a person comes through regular or irregular crossings to seek asylum, they are actually doing it per Canadian law in accordance with section 133 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

We just heard Ms. Rempel make a very moving speech about wanting to move forward with a plan. Would the plan also incorporate using the right terminology and stop casting the view that asylum seekers are somehow illegal? Is that not an important component of the plan?

[Alex Neve]

Whether it's a plan, whether it's just the statements that government ministers, officials, journalists, any and all of us make, I think it is absolutely incumbent upon all of us to stop using the word “illegal” to refer to individuals who cross borders to make refugee claims. We see that around the world, and it is a toxic trend that is undermining public support for refugee protection. It is creating an undue sense of alarm and hysteria about refugees and the threats they pose. As you have highlighted, it is completely groundless in law, and we need to banish it from our vocabulary.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to move to the housing piece.

Thank you, Ms. Woolger, for your 30 years of experience and sharing that piece with us, to say that when we didn't have the safe third country agreement, there was actually order to border crossings. Maybe we need to get back to that.

We're now talking about sheltering people by renting hotel rooms. Would it not make sense for the government to invest the tens of millions of dollars in getting a permanent structure or multiple permanent structures to support asylum seekers in this regard? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Anne Woolger]

Yes, it certainly would.

I just want to say that as a shelter leader from Toronto, there's a coalition of shelter leaders that has been meeting with the City of Toronto. We've put together a long-term refugee capacity plan because of our knowledge of the people and the needs, and the City of Toronto is very open to it. We see that it truly could be very effective. We're just trusting that there will be funds available.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

We heard from the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Vaughan, that there is apparently... although he won't tell us how much is being set aside and how much is being offered. But I'm going to call him to task. I hope the committee will call him to task to actually fork up that money.

To that end, in regard to the plan you're working on with your colleagues, is there something you can table for this committee to look at?

[Anne Woolger]

I think I would have to confirm with the officials at the City of Toronto, because we're working on it together. I would certainly be willing to ask.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It would be very useful, I think, if we could obtain that plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Damoff, for seven minutes.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses, but in particular Mr. Mohammed. I want to thank you for being here with us and sharing a story that no doubt is difficult to tell, but it's an important one. I just want to thank you and welcome you to Canada.

I do have a couple of questions, but we're winding up close to five hours of hearings now. The Liberal members of this committee welcomed the opportunity to be here today to listen to testimony. I think it's important to remember that all of these hearings are public and that the transcripts will be available. In terms of a report, any report that we do won't be tabled until October anyway.

Unfortunately, Ms. Rempel has left the room, but I also just want to put on the record that this government has been committed to bringing Yazidi women here. The previous government brought three, and we have brought 1,000. Those women, when they get to Canada, do indeed require trauma support. Unfortunately, the previous government cut health care for refugees, and we've reinstated it, so those women do have the opportunity to get the health care and the trauma support they need. I just wanted to get that on the record.

We've had a lot of talk about why we've seen this surge at the border, and one of the things that's come up repeatedly is a tweet. Mr. Scheer, the Conservative Party leader, said that that this whole wave started when the Prime Minister tweeted that all are welcome. The new premier in Ontario said this mess was 100% the result of the federal government and that the federal government should foot 100% of the bills. We've had a minister of the crown responsible for immigration in Ontario make reference to a tweet.

Do all of you think that doctoring this photograph to make it into a tweet is in any way whatsoever helpful in the debate that we're having around asylum seekers coming here? To take something like this, which the Conservative Party did, and put it out on social media, do you think it is helpful in the debate and to what we're seeing in terms of the public perception of asylum seekers who are coming to Canada?

I'll put it out to any of you.

[Alex Neve]

I am aware of the image that you've just shared. Of course, there are multiple other images that have circulated in Canada and around the world that which are disparaging and/or undermining refugee protection. To all of that, we would absolutely say “no”. There clearly is no place for that kind of messaging or imagery when it comes to refugee protection.

I think with all social issues it is incumbent upon public officials to be very responsible in how they engage in public debate, what images they share, and what messages they convey. But there's absolutely no question that when it comes to refugees and refugee claimants, there's an increased vulnerability. There's a real volatility with respect to the public debate, and I think it is incumbent on public officials to go 10 steps further in questioning and second-guessing the imagery and statements they make.

It takes us back to the earlier debate about the use of the word “illegal” as well, a debate that I do not at all agree is just a matter of semantics. I think it is unfortunate that a number of officials, including our own Minister of Immigration, as was pointed out earlier, have used the word “illegal” at unfortunate times around this debate. I would love to see a commitment from everyone in public life, no matter what political party they come from, to shy away from that and to make an absolute commitment not to use that terminology.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

Does anyone else want to add to that?

Go ahead.

[Amy Casipullai]

We noticed in a recent Toronto Star poll—and because it is a newspaper, those polls are not exactly reliable—that there was a definite shift from the kinds of attitudes that we saw among the public a couple of years ago when there was so much enthusiasm to sponsor Syrian refugees. This particular reader poll had 85% of people saying, “We don't want refugees in Canada”, or words to that effect. That kind of trend is quite alarming for OCASI because of the public education we're doing in trying to build positive attitudes towards refugees and people's investments in working with refugee communities to make sure they get jobs and housing, to ensure that they are part of our communities.

It's particularly unhelpful when this is repeated in the media, because we then have to do so much more work to counter not just the language, but also so much misinformation about who is a refugee, why they are fleeing, and why they deserve safety in Canada.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I know that my community, in my riding of Oakville North—Burlington, which encompasses the communities of both Oakville and Burlington, has been very welcoming to refugees and has really worked to make sure that people have become part of the community. I feel blessed to be in a community that has welcomed those who are vulnerable and have sought to come to Canada. You're absolutely right about where there has been a shift, because of language and images, in how people are perceiving the most vulnerable who are coming to our country.

Is our system working? Is it compassionate, and is it organized?

[Anne Woolger]

Once again, I think there's a lot of hope for it. I do want to say that certainly we in Toronto appreciate the $11 million sent our way, and we are hopeful that more may be coming. I think it's a good start. I know that in Ontario it is a challenge.