Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 6th, 2018

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Kwan is next.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I thank our witnesses for their presentations.

I would like to touch on the situation around Venezuela or, if you will, Central America. The United States has deemed that domestic violence—or gang violence, as an example—would not be a valid reason for people to seek asylum in the United States. Most recently, the President declared that they're moving towards legally defining sex as immutably assigned by the genitals that a person is born with. Therefore, transgendered people would also be faced with persecution in the United States.

To that end, in this context of internally displaced people and people being displaced, Canada does have a safe third country agreement, which really just prevents people from entering Canada through regular border crossings. I wonder if I could get some comments from you around that. Also, do you think the United States at this point in time is a safe third country? If not, do you think Canada should be suspending the safe third country agreement?

[Allan Rock]

Lloyd Axworthy and I have already published an opinion to the effect that the time has come to bring that agreement to an end. I was in cabinet when that agreement was entered into. It was entered into on the basis that the United States was at that time a safe place for a refugee and that a refugee safely in the United States could be turned back for that reason.

I don't believe that the United States is any longer a safe place for that refugee. The evidence has been accumulating since January of 2017 that it's unsafe. Each month brings a new declaration, a new step or a new absurd position from the American administration that puts those people in greater peril.

I think that agreement should be suspended and that we should no longer regard the United States as safe for those purposes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rock.

Ms. Lenard, do you have anything to add to those statements?

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

Just that I agree.

I was a defender of keeping the safe third country agreement for a long period of time after all the people with whom I share connections had switched to the other side, which was that it was time to abandon the agreement. Actually, I think we need to abandon it before the winter so that we can be treated to many fewer people crossing the border and losing their fingers as they try to come through irregular border crossings to get to Canada. We can save lives and fingers by suspending it quickly.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On the global context, thank you, Mr. Rock, for your suggestion on the action that we need to take, particularly in targeting the frozen assets of crooked foreign leaders. Your recommendation to us is really to bring in legislation to allow for those monies to be unfrozen and utilized for humanitarian purposes. To that end, aside from Canada doing this internally, what should we be doing internationally with the global community on this issue?

[Allan Rock]

Well, I think what the council dreams of is a day when there's a worldwide web of legislation of this kind and crooked leaders know that there's no place where their money will be safe.

I mentioned Switzerland. Worried about the integrity of their banking system, they put into place informal measures, starting in 2001, requiring banks to discover the beneficial owner of money on deposit, providing for the freezing of assets and providing for going to court to ask for confiscation. They codified that in legislation in 2015.

That's a model for us. We recommend some changes, but I think the ideas there are a great precedent. We're going to encourage all countries to adopt similar legislation so that there is no safe haven for purloined assets and these crooks will know they can't get away with it. I think that's the ultimate objective.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to move to what was talked about in terms of vulnerable communities. These are the people who are internally displaced in their own countries, particularly the LGBTQ community in countries where it is a criminal act for them to be who they are, yet we don't have an internally displaced stream here in Canada for resettlement purposes. We do have a pilot program, which should be made permanent, and thank you, Ms. Lenard, for that recommendation.

With respect to other countries, until resettlement takes place by Canada or other countries, is there something else that can be done? For example, could shelters be established to be in place to provide supports for these vulnerable populations? I say for the LGBTQ community, but it's also for people who are faced with sexual violence, for example. Is there something we can do with the international community to address that issue?

[Hina Jilani]

Yes, I'm sure that something can be done. There must be more commitment towards the vulnerable communities, especially the LGBTQ community. Look at the situation of those who are either internally displaced or in refugee camps in countries where their lives are not safe. Who will take responsibility for their protection? Those host governments are not going to be taking on that responsibility.

As I said in answer to an earlier question, most of the frameworks for protection that are for action against those who perpetrate any kind of violence on these communities will be within the local context. The jurisdiction will be that of the host country, so their criminal laws will apply, and that's a very dangerous situation for them.

There are no shelters for women who are suffering domestic violence within the IDP community or the refugee community. At the same time, the UNHCR or the international bodies responsible for groups of refugees in a particular country will not take the responsibility for their protection from any kind of criminalization that happens, because the laws of a particular country are hostile to these communities.

[Allan Rock]

Can I add something very quickly? We think of refugees in camps, but we have to remember that a very significant proportion of refugees are not in camps.

In Colombia, for example, we saw a million Venezuelans cross the border, which is 2,200 kilometres long, and disappear into the country. They speak the same language. They're indistinguishable from Colombians, so they blend in—except that they don't. They have difficulty working. They have difficulty being accepted. They have difficulty supporting themselves. That forces a lot of people to become marginalized. It forces women in particular to resort to the sex trade to support themselves or their families. It also makes them very vulnerable to traffickers and others who want to exploit them. It makes them vulnerable to the drug cartels, which want to use them as mules.

What we've urged in the case of Colombia, in response to the Venezuelan crisis, is that we find a way as quickly as possible to regularize the refugees who are not in camps but are in the regular population. Allow them to work. Allow them access to education and social services. That's a question of funding, and we have recommendations on funding. We recommend that payment to UNHCR should be compulsory in the UN. It should be mandatory. It shouldn't be a voluntary pass-the-hat, because that's not working. We recommend that the private sector become involved and issue refugee bonds to raise money that way.

I will wind up by saying that it's not just the camps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. Whalen is next.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much.

It's really interesting to have this conversation. Certainly when Ms. Rempel raised the issue of the Dublin agreement, I wondered what your thoughts are on having a Dublinesque agreement for North America.

Canada is shielded largely from the flows of migrants by the United States, which absorbs somewhere between 11.3 million and 22.1 million people, depending upon whose numbers you want to look at. Canada doesn't absorb nearly its percentage of regular migrant flows compared to the U.S.

Is there some way that we could codify rules throughout our hemisphere that would allow us to better manage these flows so that Colombia wouldn't have the whole burden, Brazil wouldn't have the whole burden, and the United States wouldn't have the whole burden? We would try to find some equitable way to share this burden with them and support the irregular migrants, either by making them regular or in some other fashion.

[Allan Rock]

You put your finger on the very central recommendation at the World Refugee Council: that there be true burden-sharing, responsibility-sharing; that we shouldn't impose on host communities, because they are neighbours, to take all the refugees; that the world should step up and recognize that we're all in this together; and that there should be, as Ms. Jilani has said, common but differentiated responsibility, so each of us contributes in a different way.

Give us a rational partner south of the border, and we'd be delighted to sit and talk to them about some kind of arrangement of that kind. I think it has to be in the future.

We speak about the number of refugees. It's reliably predicted that given climate change, there will be 250 million refugees by 2050. That's not very far away from now. Countries faced with drought and rising oceans and major weather catastrophes are going to produce those refugees. We have to find a way to share the responsibility, and I think that's exactly the formula we need.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

You have all recommended getting rid of the safe third country agreement, yet if even a small fraction of a percentage of the 11.3 million to 22.1 million people came to a regular border crossing in Canada feeling they could claim asylum and not be immediately turned back, that would cause a fair amount of hardship and overwhelm our system, which is already quite strained, but which does deal with the irregular migrants in a responsible way.

In the case of Ecuadorians, even if a small number of them come next year, when their ability to stay in the U.S. expires.... A new arrangement is necessary. Simply eliminating the safe third country agreement unilaterally would potentially throw our system into chaos.

[Hina Jilani]

I don't know much about what the arrangements are at the moment, but, as I said, the role of regional organizations is very important. I suppose the Inter-American System needs to step in at some point, because this is not just North America. There are countries in other parts, in Central America and South America, that are host countries, and from which there's an outflow of refugees. I do suppose that regional arrangements need to be made, but these arrangements must be very firmly based on burden-sharing and collective responsibility.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

In that light, how can Canada better regularize the irregular migrants we're seeing? Are we doing a good job at providing them opportunities to participate in our economy? Can and should we be doing more? The Ugandan example is great if you're not LGBTQ. If you aren't, then, of course, it's quite a good system. What can Canada do better in terms of providing opportunities?

[Allan Rock]

For one thing, resources are required to speed up the process of the determination of asylum seekers. I think it draws the whole system into disrepute and undermines Canadians' confidence in the system when it takes so very long to resolve a claim for asylum. Canadians are entitled to believe that our borders are secure, that our laws will be respected, and that no one will game the system or take advantage of it. Those who are arriving claiming asylum are not breaking the law; they're asserting a right. In response to that asserting of the right, we should have a system available that determines their claim quickly and effectively. Unless we do so, we're putting the system at risk.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I think there's a larger philosophical discussion we don't have time for.

Very quickly, Ms. Lenard, I agree that we need to use the BVOR program better. Maybe we could see the levels come up in the future if it's used more.

I want to share my time with Ms. Zahid, because she has an important question.

[Salma Zahid, Scarborough Centre, Lib.]

Thanks, Nick.

Thanks to all three members of the panel for coming out today. My question is for Ms. Jilani.

It's really an honour to meet you in person today. You have been, and are, a role model for me. Growing up in Pakistan, we watched your work and the work of your sister on human rights and women's rights very closely, and I really admire you for that. It was shocking news for me to hear about your sister this February. Thanks for your work for the last three decades on human rights.

You're a member of The Elders also, and The Elders have called on Myanmar to allow the return of the displaced Rohingya. Could you please address what needs to be part of the lasting return for the Rohingya, and what Canada and our allies can do to encourage that?

[Hina Jilani]

I think the first thing the international community needs to do is have a common agenda to present to the Government of Myanmar to make sure that the return is possible and safe. At the moment, I think some of the steps that have been taken are far from satisfactory.

I have met the Rohingya population in Bangladesh, and I don't see any confidence in that population that they will be able to return and live there with safety. Myanmar is going through an ethnic conflict in any case; I think the Rohingya issue is deeper than just the Rohingya and the prejudice against the Rohingya population.

I think lengthy work needs to be done with Myanmar. The problem for the international community and for me as an Elder, as part of a group that's working on this, is also that these refugees cannot stay in Bangladesh for a long time. There also we see a lot of problems happening.

I think the best thing is diplomatic overtures with the Government of Myanmar and more pressure on the civilian government to enforce some kind of restraint on the military in the provinces where these ethnic conflicts take place. The Rohingya population perhaps may be safer in larger cities, but it is in those very areas that these people have fled from that the danger still exists.

[Salma Zahid]

Thanks a lot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you. We need to end this panel here.

Thank you very much. Ms. Zahid echoed what I wanted to say to you, Ms. Jilani. Your sister's death I think rocked the world, and you continue her legacy as two very formidable champions for human rights. Thank you for doing that and carrying on that work. You will remain in our thoughts.

[Hina Jilani]

Thank you very much.

[Allan Rock]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.