Evidence of meeting #123 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was irb.
A video is available from Parliament.
October 2nd, 2018 / 5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I want to thank both of you.
It's refreshing, especially for the study on migration, that you both get it. One of the things we wanted to see was the best practices in other jurisdictions. Both of you have touted those and seen those, specifically in Europe, as Mr. Saunders said.
When I'm listening to you, I hear that easier short-term visa access reduces claims. I've seen that specifically in the South Asian community. Visas have increased, and their asylum claims have decreased. If they see a labour market impact assessment that fits the employment they have, they're able to go into that. They definitely don't seek another pathway when they have a legal pathway. I've seen the very positive effect of that, and a reduction in asylum claims.
As Mr. Saunders said, I think having several members of Parliament go to speak to the Haitian communities in New York and Miami has helped to reduce that Haitian migration pattern. That was about clarifying information. We've seen that it works.
The only ingredient I see lacking, from what I've heard from you, is perhaps the efficiency on processing refugee claims. I think we're still slower at that. We need to do better, so people get the correct information.
Which jurisdictions in Europe have you seen that have done it better, in terms of having a fair process in refugee claims but also doing it efficiently?
Dr. Bradley, if you could answer that first, and then Mr. Saunders next.
5:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill University, As an Individual
I hate to break it to you, but I'm not sure there are countries that are doing it better. There are huge problems with how this kind of work is done in Europe.
To be honest, I wouldn't want us looking eastward for insight on that. Globally speaking, I think Canada is actually doing well on this issue. There are opportunities to improve, but I think we need to resist the temptation to think there are some other countries somewhere else that are doing this better.
I think we need to look inwards and reflect that way.
5:20 p.m.
Writer, International Affairs, The Globe and Mail, As an Individual
If we're just talking about the asylum and refugee system, and not about the issue of dealing with irregular border crossers, I think most European countries are looking to Canada.
There are specific pieces that are worth looking at in European countries. It's worth looking at the German experiments with return programs during the last two years. It's also worth looking at their massive investment in apprenticeship programs and housing, which have created a very successful integration process for those 40% or so of the migrants who were accepted as refugees.
The Canadian system generally works very well under its normal systems, if you discount the speed the determination process takes. A reliance on sponsorship and government-assisted resettlement refugees makes it a fairly secure system. Particularly our process of effectively turning accepted refugees into regular immigrants quickly, and then into permanent residents and citizens quickly, reduces a lot of the danger to the system that European countries have experienced where people remain refugees for life.
I would say that we need to look abroad for specific pieces, and we need to look abroad for lessons on how to reduce irregular crossings, but that's in order that our refugee system can go back to being what it should be, which is a small slice of our immigration picture.
We do not want a situation where our immigration system is depending on refugee pathways as one of its main channels. It should be 5% to 10% of our immigration picture. That's what the entire system was designed to handle and that should be the normal rate. We should not be in a situation like some European countries where we're relying on asylum as our main source of immigration. It's not a good way to run an immigration system and it's unfair to the various migrant parties as well.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Mr. Saunders, you also talked about looking into the economic factors on how refugees or migrants decide where to go, which is very interesting: the cost of going, the payback time, the delay in processing and whatnot.
Currently in the irregular migrant crossings the biggest group is coming from northern Africa, if I understand correctly, and from one particular area. They're getting American visas rather quickly and then they're migrating across. We have been effective on disseminating information to the Latin American communities and the Haitian communities in the U.S.
What do you think is the best way to communicate with those communities? Are there certain social media channels that are better ways, or should our embassies there convey that message so that these people aren't duped into spending a fortune to come here and then not being able to stay if, in fact, they're not refugees? They would be economic migrants and would be returned after they have undertaken a large debt load. Are there effective means that you think can be used?
5:20 p.m.
Writer, International Affairs, The Globe and Mail, As an Individual
Nigeria has been the largest source country for irregular crossings in Canada. In fact, it was the largest source country for irregular crossings into Italy last year as well.
A certain portion of Nigerians are legitimate refugees. There are situations in Nigeria that would qualify under the United Nations convention. My understanding is that about 40% of Nigerian applicants in Canada are deemed to be convention refugees.
That said, for those who are legitimate refugees, that's no way to be entering Canada, to have to pay a fortune to go into the United States and then pay another fortune to go into Canada, and it should be deterred. There are a lot of people who have been misled through their information networks about using the asylum process as a way to enter Canada as labour migrants.
I think, as you suggested, we need to change the myths and the information, but frankly, we also need to change the physical reality that actually for some people entering through the asylum system as a way to earn some money during the determination process, and so on, it has been successful. As I said, I think dealing with the understaffing of the determination system, of the appeal courts and so on, so that it's not just quicker, but it is seen to be quicker—
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
With the brief time we have remaining, you'll probably have 30 seconds to comment on two potential changes. I'd like the debate to be around policy going forward.
I think that what we need to do in Canada, in terms of a path to entry for people who are trying to come into Canada through the asylum system but don't have a valid asylum claim, is to completely reform the temporary foreign worker program. I think it's pejorative in its title. I think it leads to abuse of workers, and I don't think it adequately meets the needs of the labour force in the Canadian economy.
What I'm proposing is that we reform it such that low-skilled migrants who might think about entering Canada as asylum seekers have a more formal way to come to Canada. Let's say, you work three out of four years. If you stay employed for that period of time in Canada, put in place a mechanism that is cognisant of labour mobility rules. You're eligible for citizenship. Then encourage people to come that way, and stop the whole, frankly, ridiculous, unsustainable system of the seasonal agricultural worker program, the caregiver program. I think it's unfair. That's proposal number one.
Proposal number two is, I would like to see reform in how we select humanitarian immigrants so that there is more of a focus and a nimbleness in our government on being able to help internally displaced persons, especially marginalized communities. The two ways I would propose to do that is for the Government of Canada to push the UN for reform on their determination process to ensure that people who can't reach UN refugee camps still have access into that selection process. That's going to take some work and an acknowledgement of a problem. Also, I propose that the Government of Canada reserve the government-sponsored refugee spots with more of a focus on, let's say, an instance of the four atrocity crimes. We put some nimbleness into that selection like we did with the Yazidi refugee program and we subsequently start to lift the caps on the privately sponsored refugee programs so that we unleash the ability of the Canadian public to sponsor refugees.
With the time remaining, I'd like you to comment on those ideas.
5:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill University, As an Individual
I think those ideas are very promising.
I would agree with you that it's concerning for many refugees who are coming to Canada through the resettlement system. It's in fact a kind of family reunification. I think we can channel those movements towards family reunification and, as you say, maximize opportunities to try to make sure that people who, for example, cannot escape their own country may still be able to access resettlement opportunities and other forms of protection.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Saunders, please comment with the brief time remaining.
5:25 p.m.
Writer, International Affairs, The Globe and Mail, As an Individual
I think a unified, single temporary visa that's agnostic as to the type of work, as you suggest, and that contains a clear pathway to permanent residency and citizenship for those who want it would be fine, with the qualification that it needs to be clear that it keeps families intact, that it allows family reunification during the temporary work process, which is another flaw in the current system that could be addressed.
I think it's a danger to countries to have unaccompanied men in large numbers residing in the country for a long time, and frankly, also unaccompanied women whose families are elsewhere. It's generally not good to have policies that keep families apart. In the history of Canadian—
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Sorry, but I have such little time.
Can you each give us perhaps two or three names of those who you think we should be talking to to explore the actual implementation mechanisms of that particular scope of policy? If you can't today, I would invite you to perhaps write to the chair as well if you have any further thoughts.
I'll just close by saying that I don't think the system is working. I think we need to change our processes holistically in order to have the asylum system focused on the world's most vulnerable and then have a path to entry for people that is closely mapped with the needs of the Canadian economy. I just feel that there's a bit of a gap.
I don't know if we have any more time for comments, Mr. Chair.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We don't really, but we'd be happy if you would like to send us something. Also, the study is going to go on for a little bit, and we may get back to you.
Don't hesitate to be in touch with me or the clerk and we can figure out ways to get further input from you.
Thank you.
5:30 p.m.
Writer, International Affairs, The Globe and Mail, As an Individual
I would be happy to submit a set of references and notes.
5:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill University, As an Individual
Certainly, yes.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Very good.
As the member for Thorncliffe Park, I thank you for your work.
The meeting is adjourned.