Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 4th, 2018

[Tanya Basok]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Professor Duhaime...? No.

Mr. Briscoe...?

[Ivan Briscoe]

Yes, I'm here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Maguire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Briscoe, I notice from this backgrounder that you've been dealing with the International Crisis Group, which has been working internationally for almost 20 years, I assume, from what I read, to prevent wars and shape policies for a more peaceful world, conducting field research for comprehensive reports to inform decision-making and public debate. You've been in the role of program director for Latin America since 2016. Is that correct?

[Ivan Briscoe]

That's correct.

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

What changes have you seen, then, over that period of time that you've...with your experience before you became the program director for Latin America and Caribbean, not just in Latin America but other areas as well?

[Ivan Briscoe]

I just want to ask for a clarification. Are those changes with regard to migration flows, or are you talking about broader political changes and social changes?

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

First it would be the migration changes, I guess, but then how the political changes may impact that.

[Ivan Briscoe]

Okay.

I would answer the first one on migration.

The primary change we have seen is the Venezuelan migration crisis, the likes of which are unprecedented in the post-Second World War period in Latin America, and the dimensions of which were not expected at all. I was at the border between Colombia and Venezuela over the weekend. There was a very substantial flow of people coming in, legally, over the four main border crossings between the countries. They're probably in the region—it varies per day—of 2,000 to 3,000 people coming from Venezuela every day. As we know from the latest UN figures, we're talking about a population of Venezuelans abroad, primarily in Latin America, of three million now. Most of them have left since 2015 but this has particularly accelerated since late 2016, as the economic crisis in Venezuela was aggravated. That would be the main difference in migration flows.

Obviously, I could also talk about the change in the nature of migrant flows in central America. The role of Central America is dominating the migrant flow through Mexico to the United States, replacing the Mexicans on that route. They're turning the flow much more into a flow of refugees because these people, of course, are fleeing in part from high levels of insecurity. That process, that change, predates 2016 when that was clearly witnessed in the crisis of unaccompanied children in 2014.

As for the second part of your question about the broader change in Latin America, I think we now have to acknowledge that the region is entering a period of profound political polarization, which is not just characteristic within countries but is also characteristic across the entire region. In fact, if we look at a political map of the region nowadays, we see authoritarian left-wing governments in Venezuela and Nicaragua. What I would characterize as an imminent, authoritarian, right-wing government, will be taking power in Brazil, with many shades of left, right and centre in between.

In my personal experience of working in Latin America since 1996, in all of Latin America's history since independence I don't think there has ever been this level of political diversity in the region, which poses very great problems for regional coordination and regional responses to crises, including migration. To a large extent, it's also an expression of vitality in democracy and a diversity of democratic expression, which we see very much within countries. It could be the evangelical churches, which play an important role in the rise of conservative right-wing candidates in Brazil, Costa Rica, Colombia or the other grassroots indigenous Afro movements such as the Afro-Colombian movement, which is responsible for the rise of new left-wing movements, particularly in Colombia and other parts of Central America.

That would be my general diagnosis. My concern, particularly at the moment, is that this political dynamic is great for diversity. As I said, it's undermining the capacity of regional institutions that respond to crisis in a moment where we are seeing ongoing problems with criminal violence, uneven economic development and of course, instability and unrest in particular contexts such as in Nicaragua, Venezuela and Honduras.

In this light there is a grave concern that we will see greater levels of instability as the regional institutions prove unable to respond satisfactorily to these crises.

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

We're dealing with Latin America here today, but obviously we're looking at Venezuela, Colombia, Costa Rica and the other Latin countries. To what extent is it in places like Panama, as obviously there must be migration through those areas?

[Ivan Briscoe]

Panama is one of the front-line states for Venezuelan migration, which are effectively Colombia, Panama and to a degree, some of the islands in the Antilles such as Curaçao and Aruba. These are very small islands, but they have been affected by a very large influx of Venezuelan migrants and refugees.

What we are seeing in the region, because the numbers are so large, is that Colombia has about a million Venezuelans within it. The Colombian response in terms of providing residency rights to the Venezuelans, lowering the border controls for these Venezuelans and allowing them to access education and health services has been outstanding, but there's no doubt that there is a limit to this generosity.

We have, alas, seen episodes of xenophobia in Colombia. We have noted that the Colombian state is not at its best moment, fiscally speaking. There is a package of new tax reforms, which is being debated at the moment and is highly unpopular, so it is limited in its actions, as are the other states that are receiving Venezuelan migrants, particularly Peru and Equador.

It's interesting that we see similar xenophobic reactions increasing in southern Mexico where Central Americans are often bottled up because of the high levels of border control and internal control exerted on Central American migrants within that country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm afraid I need you to end there, Mr. Briscoe. Thank you very much.

[Ivan Briscoe]

Yes, of course. No problem. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We're going to go to Ms. Kwan now.

I want to signal to the committee that consistency will not necessarily be my middle name. As a chair, I have tended to stop the clock when a member is interrupted by another member on a point of order, but I have not, in other committees, tended to run the clock when they use their time for another purpose. That is to ensure that other members have the time to ask the questions they want to and that witnesses who travel or make their time available have that time.

If people use their time for their own purposes, I will indeed cut them off because there is a variety of ability for the chair to do that within the Standing Orders.

Mr. Tilson.

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

On that, Mr. Chairman, you have raised a good point, and I understand that, but the difficulty is that when members of all sides have legitimate notices of motion and wish to debate them, there's no other time. We also have the right to ask questions of witnesses.

If that's going to be your ruling, I would suggest that you allow time in future meetings for motions to be brought. Otherwise, we can never bring motions that may be legitimate. The committee may agree with those motions and they may disagree with those motions, but if you follow your rationale, we will never be able to make motions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Your point is taken. Certainly, we do have business meetings from time to time, and we can have a business meeting. I remind you that if four members chose to require a meeting for such a motion, that's within the Standing Orders.

I'm going to be following the Standing Orders. There is no consistency among committees with respect to that practice. Some committees keep the clock running; some don't. It is at the discretion of the chair, but I do hear Mr. Tilson's comment about motions and making sure we do have business time for any member of the committee to bring motions, so I will take that under advisement.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses.

Professor Smith, in your comments, you mentioned that the United States is no longer a safe third country. The latest we have learned is of course that the U.S. is now firing tear gas at migrants still in Mexico, to deter them from making an asylum claim. We have also learned that the U.S. has outright declared that those who face domestic violence and gang violence will no longer be considered legitimate refugee claimants in the United States.

In this context, can you share with us your thoughts on Canada's response to the safe third country agreement. Do you think Canada should exercise our right to suspend the safe third country agreement?

[Craig Damian Smith]

I think that's a really important question.

There are two points that I think need addressing here.

One, if the Conservative Party of Canada is most interested in cost overruns.... To extend the safe third country agreement to the entirety of the border, we should look to the European Union to see how much it costs to have what the organization they call Frontex comprehensively does with respect to migration controls on their border. The cost overruns would be significantly higher than they are currently.

The second point is whether or not the U.S. is safe. That's a very complicated question. It depends on where you are, who you are, whether or not you live in mixed documented and undocumented households.

I think the way the safe third country agreement is now, the rationale for suspending it is to make it safer for people who don't feel safe in the U.S. to make asylum claims in Canada so that they can enter through regular border crossings. Also, it would address the things that people are worried about, which are the extraneous costs and moving CBSA and RCMP officials around.

It would also remove the kind of spectacular context and images of irregular migration, which are the things that serve as the fodder for populist discourse around unsafe borders and asylum seekers.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

That's exactly what we heard from other witnesses. They made the suggestion that if Canada suspended the safe third country agreement, then the border communities would not be faced with the kind of pressure that they are today. We can actually have orderly crossings at the borders.

At the last meeting, the UNHCR representative noted that what's happening in the United States with the tear gas is in fact in contravention of the 1951 refugee convention, which of course we all acknowledge.

[Craig Damian Smith]

Can I make one quick comment there? I'm sorry to interrupt you.

In the 1951 refugee convention, article 31 states that it's not illegal to claim asylum between ports of entry. It's enshrined in international law and, therefore, it's part of Canadian law.

The word “illegal” is a misnomer. It's also not illegal under Canadian law to not use a port of entry. It's not a criminal offence.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, exactly. In fact, the Immigration Refugee Protection Act explicitly says that it's not a criminal offence for asylum claimants to cross over irregularly to make a claim.

With that being said, I should note also that Minister Blair, at the public safety committee, did not rule out Canada not putting on the table applying the safe third country agreement to the entire border. I was very dismayed. I learned it from my colleague who sits on that committee. The government would not rule this out. That to me is hugely disturbing.

What are your thoughts on that? Do you think that the government, as they are embarking on a process of talking to the United States about the safe third country agreement, should rule out applying the safe third country agreement to the entire border of Canada?

[Craig Damian Smith]

I'm going to refrain from commenting specifically on what the Liberal government ought to do in that regard. I'm not privy to all of the negotiations with the U.S.

I'll just say, as a fact, if the safety of individuals, the safety of Canada's security services and costs are the things that we're interested in.... If those are the metrics for which we would consider making a decision in that regard, then extending the safe third country agreement to the world's longest undefended border would be extremely costly and also very likely dangerous for asylum seekers and CBSA and RCMP officers alike.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you for that.

One of the issues I think Canada is known for and recognized for is our Immigration and Refugee Board approach. We actually have an arm's-length, independent board that assesses asylum claims. The only problem with it, of course, is that it does not have enough resources to process claims in an expeditious manner.

Would you say that it is important for Canada to maintain what I think is widely regarded as a world-class standard of refugee assessment process?

[Craig Damian Smith]

I think that in the way it does its work and goes about its work, the IRB is successful and largely fair. From what I understand about the IRB, the investigation processes are fair and comprehensive.

It's a fact that other states look to Canada's IRB model to increase their capacity. For instance, and in direct relation to what's going on in Latin America and on the Mexico-U.S. border, one of the areas where Canada is making the most significant impact, even if it's a small impact in relation to the overall state capacity and scale of the problem, is with the IRB twinning projects with Mexican authorities. IRB members go to Mexico and do bureaucratic training to increase capacity.