Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 6th, 2018

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm calling to order the 131st meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration as we continue our study of migration challenges and opportunities for Canada in the 21st century.

You will remember that before we did our mission to Uganda and Tanzania, we heard from the World Refugee Council and we thought it would be important both to bring them back as a body and to hear from others from the council, so we will have a second witness from there as well as individuals.

We are going to start with the World Refugee Council. I understand that Ms. Jilani is going to open.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, before you start, I wonder if you can advise when the minister will be attending the committee on the interim estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I don't believe we have a date. We have put in a request, and we have an assurance that he will be attending and that we will make our deadline.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Ms. Jilani.

[Hina Jilani, Co-Chair, World Refugee Council]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, it's my privilege to be addressing members of this committee on behalf of the World Refugee Council, which I co-chair with Lloyd Axworthy, a former foreign minister of Canada.

Let me start by saying a few words about the World Refugee Council itself.

It is an independent body that includes more than 20 political leaders, policy advisers, academic experts, business leaders, civil society actors, and human rights activists from around the world. The council was convened by the Centre for International Governance Innovation with the support of the Government of Canada.

Our aim was to produce a good analysis of the situation of refugees around the world, of the issues that are now emerging with this mass movement of people, and of the problems that have beset host countries in particular with this phenomenon that we see. We have prepared the report and are about to launch it next year, but I would like to apprise the committee of some of the findings and the conclusions we have arrived at.

We recognize that the UN has recently concluded the UN global compact on refugees. The council's work is complementary to the UN global compact on refugees and is designed to build on the consensus that the UN has been able to achieve already.

We think it's worthwhile progress and that it needs everyone's support. However, we are conscious that because of certain weaknesses in the multilateral system at the UN—for instance, the dominance of major powers, the north-south divide in the UN, the bureaucratic and siloed character of its institutions, the fear of undermining the 1951 refugee convention, and the built-in limitations of the UNHCR's mandate—the UN process has not generated the far-reaching change that is so urgently needed.

We believe that the global compact on refugees will not reset the refugee system. In its own words, the global compact on refugees is entirely non-political and fundamentally humanitarian, but as you must have discovered in your own search for the realities of the situation of refugees, the causes of and the responses to forced displacement are entirely political. To quote Sadako Ogata, the former High Commissioner for Refugees: humanitarian problems do not have humanitarian solutions; they only have political solutions. The council aims to produce these political solutions and identify strategies by which they will become a reality.

I would also like to give you an overview of the scale of the challenge that we see today.

The challenge of forced displacement is growing. The UNHCR reports that the number of people displaced globally by conflict and persecution stood at 68.5 million at the end of 2017, the greatest number since World War II. Figures released in May 2018 show that there were 30.6 million new internal displacements in 2017, with a total of 40 million estimated to have been internally displaced as a result of conflict and violence at the end of 2017.

The number of people globally facing acute hunger due largely to conflict and instability reached almost 74 million, pushing more people towards despair and driving more people because of war and conflict. Meanwhile, refugees are woefully undersupported. Appeals for funding consistently fall well short of their goals.

The World Refugee Council contends that the response to the challenges of forced displacement must be a global one, recognizing among the nations of the world common but differentiated responsibilities based on state capacity. Host communities must be supported as they manage refugees, and refugees themselves must have timely access to protection and support.

The refugee issue carries serious tones of gender discrimination and widespread abuse. Present border crossings from Venezuela to Colombia are sites of sexual harassment and assault. At the same time, the role of women in being active participants in coping with refugee issues has been downplayed in government action, particularly by indifference to the absence of education for women and children who have been displaced.

The first words of the report that I just mentioned state: “At its core, the world is not facing a refugee crisis so much as a crisis of leadership, a deficit of vision, humanity and solidarity.” We believe that the report makes recommendations and calls for action in key areas that will bring forward some new and innovative thinking about the issue of refugee situations and such issues as collective responsibility and shared responsibility, and in many practical ways we have suggested how that thinking can be done.

Among the key areas where we have called for action is accountability for perpetrators who act with impunity, often enriching themselves in the process and shielded too often by Security Council vetos. We believe that accountability is one area to which more attention needs to be paid, with more institutions and mechanisms of accountability at the international level. Better arrangements for accountability that is credible at national levels need to be encouraged.

The other area that we find extremely important is the level of funding for refugees. I hope that my colleague Allan will speak a little bit about this. We are insisting that there must be greater support for those countries hosting a large number of refugees, in a manner in which not only are refugees supported but local populations feel a part of the development and the benefit that come with international cooperation.

We also believe that resettlement is extremely important. It is lacking in any kind of visionary initiatives, both at the international level and at the level of the UNHCR. We believe that the international community has to make better arrangements for resettlement, which must be expeditious so that refugees are not left for long periods in refugee status in which they have no predictable way to see when their plight is going to end.

We also believe that governance reform must be significant and are proposing changes in the UN Secretariat itself. The council will also advocate new approaches to decision-making affecting the forcibly displaced, calling for regionalization and decentralization of policy decisions. We are very keen that regional institutions be involved and be given much more of a role in solutions to the refugee crisis that we see today.

We have also in the report given very practical ways in which the recommendations made by the World Refugee Council can be implemented; these are very feasible, practical, and doable.

I will end here and say that a more effective global response to forced displacement with shared responsibility will result in greater predictability and efficient resource mobilization. It will improve management of borders and of the migration process, with an emphasis on prioritizing the dignity and the rights of both the forcibly displaced and the host communities.

I believe that fixing the system will not only save the lives and meet the needs of the displaced, but will also help countries, including Canada, to better manage pressures for refugee resettlement. In a very real sense, self-interest and the interests of the displaced coincide.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You really don't have any time, Mr. Rock, but you can take two minutes if you wish to add anything, just because you're there.

[Allan Rock, Special Adviser, World Refugee Council]

Well, that's kind of you, Chair. I'm grateful and honoured to be here as well.

I have two quick points.

First of all, the council went to Colombia over the summer. That trip and subsequent research resulted in a report uniquely on the issues arising from the Venezuelan refugees, the largest exodus in the history of the Americas. It's going to rival the Syrian refugee exodus in its volume. The implications are huge for the hemisphere.

We launched the report last week in Washington, including at the OAS. It's only available in the English language, so I cannot table it with you, but I've provided the clerk with details. It's available online.

The second point is that one of the recommendations the council will make is that countries around the world should make it possible to confiscate frozen assets of crooked foreign leaders and use that money for the benefit of the population that they've swindled. Canada and other countries around the world have literally billions of dollars on deposit in our banks or as assets in our jurisdiction. We have legislation—including the legislation you passed last year on Magnitsky—authorizing the freezing of those assets, but then they sit there.

What we're suggesting is legislation—it could be an amendment to Magnitsky or free-standing legislation—that would authorize the Attorney General of Canada, or someone else, with her consent, to apply to a superior court of the provinces for an order authorizing the confiscation of those assets and their repurposing. Either send them back to the country of origin, or, if that country is still in the grip of a corrupt government, provide that money to an international agency like UNHCR, or an NGO that is accountable to the court. Every dollar would be tracked, and the court would get a report as to how the money is being spent. The court would make that order on notice to all interested parties, so you have transparency, accountability and the rule of law, but you'd put these assets to use.

Similar legislation with the same objective is now before the U.S. Congress. The United Kingdom is considering this approach. Switzerland already has a law in place, which is a good precedent.

I close by saying that we are going to recommend that the Government of Canada enact such legislation here and be a model for the world. We can use that money in an underfunded system. There's some symmetry, justice and accountability that arises from that approach as well, and we'll commend it to the committee and to the government.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Lenard.

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to talk to you here today.

I appear in two capacities: first as a professor at the University of Ottawa's Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, where my research is on the experience of refugee sponsors, and second as a coordinator of Rainbow Haven, a community organization that sponsors and settles LGBTQ refugees here in Ottawa.

I am excited and proud to tell you today that my group will welcome five new Canadians this month: a single woman as a result of a successful BVOR match and a family of four as a result of a successful private sponsorship of refugees, or PSR, application.

I have three comments today, and they stem from a combination of my activism and my research. Their focus today is on who in Canada is doing so much of the resettlement work, namely volunteers, volunteers who are people like me who have full-time jobs, kids—sometimes it feels like a million of them, but only two—and yoga classes to attend.

My first comment is this—and you know this: Canada is often described as a leader in the LGBTQ space worldwide. Not only do the laws in Canada offer full and equal protection to every member of the LGBTQ community, but Canada on the whole has also been deliberate and consistent about signalling its commitment to LGBTQ rights abroad.

This consistent commitment is the reason that each year my colleagues and I are optimistic that the government will make permanent what is colloquially known as the “rainbow refugee assistance plan”, which gives groups supporting LGBTQ refugees some financial support and exempts us from quotas; however. each time the program comes up for renewal, it's extended only by one or two years.

I know that members of this committee heard from advocates of the LGBTQ refugees last year calling for the rainbow RAP to be made permanent. I read the enthusiasm for that program's being made permanent among both the witnesses and committee members, but one observation is absent from this testimony: the impact of renewal uncertainty on us, the people who do the work, the volunteers. Here's an example.

Two and a half years ago we submitted a PSR application under the rainbow RAP, the one that I mentioned in my introductory comments, and we began that application knowing that the rainbow RAP was due to expire in three months. We had to proceed without knowing with confidence that the program, the funding, and the “outside of quota” spots, which are especially valuable, would be available to us when the application was complete.

This program, like all of the PSR and the BVOR programs, is successful because of the work that volunteers do. The uncertainty of this program's future can cause us, or them, to sponsor fewer refugees or to operate with considerably increased stress. There is to my mind no reason to force us to operate in that kind of uncertainty. The program is not costly, it's not over-used, and it is relied upon by people deeply committed to the LGBTQ community. There's every reason to remove this unnecessary uncertainty and to signal to that community and those of us who work to support it that our work is valued and recognized.

My first recommendation is this: please finally make this program a permanent member of Canada's refugee resettlement programs.

Second, it is my understanding that since the BVOR program was created in 2012, the government has been really hopeful that Canadians will respond positively to the program, and also that except during the peak response to the Syrian war, response to this program has been underwhelming.

I would like to here strongly encourage the government to persist in supporting this program. There are so many reasons to expand the network of Canadians who contribute to the BVOR program: because it contributes to the pro-refugee sentiment that persists in Canada in spite of political forces that press us in the other direction; because it can increase the number of persons in need of protection, especially highly vulnerable ones who are admitted to Canada; and because it is a great partnership between Canadians and their government to work together in creating an environment in which new Canadians can thrive.

In going forward with this program, which I encourage, I have two specific additional recommendations. The first one is this. For this program to be attractive to refugee advocates, the government must do better at assuring us that it is not using us to carry out its own responsibility. In other words, it must find a way to publicly assure us that the principle of additionality is respected as the BVOR program expands.

Much of the willingness of Canadian volunteers to do this work is predicated on the trust that our work is additional to government contributions in this space. I encourage you to focus on supporting the trust relations on which this willingness depends by explicitly reasserting the government's commitment to additionality. The minister's statements on this program are being watched by us, and the commitment to additionality from that office right now is important for all of us to see.

Second, in order to motivate support for the BVOR program, we obviously need to find Canadians who are interested in spending their time doing refugee resettlement work. To do so, we need to understand why they might want to do it, and not just in a surge moment, as in the response to the Syrians; we need especially to understand whether the energy generated for this kind of work during the surge can be harnessed into an ongoing commitment by Canadians to refugee resettlement.

To my knowledge, putting the specific focus on BVOR-matched sponsors has not yet been done, and it is my recommendation that this study be done as quickly as possible. I know a researcher who is very well poised to do this work so that the government can move forward here on the basis of a solid understanding of how best to motivate Canadians to join the project of resettlement.

The program needs a better name. The name is a problem.

Finally, I would like to emphasize, by way of concluding here, that in light of the recently announced new refugee and immigration admission numbers, it's worth remembering that the world is still watching Canada right now. The decision to promote our private sponsorship program globally has made sure of that. Now is the time to be even bolder in this space.

We've just heard comments explaining why resettlement should be an essential piece of the work we do with respect to refugees, so be bold. Study after study in this country indicates that refugees do well or better, on average, than native-born Canadians do. Study after study indicates that their children flourish. I am one such person—if you think that professors count as flourishing—and I am certain that I am not the only child of a refugee in this room.

The United States has in the last two years dealt a devastating blow to global resettlement efforts. This is a moment when Canada can show it still deserves the compliments of the head of the UNHCR three years ago, when he applauded Canadians' generosity in the face of the exodus of Syrians from their country.

To conclude, let me add my voice—or give voice—to the Canadian Council for Refugees' recently released statement and join them in calling for an increase in the additional number of government-assisted refugees to Canada in 2019. This would be a triple win: we can respond to the grave harm caused by our neighbour to the south; we can showcase again that we as Canadians take seriously the need for Canada to do its fair share of global work to support refugees; and you, the government, can signal to us, the volunteers, that you continue to respect the principle of additionality that motivates so much of our willingness to do this work.

Thank you for your time and for your work on this file.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sarai, you have seven minutes.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, all three of you.

Turning to Ms. Jilani, who has come here quite from afar, and the Honourable Allan Rock, my first question is this.

The number of refugees worldwide now is astronomical, probably twice the population of Canada. Also, you've had IDPs; they would triple the population of Canada. As much resettlement as Canada does—and probably Canada disproportionately does more, based on its population, than most countries in the world do—it is still a small percentage of what could be done.

Are there avenues other than settling of refugees so they can avoid these conflicts? I've noticed that there's less of a political will around the world to help settle areas of conflict. Is that the lacking ingredient, or is there something else lacking that is causing such disturbances?

I'll go with Ms. Jilani first.

[Hina Jilani]

There is now thinking—and you are quite right that this thinking has to be done now—whereby resettlement can be supplemented by other initiatives that will make it easier to give more permanent status to refugees in host countries. That is why the World Refugee Council has emphasized greater support for those countries that are hosting a large number of refugees.

We have suggested creating bilateral and multilateral finance arrangements to ease loan underwriting, to ease the debt burden of some of these states, to help them towards a course of development that will be seen by the local population as a development for themselves, so that the willingness to accept permanent status for the refugees within their own borders will be more acceptable to local populations.

The World Refugee Council makes several such suggestions and proposals, which can, however, only be put into practice if there is a willingness of the international community to work together and to see this as a collective problem wherein everybody contributes to the extent that they are able and to the extent that their resources and expertise allow.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Rock, can you say particularly whether there is a global willingness to work on these issues, or is it a very few countries that are paying attention to them while everyone else is neglecting them?

[Allan Rock]

As you know, the United Nations is conducting the global compact exercise, both for refugees and for migration. I understand that there's some difficulty getting consensus on the global compact on refugees. Migration seems to be going somewhat more smoothly.

I think the difficulty in achieving consensus on refugees is that there are very different views among the governments of the world, and the UN intergovernmental negotiation system is usually a race to the bottom. I'm sure it will be a worthwhile compact, but it won't be enough. That's why the council wants to come in with recommendations that will build on it and try to raise the level of the objectives.

The council has travelled a great deal in the course of our work. We've been to Tanzania and Addis Ababa; I was in northern Uganda a few months ago, in Colombia during the summer, in the eastern Mediterranean, and in Berlin.

By the way, if budgets allow, may I respectfully say that it would be extremely useful if this committee could travel as well and see for yourselves what's out there—not only the refugees, but also the host communities and what the attitudes are that we're dealing with.

In Berlin, for example, we met with the business community, with NGOs, with refugees themselves, and with spokespeople from government. The views are very disparate, but it's important for us to listen to them.

Coming to your question, I have two observations from what we've seen.

First, the host countries—Uganda in the case of South Sudan, Jordan in the case of Syria, Colombia in the case of Venezuela—are coping, some better than others. Uganda and Colombia are remarkably generous in the way they're receiving and accommodating refugees, but the other category consists of countries in which it's not going so well. I'm thinking here of some countries in Europe in particular where attitudes are not positive and there's a great deal of resistance, and where there's a concern that refugees are going to undermine culture, threaten security, or take jobs.

The World Refugee Council has recommendations that we hope can deal with that problem. Here are just two quick examples. In Jordan, in order to encourage refugees to remain in Jordan and in order to assist the government of Jordan with its political problem with the number of refugees from Syria, the European Union entered into an agreement by which it lowered the tariff on Jordanian goods being exported to Europe on the condition that the Jordanian government issue work permits to Syrian refugees. That's a win-win for everybody, and it's helping out.

The other thing that is going on is that the international financial institutions are starting to make concessional financing available to host countries to assist them, and that's helping too. In answer to your question, though, attitudes are variable, and I think what's required is some leadership. I think Canada is well positioned to provide it.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Ms. Lenard, thank you for your work. Canada is actually blessed to have a lot of people who volunteer their time and welcome refugees. We're one of the rare countries in that regard, in having a higher demand for refugees than we can actually accommodate.

Canada has a refugee resettlement pilot program that you mentioned, the rainbow refugee assistance program. From your experience, do any other resettlement countries have a targeted program for LGBTQ individuals?

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

My understanding is that the Scandinavian countries actively welcome and slot their urgent spots for LGBTQ refugees. Finland and Norway, I believe, and also the Netherlands, are three other countries that are welcoming LGBTQ refugees right now.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Do they have any best practices that you might want to share or suggest?

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

No. In fact, they come here for best practices. The Netherlands was recently here touring to see how we are going forward in that space.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Excellent. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

There were six seconds to spare.

Ms. Rempel is next.

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

I have a variety of questions. I'll start with some of the comments that were made around the safety of women in camps and some of the reforms needed around that issue.

Has any work been done through the World Refugee Council on establishing a framework for a UNHCR camp, such as community standards or something like that?

If you are a refugee and have been found to have assaulted somebody or threatened somebody else, is there a way of removing somebody from that camp or sanctioning them? Is there any framework for addressing assault when it happens within camps?

[Hina Jilani]

Yes. There are different kinds of actions that can be taken, but I think that when these camps are constructed, part of the discipline and the practical measures that are adopted also surround behaviour.

At the UNHCR level, a lot has been done, mostly because of NGO pressure, to manage the camps not only in a way in which potential victims are protected and prevention takes place, but also in a way that makes sure perpetrators can be identified.

Beginning with Darfur, a lot of measures have been taken at the UNHCR level. The World Refugee Council of course takes this very seriously. We have not developed a framework ourselves, but we are encouraging in our recommendations on the whole issue of gender-based violence that during flight, in the refugee camps, and in any period of time, the refugees and the IDP population are—

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

I just have a quick question for clarification. Within that framework, could you point the committee to the types of sanctions that would currently be used in a situation of abuse?

[Hina Jilani]

I think criminal law will be the best possible framework, because it will be jurisdictional in that context. There will be certain measures that the UNHCR takes as camp managers if this happens in the camp, but the criminal law of the place where the camp is situated will also apply.

We have seen that in several places. I have been to Lebanon, not as part of the World Refugee Council but in my other capacities, and we have been shown examples of how gender-based violence was undertaken with impunity. In some ways, there are measures being taken to end impunity.