Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 11th, 2018

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

Excuse me, I'm very well aware that we are short on labour. To your point about the temporary foreign workers and that sort of thing, later on I'd like to ask about that as well. We're very aware that we could use all the high-level and low-skilled workers, basically, who may want to apply to come in right now. My colleague was asking at what levels that should be. It's not a matter of being a burden. It's a matter of how they get integrated into Canada. Should we be bringing people in who are most in danger of losing their lives versus anyone else?

[Syed Hussan]

I think we should be bringing in a mix of people, including those who are most at risk, as well as people whom we are responsible for displacing. That's the part of the equation that's just not being considered, that forced migration is not a separate question from displacement. Why are these people migrating in the first place? That has to be brought into the conversation.

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

Thank you.

Would anyone else care to answer that?

[La Trinidad Mina]

I can only speak to how, if Canada would like to harness all the good talents that international students have, the effect in their home countries would be brain drain. How does that affect their home countries? Is Canada's plan to get all these talented people and leave the home countries on their own? I think it's a balance of what our priorities are, of what our values are.

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

That's why I'm asking about those most persecuted. They may have low skills or they may have high skills and they may be highly educated. I'm just asking who we should be accepting, those who are most in danger of losing their lives or others.

[La Trinidad Mina]

I can't answer. Sorry.

[Syed Hussan]

There needs to be a massive expansion of the government-sponsored refugee system, which is actually being made smaller and smaller and being turned into a private refugee sponsorship system. Part of the conversation has to be an expansion of government-assisted refugees themselves. I think we need to separate.... What is happening here, as you're essentially saying, is inland refugees versus overseas refugees. They're being pitted against each other. This kind of....

People will come, whatever path is available to them. They might come as refugees, international students, foreign workers, because that's the path that's forced upon them. That's not a fundamental characteristic of who they are. We need to expand the system and we need to stop trying to treat all of these categories as opposites to each other.

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

Okay, I agree.

What does Canada need to do to eliminate some of these backlogs that we have of people who have come to our borders, in order to make sure that we can get them into the workforce in a proper amount of time rather than having to wait a year and a half before they even get a hearing? What do we need to do to speed up that process, to get them into the workforce as quickly as we can, or make sure that the people who are coming in are the ones who are actually going to be legally allowed into Canada?

There are those who are being sent back out of the country or deported again—a smaller proportion—but how do we sort that out? What is the best way of doing it? There certainly is a huge backlog right now, and it's eroding the confidence of Canadians in regard to our immigration process.

[Syed Hussan]

The reason there is a backlog is that there is a quota. There is essentially a ceiling and people aren't being processed. In addition, the IRB, the ID, all of these divisions don't have enough members. The bigger issue is that the levels and mix are not responsive to the reality.

Let me speak to international students. There are about 400,000 international students coming into the country each year, but there are fewer than 300,000 people coming into the country as permanent residents. A lot of these students want to live here as permanent residents. Ten years from now, they're going to become undocumented. We have members across the country who are students, who are not getting PR.

Our problem is that we're not understanding that the entire immigration system needs to have more people come in, and with a broader and a different mix than is currently in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I need to end it there. Sorry.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for their presentations.

It's important to note that government-assisted refugees, inland asylum seekers—which is under the protected persons stream—immigrants and so on are all under different streams. To somehow create an environment where they are competing against each other is a false dichotomy. I had to say that and put that on the record.

Ms. Abuzgaya, I think you raised really critical issues around the safety of women—sexual violence, violence against women, domestic violence and so on—and the fact that women need to seek asylum because of that.

You mentioned that the United States, under the current administration, is not a safe country anymore, and therefore, you say that the safe third country agreement should be suspended.

On the flip side of it, the Conservatives argue that we should in fact apply the safe third country agreement to the entire border. Within the government, Minister Blair is in fact considering that because he did not refuse to entertain that at the public safety committee.

I would just like to have your quick comments on that aspect, please.

[Yasmine Abuzgaya]

Very quickly, I think we can say, at least from the clinic's perspective, that we believe the current U.S. administration has not really been standing up for its human rights obligations in regard to asylum seekers who present themselves at their borders. We see this with the migrant caravan dilemma that they've been facing, specifically the fact that they're not allowing these people who come to the border to even seek asylum when they are legally allowed to do so.

For us as Canadians to say, “You people who have come to the United States, you can't even seek asylum, but the minute you come to the Canadian borders, we're going to say 'Hey, you're already in a safe country'” means there is a huge gap there.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, thank you. I think what you're saying, if I can interpret that correctly—which, by the way, other witnesses at this committee have stated—is that if Canada suspends the safe third country agreement, we're not forcing people to risk their lives to cross over irregularly. We would then actually have orderly migration where people would show up at the official point of entry and be able to make their claim, and then they would go through the IRB process and be assessed accordingly, to determine whether or not their claim is a legitimate refugee claim.

I think that is what I understood.

[Yasmine Abuzgaya]

Yes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Hussan, I think that's one of the key issues for all migrants, whether they be caregivers or otherwise. I think what I heard you say is that Canada should adopt a policy that clearly states that if you're good enough to work here, you're good enough to stay. That is permanent residence on arrival.

[Syed Hussan]

Absolutely.

Historically care workers used to come here as permanent residents, and that was taken away. We know that historically most of the first wave of settlers were given land and encouraged to come here as farmers and given permanent residency. It is when racialized poor people from the global south started coming here and working.... When I talk about 12 hours of work, no breaks and lack of decent, dignified living, this is what people's experiences are. If people are working here, they should be able to get permanent status on arrival.

I want to add that we want to make sure that even if people are so-called “not good enough to work” then they shouldn't be deemed inadmissible, for example, for medical reasons. We want to create a society where everyone should be able to come here and live with dignity.

Very quickly, if the safe third country agreement is expanded, people will continue to come but in more and more risky situations. Migration is not going to stop until displacement stops. If people need to move, they will move. If we make it harder, we're just putting their lives more at risk.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On the issue of different people with different skill sets or different abilities, I think you might be referring to Canada's policy on medical inadmissibility whereby we have a policy that discriminates against people with disabilities. Are you suggesting that Canada should repeal that section of the discriminatory law that exists in our immigration act?

[Syed Hussan]

Absolutely. Paragraph 38(1)(c) is inhumane. It is discriminatory. It's against Canada's international obligations. It couldn't even stand up in court. As thousands of people have argued, it should be repealed.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Yasmine, I asked you about the safe third country agreement, but I'm also going to ask you about immigration policy. Should Canada adopt the principle that if you're good enough to work, you're good enough to stay, and therefore be a permanent resident on arrival...and likewise on the issue of medical inadmissibility?

[Yasmine Abuzgaya]

I echo my friend here with regard to his assertions that we absolutely need to have live-in caregivers and other migrant workers to have permanent residency on arrival. We also believe that section 31 on medical inadmissibility should be repealed. We also have concerns surrounding the financial inadmissibility piece, but I won't go into too much detail regarding that at the moment.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I know this might be a little further afield, but it's still an important issue that Canada defines family differently than a lot of communities today. People look at their siblings, who may be adults, or their aunts and uncles, part of their extended family network, as part of their immediate family. Our immigration policy does not recognize that. Do you think that should be changed? We used to have an immigration stream whereby a sibling could sponsor another sibling to come. We no longer have that. Should we be changing our definition of family to recognize extended family as part of the family unit?

[Yasmine Abuzgaya]

Absolutely. I agree with those statements 100%. Some immigration streams are available for siblings who want to sponsor other siblings, but they're extremely limited and they don't encompass how people perceive their families. I think it is completely contrary to Canada's objective of reunification of families and the other policy objectives they have.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Hussan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

That's it.

Mr. Whalen.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Mina, congratulations on your great success in Canada. I certainly thank you for all your work in helping with the resettlement of new Canadians and teaching them English. Your children as well should be commended for their volunteerism.