Evidence of meeting #124 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 countries.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Okay.
Our government agreed to resettle a small number of survivors of the Yazidi genocide to Canada. Could you provide some details on the current situation with the IDPs in Iraq and what those patterns of displacement look like? Is there more that we should be doing to help those who have been internally displaced in Iraq due to ISIS?
3:55 p.m.
Director, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
Absolutely. As I said, countries such as Iraq and Syria have experienced large IDP crises. In those countries there are IDPs who have been repeatedly displaced over long periods of time and whose resilience has been extremely eroded over the years, but there is now talk and already a reality on the ground of IDPs returning to their areas of origin under an overall improvement of the situation on the ground. What Iraq needs right now is significant investment in reconstruction and in making those return areas as safe as possible so as to avoid people who are returning becoming internally displaced again.
In fact, we are documenting already both refugee and IDP returns that are not happening in optimal conditions and that are leading to people having to move again upon their return. Of course, that's not the situation we want to see, because it just perpetuates this crisis. Therefore, more investment in longer-term development and reconstruction efforts in Iraq is going to have to be the number one priority to ensure a sustainable return process.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I have a question on the UNHCR as well, and its capacities to look at ways of helping resettle internally displaced persons.
What would you see as an option for the UNHCR? Do you think it has the proper capacities to be able to handle some of that and the rest of the world as well?
4 p.m.
Director, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
IDPs unfortunately don't fall under UNHCR's mandate formally, although of course the UNHCR has been responding in a number of IDP contexts across the world and over the years. They are right now in a process of developing their IDP policy, which seeks to clarify what UNHCR's engagement in an IDP context is going to be, both in terms of operational coordination and also in data collection and protection more broadly.
We are encouraging them to bring as much clarity as possible so that their response in the future can be as predictable and as comprehensive as possible, but we do have some concerns that along with what looks to be an ambitious IDP policy, the budget for responding in an IDP context is decreasing and is still significantly lower than their budgets for responding to refugee flows.
The problem with internal displacement is that there is a clear gap in terms of international leadership and governance on this issue, because no single UN agency is formally responsible for the internal displacement agenda. That counts for UNHCR, just as it does for IOM, OHCHR, UNDP, and so on.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank both of our witnesses for their presentation.
Ms. Atak, earlier in the conversation with one of my colleagues about asylum seekers and particularly the safe third country agreement, I think I heard you say that Canada should suspend the safe third country agreement. Did I hear you correctly?
4 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, Ryerson University, As an Individual
That's correct.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
There was a question about the mechanism by which to trigger that. My understanding is that article 10 of the agreement allows for Canada to give notice to the United States and to suspend the agreement for 90 days immediately, so that would be one provision that we can exercise to begin this process.
Would you agree that this would be the right approach?
4 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, Ryerson University, As an Individual
I would believe so, yes. It's a bilateral agreement, and there is a clause, as you mentioned, that allows Canada to either suspend or rescind.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Correct.
At the moment—actually, at a different committee—Minister Blair, who's responsible for border security, talked about this issue. In a response to committee members, he indicated that Canada has not ruled out applying the safe third country agreement to the entire border of Canada, as my Conservative colleagues have advocated.
Do you think Canada should do that, or should we take that off the table in terms of the negotiations with the United States?
4 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, Ryerson University, As an Individual
Thank you so much for this question.
I think that should be taken off the table. I don't think it is the right decision in this case. We've seen over the last years how unproductive this safe third country agreement is, and it's extremely costly and difficult to enforce. It creates more irregular or undocumented migration in Canada. It also victimizes individuals. We've seen in the newspapers people trying to cross the border during the winter. There was one dead and other individuals were injured, so it also victimizes individuals.
More importantly, I would say, because we are a state party to the 1951 convention on the status of refugees, we do have some obligations, and one of these obligations is to let them come. Asylum seekers should be able to claim asylum, and we do have a mechanism in terms of security screening, front-end security screening. During the process of refugee claim examination, we do have capabilities and institutions that make sure that those who are a security threat to our country are weeded out.
I would say it would be an error to expand the safe third country agreement to all of our frontiers.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much. I appreciate that clarification and explanation.
I'm going to turn to the point that you made around the designated country of origin. I think you were calling for that to be eliminated. Can you expand on that for me, please?
4 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, Ryerson University, As an Individual
Yes.
This is again a new measure. We haven't implemented a designated country of origin clause or safe country of origin notion in our refugee system, whereas this notion has been implemented in European countries since the 1980s. It's proven extremely unproductive and costly in Europe.
A safe country of origin clause allows the Minister of Immigration to designate a country of origin as safe, so there is a presumption that the nationals who are refugee claimants and coming from those countries are coming from a safe country; therefore, they are not refugees per se.
There is this presumption, and it's extremely difficult for these claimants to reverse the presumption before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you for that.
I'm going to turn to internally displaced individuals for a minute. One of the issues we see is that those who are internally displaced, particularly in a country that might be deemed to be safe, have actually no ability or opportunity to seek a pathway for resettlement, such as those from the LGBTQ community.
There are many countries—I believe 70—that designate people from the LGBTQ community to be illegal, to be engaging in a criminal activity. To that end, Canada used to have a process to allow for a pathway for resettlement for these individuals, but now that is gone.
I wonder if I could get a comment from Ms. Bilak on this issue. What do you think Canada should do with respect to creating a pathway for internally displaced individuals such as those from the LGBTQ community?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
The situation of internally displaced persons is very specific and requires a very specific type of response, because we're talking about citizens or permanent residents of a country who become displaced as a result of one or several possible factors. Armed conflict and generalized violence constitute some of the possible causes of displacement. A person who is displaced by another type of violent event that doesn't qualify as a generalized violence situation or an armed conflict does not qualify as an IDP.
The first response that needs to come to IDPs has to come from the national government. We're talking about citizens of a country where national legislation, national protection and assistance mechanisms need to kick in. There's very little, in fact, that an outside government can do to reintegrate individual IDPs or find a solution for them.
The type of support that's needed from the international community—in the context of a government that is unwilling or unable to respond—is first and foremost humanitarian assistance to provide the basic services that many of these IDPs lack in the immediate crisis context. Over the longer term it's the kind of longer-term development assistance—through education, new jobs, shelter options, legal recourse in certain cases, compensation, etc.—that will bring about the conditions that will gradually enable an IDP to find what we call a durable solution and to no longer be displaced. However, that's a much longer-term process that has to be led at the national level, and that of course requires international financial support.
In certain cases we are also advocating for international partners to [Inaudible—Editor] IDP return processes so that the immediate condition, let's say, of displacements can be addressed, but even these return processes have to be accompanied by the right kind of development and socio-economic assistance so that over time we can hope to see an end to displacements.
I hope that answers your question. Resettlement and reintegration have to be managed at the national level by a functioning national government.
October 4th, 2018 / 4:10 p.m.
Salma Zahid Scarborough Centre, Lib.
Thank you, Chair, and I would like to thank both the witnesses for their presentations today as we go through our study.
My first question is for Ms. Atak. You have spoken about how negative public policy can drive a culture of suspicion among asylum seekers and refugees, and you told the National Post in April about a global trend of criminalizing asylum seekers and especially undocumented migrants. This risks eroding public support for helping those in need.
How can we build faith and confidence in refugees and asylum seekers and counter this bad information?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, Ryerson University, As an Individual
We're fortunate because we have developed, with some glitches, a well-functioning refugee system, and I refer to the Immigration and Refugee Board. There is a wealth of knowledge and expertise within the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in terms of processing the refugee claims made here. Other actors involved in the refugee protection system also contribute to this.
We need to do a critical evaluation of what's working and what isn't. I highlighted some of the problems within the system that make it counterproductive and less efficient, and also unfair. In addition, amending legislation and also rescinding some of the legislative measures would be the right way to go.
4:10 p.m.
Scarborough Centre, Lib.
Thank you.
Regarding the use of the designated country of origin, DCO, you talked about designated foreign nationals today and how this classification can divert people from legal asylum channels. We also heard in our last meeting on Tuesday about how policy changes can influence people towards the legal or the illegal channels.
What policies can we put in place to encourage the use of the legal channels rather than the illegal channels?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, Ryerson University, As an Individual
First of all, because the question refers to the previous questions, rescinding the safe third country agreement would be the right thing to do.
We have many other problems in terms of measuring undocumented migration in Canada. We don't have any research and we don't have any data. If we compare our knowledge of the phenomenon with that of the European Union or other global north countries, for example, we don't have any research. We have nothing about undocumented migration. Especially since the elections in the U.S., all we know is there is a rise in sanctuary city movements, and they point to the existence of an undocumented migrant population in Canada.
In our research project, we also found a correlation between some of the most repressive measures—designated foreign nationals and the reduction of available recourse, for example—and undocumented migration. That is because these measures deter individuals from using the legal channels. They go underground and they gain time, especially with accelerated timelines, so undocumented migration becomes a strategy, but we know so little about undocumented migration.
4:10 p.m.
Scarborough Centre, Lib.
Do you think that giving them more time to file their claims would help?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, Ryerson University, As an Individual
I absolutely do think so, yes.
4:10 p.m.
Scarborough Centre, Lib.
Thank you.
My next question is for Ms. Bilak. On your web page you have shown a global picture of internal displacement, and natural disaster looks to be a widespread trend driving migration.
How important is climate change as a driver for displacement? Is there an awareness of it? What can we do to address that?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
Thank you very much for the questions.
I'm glad that you've gone to visit our website, and perhaps you'll have seen by looking at our global maps that it's true, as I was saying in my presentation, that we report high levels of disaster displacement every year, and within those numbers, something like 90% of all the displacement that is caused by natural hazard-related disasters is actually caused by climate-related, weather-related meteorological hazards like storms, floods, hurricanes, etc.
Of course, it's very hard at this point in time to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship between climate change and the intensity of these hazards, but we do expect, just as all the climate change scientists out there predict, that in the future the impacts of climate change will only exacerbate the intensity and severity of these hazards. We expect climate change to only exacerbate the scope and the scale of displacement in those contexts.
This is why we have made a clear case for addressing internal displacement as an integral part of not just the climate change agenda, but also of other policy agendas, such as disaster risk reduction and sustainable development. Displacement has now been recognized within the UNFCCC negotiations as an integral component under the loss and damage pillar. Displacement has also been integrated into the Paris agreement as one of the clear future impacts of climate change.
It is a well-established fact that there is a correlation between climate change and displacement, so the next step is of course more investments in both adaptation and mitigation measures, and more importantly in providing the right kind of support to those countries. They're mostly developing countries that are already experiencing these effects, and they are at risk, in some cases, of experiencing forms of permanent displacement such as what we're seeing already happening in some small island states in the Pacific that are already going underwater. Entire communities are having to prepare for a longer-term form of displacement. Those are the countries that need the most support.
This is of course where the most controversial conversations often happen in climate change negotiations, because it all boils down to financing and the transfer of those financial resources to the countries that are most affected. It's a conversation and power play between developed countries and developing countries.
