Evidence of meeting #138 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 migrants.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I only have less than a minute left. Quickly, on the caravan situation, do you have any recommendations on what action Canada should take with regard to that situation?
5:25 p.m.
Associate Director, Global Migration Lab, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I said it last week in the committee, and I said it again today. The best thing that Canada can do right now, in my opinion, if I were in charge, is to deal with the issues at Global Affairs Canada that prevent us from successfully implementing projects under the comprehensive refugee response framework, and break down the bureaucratic silo between humanitarian and development programming.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you very much, Chair.
I guess, with the amount of time I have, I'm just going to ask one question to each of you. Do you believe that the Colombian efforts are best-in-class in the Venezuelan migration crisis, in terms of what Colombia's doing versus Peru, Ecuador, the Latin American countries and Brazil? If that's the case, what can Canada do to help Colombia in those efforts? What can it do to help the other neighbouring countries in their efforts to assist Venezuelan refugees? What paths can Canada provide here in Canada to do its fair share in terms of hosting, as a third country, refugees from that country and from that crisis?
I'll start with someone who hasn't had a chance to speak much yet, Ms. Basok, and then we'll move to Mr. Briscoe and then Mr. Smith.
5:25 p.m.
Tanya Basok
I will be very brief because, unfortunately, Colombia is not my area of expertise. I focus on Mexico and the Central American migration. From my general knowledge, I believe Canada has had a good record of third country resettlement in the past. I hope that it will continue doing so with current refugee situations.
5:25 p.m.
Program Director, Latin America and Caribbean, International Crisis Group
I think Colombia, in South America, has definitely led the way, but it's absolutely at its limits. There are 60 babies being born to Venezuelan mothers every day in the main border town. There are problems with the provision of health and educational services. What it needs, above all else, is the financial support from other countries. The financial support for Colombia's response to the Venezuelan migration has been miserable so far. There is, I believe it just come out today, an estimate that Latin American-South American countries need $700 million to respond to the Venezuelan exodus. I think Colombia's looking at between $50 million to $100 million for the last year only, or rather less than that. Financial support is essential.
Also, perhaps, would be support for Colombia's capacity to sift the migrant flow, decide who are valid refugees and give proper protection to those refugees. The capacity for refugee identification and protection in Colombia and other South American countries is lacking at the moment. You have to remember that these are mixed flows from Venezuela.
5:25 p.m.
Associate Director, Global Migration Lab, University of Toronto, As an Individual
There are two things.
First, Canada should support the emergency appeal from UNHCR, which I think is around $700 million, maybe closer to $800 million for the Venezuelan crisis. Generally these funding appeals are not met.
The second one is that Canada should seriously consider expanding and actually living up to our protection transfer agreements, PTAs, with the UNHCR, which help alleviate burden by bringing some of the most vulnerable people to Canada. There's room, again in both the compacts, to experiment around safe and legal channels for migration for people who are caught in displacement crises.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
This is great. I actually have a chance, probably, for one final question.
In terms of the approach that's being bandied about, it sounds like Colombia, by allowing residency, education, opening their borders and presumably allowing some type of work, in some senses, has a better approach than camps. We've heard that there's some motion to create camps in Brazil.
From each of your opinions, in terms of protecting migrants from xenophobia by having them in camps versus allowing them to integrate, work and become part of the communities in which they're being hosted, which is the better approach in the current crisis?
I guess I'll start with Mr. Smith, Mr. Briscoe, and then Ms. Basok at the end.
5:30 p.m.
Associate Director, Global Migration Lab, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'm glad you asked the question in that way. Through the refugee compact we have the means and the mechanisms to support what we call these livelihoods approaches, implementing at the outset of displacement crises development programming, instead of care and maintenance approach humanitarian funding, which you generally see in refugee camps. In speaking as a social scientist, we have these opportunities now to experiment with innovative program delivery and do proper monitoring and evaluation in our hemisphere, in a place where we can make an actual difference.
5:30 p.m.
Program Director, Latin America and Caribbean, International Crisis Group
That's a good question. In fact, this is quite a lively debate between the international community and UN agencies present in Bogota. The government is absolutely certain that it's best to treat the Venezuelans as migrants who are eligible for two-year residency, in which time they can work. It's important to bear in mind that to enter Colombia from Venezuela, all they need is to put their identity details into a website run by the Colombian government, print out a document from that and they can get in without a passport or without even a valid identity card.
The problem is, what happens at two years? Will those working residency visas or cards be renewed? There is an uncertain future. The refugee approach, which, as you've said, can be based more on camps is often based on systems of protection with no automatic right to work. It is one that will be much more costly for the Colombian government, which is the reason why it was reluctant to take it, but it would, perhaps, offer a greater degree of certainty over the horizon.
I think what makes the Colombian—
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I'm sorry, Mr. Briscoe, since we only have just a few seconds left. I'm going to ask Ms. Basok to chime in from the Mexican perspective, and whether or not Mexico sees opportunities for migrants to work versus putting them in camps. What is the current position and status of irregular migration in Mexico with respect to the right to work and the right to access social services?
5:30 p.m.
Tanya Basok
In general, when you place refugees in camps, I don't believe it reduces xenophobia. It increases it. When the local population sees migrants receiving aid and not contributing to the society, and being a drain on international and national resources, then xenophobia tends to rise.
In general, I am in favour of allowing migrants and refugees an opportunity to work, to receive resident status if possible—even temporary residency status—and start providing for themselves and their families, as opposed to being idle in refugee camps and being susceptible to diseases that are often common in camps.
With respect to Central Americans, they've currently found a stadium and some of them have been recently resettled to a shelter. At the present moment, they do not have the right to work. However, Mexico does have a one-year humanitarian status visa. Refugees also have the right to apply for refugee status. When they apply for refugee status, they are granted the right to work, and this is a much better approach than keeping them in refugee camps.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you very much. I want to thank our witnesses for their presentations.
The meeting is adjourned.