Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 18th, 2018

[Prof. Anna Purkey]

Thank you very much for the question.

I will refer to Professor Macklin's comments on this as well, in that we don't have any real evidence that doing away with the safe third country agreement would in fact create any huge influx. We've had a substantial influx of people over the past few years, but there's no indication that removing the agreement entirely would change that. Those people are still coming and will continue to come, even under the current agreement.

With regard to the idea of integration and perhaps the push-back against a large number of people, I think we have to also keep in mind how many people we're talking about. This is not a million people crossing the border. This is not what we see in Turkey. This isn't even what we saw in Germany and Austria. The numbers, if you look at them in absolute context, are not that big. They're big for us. However, we are a very large country. We are a wealthy country. If we devote the resources to it, we have the capacity to integrate substantially more people than we are.

In fact, we need to integrate, whether they're refugees or immigrants.... There have been any number of studies fairly recently that have talked about the challenges we have in terms of creating a workforce. Obviously we prefer to choose who comes in, but doing away with the safe third country agreement doesn't remove the security checks that would be there. We will be doing all of that. You're not going to be getting “terrorists” coming in.

With regard to the issue of processing time, again, it's a question of resources. If we devote more resources to it, we can process faster. We were able to do it with the Syrians when they came in.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

With the current flow of irregular crossings, a lot of them are getting visas to the United States and then they're coming in. I think it's in the 30% rate who are currently being accepted as refugees.

You have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of undocumented workers and people without proper status in the U.S. At any time, if the U.S. changes its policy, they could be potential refugees who could just come over the border. That is the issue that I'm more concerned about. The others are coming in and it's not as big of a number as people think. However, that's the alarming factor. Prior to this current regime, that was probably not something Canadians were worried about. Currently it's a realistic fear, and that's why I'm asking how we can curb it.

I'll go on to Ms. Macklin.

I want to commend you on your comments about the empirical data of a refugee versus an economic immigrant. It is so true. If you look even historically, whether it's Jews who left during the Holocaust, they've become some of the most successful immigrants in the United States and Canada.

I look at some of my parents' friends from India, who were India and Pakistan partition refugees. Some of the wealthiest and most industrious and entrepreneurial people in India and around the world who came out of that were refugees. They started from nothing.

I commend you. It would be very helpful if you had some empirical data to show us about Canadian refugees who have settled and how well they've done.

I recall somebody doing it on the boat people who came to Halifax in the late eighties—I believe 1988—and they studied how well they did. I don't know how many were millionaires, how many had employed others, but if you have more empirical data that you might be privy to, I'd be greatly appreciative.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

The study I referenced is one that the government itself did. It was reported in the media. The evidence is within the government's archive of data.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I'll ask the analyst to provide that.

I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Ali Ehsassi for questions.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank everyone for their incredible advocacy today.

I should add that I'm just a visitor. I'm not regularly a part of this—

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

He's a temporary resident.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I'm a temporary resident, as my colleague said, on this committee.

The issue that I want to ask you about, both Professor Purkey and Professor Liew, is on the convention on the status of the stateless.

Out of curiosity, what are the impediments that seem to be in our way of ratifying this convention? I note that the Human Rights Council has brought this up. They've made several recommendations to us. What has been the policy rationale, from the bureaucracy I suppose, for not signing on to it?

[Prof. Jamie Liew]

My understanding is that the difference between the 1961 and the 1954 conventions is that the one we haven't ratified imposes positive obligations, so it really means that Canada has to take positive steps to create a pathway to citizenship for stateless persons. Canada needs to actively take steps to identify, to track, to define and to provide a pathway to permanent status in Canada.

Canada is reluctant to do this because it really means there won't be flexibility in the future to talk about the ways in which we might want to create a more flexible or less sticky citizenship. We've seen discussions and policy and revisions in our Citizenship Act that have in the past created concerns among advocates like me about whether or not citizenship should be as permanent as it is. There have been recent discussions about the idea of citizenship, who qualifies for it, who is deserving and how we can strip citizenship away. These potential policy actions that governments may want to take are restricted further by their being a signatory to this convention.

I think that Canada should take this as an opportunity to be a leader. The UNHCR is embarking on this campaign and Canada's been known internationally to lead in the refugee context, and I don't see how it could be any different with regard to statelessness. I think it is a good time and an opportunity to incorporate in our protection regime a way to define and track stateless persons and to identify ways to provide dedicated protection paths for them.

Obviously, the first step to do that would be to become a signatory and ratify the convention, but I think Canada can make a contribution without doing that as well. However, my preference would be to become a signatory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I need you to end there. I think we will take that and ask for a note on the actual differences.

Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to the witnesses for your presentations.

There were a couple of points of interest that I found. Your statelessness, Ms. Liew, was something that I think was important. Ten million across the world and you referred to the number of stateless in Canada. Do you have numbers on...?

[Prof. Jamie Liew]

My understanding is that, in the 2016 census, there were almost 4,000 people who had self-identified as stateless, but this refers only to people who have self-identified. Without a full, broad study, it's unclear how many stateless persons there are in Canada. Obviously, people who are stateless may not want to become identifiable to the government for fear of becoming removable when they come to the attention of the government.

It's really unclear and I think the government has an opportunity to use its resources to track and identify stateless persons and provide some pathways for them.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

That's a very good point. Those are only the legally identified ones and 4,000 is quite a number. As you pointed out, there could be many others who for many reasons do not want to declare themselves.

Ms. Purkey, you talked about the aid program, the guaranteeing of aid over a longer period of time. Could you elaborate on that a bit? I know it would provide more predictability. Is that the major reason for going there?

[Prof. Anna Purkey]

To a great extent, it is about predictability. It's also about consistency. I think about my students who want to work in international aid, yet you can only get a one- or two-year contract because your job is dependent on the funding cycle. It also means that a huge amount of effort is put into writing grant proposals and spending time seeking new aid, with different organizations or different states competing against one another.

We favour enabling a longer funding cycle because we realize that the challenges of dealing with migration aren't going to be solved in six months. They're not things that are going to be solved in a year. We need to be able to look ahead in order to create some degree of consistency.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I was speaking with some people from the Canadian Foodgrains Bank just yesterday in regard to your numbers, the 0.26% gross now and target of 0.7%. Those are exactly the numbers they have as well, so dollars are needed in some of those areas and it would be a benefit to help with some of those pathways.

It was very staggering to hear your reference to temporary living. Survival in those temporary living conditions is pretty staggering and you used that as a pathway mechanism. Could you elaborate on that?

[Prof. Anna Purkey]

One of the options that has been raised is looking at the idea of providing temporary protection to people. Perhaps states would be more willing to offer protection if they didn't feel there was going to be a permanent impact on their society.

I have some reservations about that, because ultimately, our objective is to find durable solutions and durable solutions are long term. They're permanent. They allow people to settle and integrate. At the same time, perhaps looking at temporary mechanisms is the least bad of some of the options. If you could give people at least some assurance that they had status and protection for a limited period of time, and it didn't impact our long-term objectives, then at least you wouldn't have this constant feeling of insecurity for many people, this day-to-day, “Am I going to get deported? Am I going to get returned to a country where I risk torture?”

It's not a perfect solution. Ideally, we want durable solutions. We want permanent solutions for everyone. We are not currently in a situation where that is possible.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Ms. Liew, I know, from some of your articles, that you mentioned the Rohingya. Are there measures you think we should be taking to further our support of the Rohingya? I understand you support Canada stripping the citizenship of Aung San Suu Kyi. Can you elaborate on that, and what do you think we could do in those areas?

[Prof. Jamie Liew]

Certainly, Canada could think about resettling a number of Rohingya from refugee camps, for example, in Bangladesh. Canada has obviously had a record of doing that. That is one big step to support the weight of the burden that some countries in the region are feeling.

Secondly, engaging with ASEAN and partners in Asia to talk about what a durable solution within that region is. Finally, providing, as Professor Purkey mentioned, aid to the regions where Rohingya are currently living.

It is imperative that we discuss the fact that some of these people are going to be living as stateless refugees in some countries for many years. I personally met some Rohingya refugees in Malaysia. They have been living there for 20 years. This is not a durable solution, because they don't have status. Their children are not educated. Canada needs to have a more engaged conversation about what's happening in countries that are closer to the conflict.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Ms. Kwan and I were at a camp this summer in Africa, where a person had been in that camp for 27 years. She was now looking after her grandchildren in that camp, a very desperate situation. Do you feel that in relation to some of the programming that we provide, it's important to look at the most persecuted people in these areas as refugees to be taken by Canada, as opposed to, say, people referred to as economic refugees?

[Prof. Jamie Liew]

Certainly, it's difficult to prioritize. I'm not going to judge the government in terms of how it comes to that decision. The people who are living in the most precarious of situations....

I identified the Rohingya as a population, because they're stateless. There is completely no recognition of their personhood anywhere. Alongside the genocide that has been recognized by this government, this is a perfect example of where our resettlement program could kick in, and where Canada can engage in a conversation about what kind of assistance can be given to countries in that region.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all three of our witnesses for their very thoughtful presentations.

I'm going to start with the issue of a safe third country agreement. Minister Blair, actually, a few weeks ago at a different committee, the public safety committee, put on the public record, in response to my colleague Matthew Dubé's question about whether or not the government will eliminate applying a safe third country agreement to the entire border from its discussion and negotiations with the United States, that the answer was no.

The option of applying the safe third country agreement to the entire border is on the table as the government sits at the table when it renegotiates the safe third country agreement with the U.S. I'd like to ask all three of you for your comments about that, and whether or not this is the right approach, or should we just be on the record that this is not an option?

Professor Macklin.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

I'm not going to repeat reasons I think it's an unprincipled response, but just from the perspective of practicality, are we going to build a wall along the Canada-U.S. border? Are we going to put sentries along the Canada-U.S. border? How exactly does anybody imagine that you could implement this agreement across the full length of the Canadian border? If you think, we'll just put them at Roxham Road and in Emerson, Manitoba, then people are no longer going to try to enter at Roxham Road and Emerson, Manitoba.

It's just a completely unfeasible approach, not to mention, who do you imagine will be standing on the other side of the U.S. border waiting to receive people back? The whole thing is just so impractical that even if you aren't persuaded by the principled objections to it, I would think the pragmatic ones should carry some weight.

If I may, just let me add one more point to this. There is the sense, a kind of short memory idea, that the safe third country agreement has always been in place, that it has always ever been thus, but of course, it's only been in place for a dozen years. A dozen years ago, the norm was, you can make a refugee claim at a port of entry at the land border, at an airport or a seaport. Today, you can still make a refugee claim at an airport or a seaport.

The safe third country agreement is an exception to the norm. It's not the norm. Just to repeat, there's no evidence that, if you were to revert to the status quo ante, the usual situation, that there would be a sudden rush to the border. If there's a concern amongst Canadians that there will be, I think it's the job of those who lead this country, it's a job of leadership to dispel the kind of negative information—the scapegoating and the misinformation. It isn't to just take it as a given, as a political fact around which one must organize one's policies.

Thank you.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Ms. Liew.

[Prof. Jamie Liew]

The STCA's original purpose was really to reduce the pressures faced by the IRB in terms of the number of claims being made at the time. If you think about that policy reason, why the STCA was put in place, it is obviously failing.

As acknowledged by a member of the committee earlier today, there are people coming regardless of whether or not the STCA is in place. I think the question should be, how do we manage the border in a planned, orderly and compassionate way? This goes back to Professor Macklin's comment about what is most practical.

As well, we should really think about the fact that applying the safe third country agreement really means we're not meeting our international obligations when it comes to refugee protection. We cannot stand here and espouse the way in which the world should be convening and talking about refugee protection when, in our own backyard, we're not complying with international obligations.

I've spoken at length in front of the committee before about the violations that are occurring, that people are being turned back to face risks in their home country and even hardship and trauma within the United States.

Finally, I want to say that we should really trust our system. We have a well-oiled immigration system in place. We should use our legal, official ports of entry instead of these makeshift places and not complicate the matter. Ultimately, our obligation is to process these claims. We shouldn't be focused on how people are coming and trying to stop them from coming. Let's live up to our international obligations.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Professor Purkey.