Evidence of meeting #145 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 living.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jean-Nicolas Beuze  Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

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

I call to order this 145th meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

We are returning to our major study on migration challenges and opportunities for Canada in the 21st century.

This week we have three meetings to tie up requests that the committee had following the summary of evidence that the analysts prepared for us. You had requested more information on Latin America, on labour demand related to newcomers to Canada, as well as some statistics on the SDC work and temporary foreign workers.

This week, the meetings we'll be having today, Wednesday and Thursday will cover those topics and also satisfy the needs of the various motions that were passed with respect to the number of meetings required.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Yes.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

It's on the topic you were just discussing. I recall somewhere having a vote that we would have three extra meetings. What I don't recall, other than from your declaration, is that there would be three meetings this week. I know for certain that there was never a vote that there be a meeting on Thursday. That was a declaration by you without consulting the committee.

I'm unavailable on Thursday. It's a very bad time for me. If I had known some time ago, I could have made arrangements, but it's very inconvenient. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, because you didn't consult with the committee on that particular meeting for the Thursday, that you choose another date, with the approval of the committee.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

As the previous chair will know, the committee meets at the call of the chair. That is within the Standing Orders. I met with the analysts and the clerk to find a way to accomplish all the things you had requested and also give them time to prepare a report.

In negotiating with the staff of the committee, then, it was my choice to call that meeting. I regret that it causes difficulties for members. You may, however, consult with other MPs. It's certainly your right to be here at the committee or your choice not to be here, but it is always, as is really clear in the Standing Orders, that the meetings are at the call of the chair.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

I understand that the meetings are at the call of the chair, but normally out of courtesy, the chair consults with the committee, particularly with a special meeting. I understand that for this topic to be covered properly we had agreed to three meetings. I'm just saying that I don't know whether any other members feel the same way, but we had no notice of your announcement that it would be this coming Thursday. It makes things very difficult, certainly for me.

However, I have had my say, Mr. Chairman, and I express regret, if you are going continue to call the meeting on the Thursday.

Thank you.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I will just remind members that they can check the minutes from the meeting that happened last week. I told the committee last week that we would be meeting on Thursday afternoon. I didn't give you a lot of notice, but it wasn't just today; it was actually at the last meeting we held.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Mr. Chairman, you gave us no notice and no discussion. However, if you're determined to do it, you're absolutely right that the chairman can call a meeting. I just think that out of courtesy to the committee, if you're trying to build a good relationship with all members of the committee, you consult with the committee before you start setting up those extra meetings.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you.

Mr. Maguire.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

I feel the same as Mr. Tilson. I can probably be here. I've changed some plans already. I was a bit taken aback that we were going to do three meetings in one week; that was the only thing. I knew we had to do three: we had agreed to do so. So I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I was looking at not being here for another event.

I just wonder for the future whether we could have a bit of consultation about when the meetings are going to be. I know you have the right to go ahead and call them as the chair, but I've had to make some pretty major changes to scheduling and that sort of thing to accommodate this.

I know we don't meet for two weeks subsequent to this, I believe. Is that correct?

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

We won't be meeting for two weeks. We come back for one week and then we're away for another week.

You also requested, you will remember, at the last meeting to have another meeting with officials on supplementary estimates (B).

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Chair, I was just going to add that.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I'm attempting to schedule all your requests, and also deal with a very wonky House calendar this year. It is not without regret that I try to schedule these meetings, because I would like to be home a little earlier on Thursday as well, but this is the best we could do.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Well, that would have been great if I could have been at home, but I wasn't going to be anyway.

I know you and I didn't have anything to do with that “wonky” calendar, as you say. I know we have only that one week and then we're out another week. This would get into April pretty quickly. I appreciate the dilemma, but I just want to put that on the record.

Thank you.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Is there any other discussion on that?

We'll continue with Mr. Beuze.

First, thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today.

The time is yours, for 10 minutes.

3:35 p.m.

Jean-Nicolas Beuze Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm very happy to be back before this committee as it's an important ally for the UNHCR, the UN refugee agency.

I'm also particularly pleased that the committee has decided to shed light on the situation in Latin America, because it has been traditionally one of the situations in terms of refugees, forceable movement of people and migration, that has been often under-reported in the media, in the public and sometimes in some of your sister Parliaments abroad.

I'll discuss three different situations this afternoon to introduce the topic.

The first one is the north of Central America. That concerns people leaving and fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. I was there a year ago, and for somebody such as me who has spent most of his career in the field in wartorn countries in the Middle East and in Africa, I came to realize that the level of violence and the type of violence is very similar to what you would see in a conflict.

It is inflicted by criminal gangs, organized crime, which are actually de facto controlling part of the territory, or part of the territories in those three countries, where the presence of state law enforcement and judicial authorities are not possible, where the presence of public services such as health or education is extremely limited for a certain number of the population.

As we speak, we believe that by the end of 2019 we'll have more than 300,000 asylum seekers and refugees from those three countries in the sub-region, on top of which we have to add 60,000 people who are going to be forceably returned, mainly from Mexico and the U.S., who may have protection concerns when they arrive back in one of those three countries, and more than 3,000 internally displaced people in those three countries. It's quite an important crisis for UNHCR and its partners.

From the survey we have done with people who are on the move, who are trying to move for their safety towards Mexico or the United States, 71% have expressed being directly targeted by violence, in particular, women, children, young girls, by those criminal gangs. I interviewed young girls who at the age of 17 had been several times gang-raped by the gangs, young men who are forceably conscripted into those criminal gangs, but also the LGBTQ community and in particular transwomen, who are particularly at risk of being targeted.

On top of that, we can add also human rights defenders, lawyers, indigenous leaders and a number of unaccompanied children who are joining those caravans, who made the headlines a few months ago when they reached Mexico.

People from those three countries are going to a number of countries, such as Belize, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Panama, but mainly are arriving in Mexico. As we all know, it's difficult for them to cross into the U.S. to claim asylum.

Anyway, we think in Mexico there's a good prospect for us to stabilize those populations, provided that the asylum system in Mexico can grant them refugee status, provided that we can offer them access to livelihood opportunities so that they can get bread and butter and can have access to education, and that we support the host communities, in particular, the poor Mexican communities that are hosting them. We have the COMAR in Mexico, which is doing the same work as the IRB is doing here in Canada.

One point where Canada can play an active role is in the resettlement of the most vulnerable of those community members. Again, I'm speaking about women at risk. I'm speaking about survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. I'm speaking about the LGBTQ community, with an emphasis on transwomen.

We have mechanisms to identify those most at risk in the three countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, for them to avoid being persecuted or at risk of traffickers where they would be exploited, including for sexual purposes, to extract them from their country and resettle them to a third country. The U.S. provided more than 800 spaces for those people last year.

Let me briefly turn to Nicaragua. You know the situation well. Since April 2018 there has been some political violence in Nicaragua linked to social security reform, higher taxes and fewer benefits. What is important to note here is that 32,000 Nicaraguans have already left to go to Costa Rica to seek asylum, and the Costa Rican authorities believe there are between 250,000 and one million Nicaraguans who were already in Costa Rica prior to the April event and who are therefore what we call réfugiés sur place because they potentially cannot return now to Nicaragua. This has put a strain on Costa Rica in terms of their asylum system but also in terms of services and livelihood opportunities for those Nicaraguans.

The last point is on Venezuela, which has been in the media over the last two or three months. Here are a few numbers to explain the current situation. There are more than 3.4 million Venezuelans outside their country, both as refugees and as migrants. Another important point to note is that since 2015, 2.5 million have left the country. The bulk of the Venezuelans outside their country left after 2015. We expect that at this rate, by the end of 2019, 5.3 million Venezuelans will be outside their country, 3.6 million of whom will be in the sub-region. Here we are speaking about Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Brazil, in that order in terms of numbers of people.

Notably, we have witnessed 5,000 people leaving Venezuela every day. There has been no increase over the last few days or weeks in the number of people leaving the country, but you know that there has been an increase in militarization and in police being deployed at the border, and UNHCR is reminding the authorities on both sides of the border that people should be entitled to leave their country if they are fleeing for their lives and want to claim asylum.

We have done some surveying, particularly in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, about the reasons people are leaving Venezuela. You know the situation well. It's a mix of economic factors, but also of violence. Sixty-seven per cent of them have reported a protection incident. Thus, two-thirds of the people we interviewed were certainly to be considered as refugees and not as migrants, because they were fleeing a situation of persecution or human rights violations. Only half of them had reported the incident to the authorities, claiming that they feared either reprisals or no action from the authorities, if they were to complain about those protection incidents.

Let me flag rapidly a few profiles of the people we see arriving in Colombia, Peru and Ecuador in particular. Ten per cent have medical needs. Here in particular we have lactating mothers or pregnant women who didn't have access to services in Venezuela. Sixteen per cent of them are elderly people who have difficulty surviving and getting access to medication in particular. Seven per cent are children with medical needs. Two per cent are persons with disabilities. Three per cent are unaccompanied or separated children, children moving on their own without a legal guardian or their parents.

We are trying with the United Nations to beef up our response in Venezuela on nutrition, health and protection. UNHCR has had a long presence in Venezuela, because there are more than 850,000 persons in Venezuela who are of concern to UNHCR, mainly Colombian refugees and asylum-seekers. A number of those Colombians have been forced to return to Colombia, maybe sometimes against their free will, to be resettled in their own country.

Unfortunately, as we speak now, the funding that has been requested by the United Nations, which also includes the NGOs, has a funding gap of 55%.

I will stop here. I welcome questions, remarks or suggestions from the committee.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

You're at exactly 10 minutes and zero seconds. Thank you.

We begin with Mr. Whalen for seven minutes.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't think I can promise that level of precision.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Do your best.

February 25th, 2019 / 3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

Thank you again for coming, Mr. Beuze. It's always very helpful to get the factual information.

When we're talking about the scope of the problem that exists for displaced people in Central America and northern South America, it seems to me that the problem in Venezuela is really orders of magnitude larger than in the other countries.

Can you describe whether or not you have sufficient funds for any of the problems that are occurring in the region, let alone what you're talking about—a problem in Venezuela that will be growing from 3.4 million people now to 5.4 million at the end of the year—and what the magnitude of that change means?

3:45 p.m.

Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Jean-Nicolas Beuze

Thank you very much for this important question.

The funding issue is always critical. I've had the opportunity in the general study to brief the committee that we still receive generous funding from the Middle East and to a lesser extent sub-Saharan Africa. Just to give you some numbers, we started the year in Mexico with 2% of the funding we need to respond in particular to people who are in the caravan or those who come on their own. Two per cent of the funding was made available to us to start the year.

If you look at the situation of internal displacement in the three countries, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, where it is important to address the root causes and also to have those who are being forcibly returned settle down, we have extremely limited funding—I don't have the number, but it's extremely limited funding—to provide livelihood opportunities, to help children go to school or to provide medical and psychological care to survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.

Venezuela has in relative terms attracted quite sizeable funding. What is important is that we don't forget the 3.4 million who are outside Venezuela. That's of concern not only to UNHCR but to all the partners. The attention, in particular from the media and some political circles, has been very much within Venezuela, but we have 3.4 million Venezuelans outside, and it's becoming difficult for the countries in the region, which are all low- and middle-income countries, to provide all the services. It has created tension with the host communities. We have seen xenophobic attacks, in particular in Ecuador.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

UNHCR, of course, particularly is there to help displaced people in a third country or the country they've arrived in. Could there be a role for an internationally funded organization to receive people back into their home countries? Is there a role for the UNHCR to play in Venezuela, both in helping Colombian refugees or asylum seekers, but also helping the repatriated Venezuelans who are being sent back?

3:45 p.m.

Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Jean-Nicolas Beuze

Our brand is very much focused on refugees, as the name of our institution indicates, but our mandate does not stop when refugees are returning to their countries. We also have the reintegration back home, especially when it's a voluntary repatriation, meaning when people have been able to make a free and informed choice about their return and have not been forced to return. We have that mandate.

We also have the mandate of internally displaced people. We have some population displaced in Venezuela who are going to walk the border with the intent of perhaps crossing the border, or in the three NCA countries. We have the mandate to take care of them from a protection/human rights point of view and from a shelter point of view.

Other UN agencies—UNICEF for education, the WFP for food—is taking care of the internally displaced, but this is coordinated between the UN agencies.

Our mandate, then, is not limited to refugees. It includes returnees, people who are being repatriated, but also internally displaced.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

The jump you talked about that is expected this year, from 3.4 million to 5.4 million, is quite a lot; that's 6% of Venezuela's population. I'm wondering what additional supports are going to be required along the border, where Venezuelans are leaving for Chile or Peru or Brazil and, if they're closing the border to food now, whether this has gone beyond something the UNHCR is truly able to deal with on the ground.

3:50 p.m.

Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Jean-Nicolas Beuze

There are two parts to your question. One is what we can do inside Venezuela. Very much the UN Secretary General has been offering to assist the Government of Venezuela in the delivery of assistance. You know that over the weekend all the borders, including the maritime border and the special air, were closed by the Government of Venezuela, but the UN stands ready to assist the authorities in delivering humanitarian aid inside the country.

Now, with respect to the needs in the countries that are hosting refugees, indeed it's going to be a major increase in numbers, which is going to strain the resources of those host countries. You may have seen that over the last three days, the border between Colombia and Ecuador has been closed, limiting people's movements. We know that what Venezuelans have been doing up to now is really moving from Venezuela to Colombia—there are still one million in Colombia—and moving down towards Peru.

If you look at the map, Peru is rather south, compared with Venezuela. By closing the border between Ecuador and Colombia, you limit the capacity of people to find safety, but also to find livelihood opportunities, access to health care, access to education for their children and so on.

That was justified, I understand, because of the rise in xenophobic attitudes of the hosting communities in Ecuador, who were competing for the same resources as the newly arrived Venezuelans.

Without support, we will see more and more of those borders being closed.