Evidence of meeting #154 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 finance.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
It will be subject to scheduling. We have a very tight agenda between now and when the summer recess happens, so if we want to, we may need to do a special meeting. I would be very prepared to call a special meeting, because I know that other members of the committee who didn't get to ask a question would, I'm sure, like to ask questions—and that includes me, frankly. We will attempt to schedule something because it is a very important topic.
Thank you.
Ms. Kwan.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Chair, the Liberal government appears set on hiding significant changes to Canada's refugee determination system within an omnibus budget bill. The finance committee as we know, prior to the our recessing for the two-week break, wrote to the committee. In that letter, it clearly outlined that the finance committee would only be inviting the immigration committee to study part 4, division 15 of Bill C-97. What is explicitly omitted in that letter are the significant changes impacting the immigration refugee determination system. Mr. Chair, I think that's wrong. In fact, I think it's wrong that both of these immigration-related bills are stuck in a budget bill to begin with.
Bill C-97, as we know, contains a serious overhaul of how refugee claims will be handled in Canada. If the Liberals on the other side of the table and their colleagues in caucus and cabinet actually stood behind these changes, then I would have thought they'd be willing to have tabled this as a stand-alone piece of legislation so that it could be democratically debated and studied in our parliamentary system. Instead, it is clear that they lack the courage, frankly, to have these changes examined closely, in broad daylight, by Canadians and by parliamentarians.
If you look at the bill itself and what the implications are, I suppose I can't blame them. I wouldn't be proud to put this out there. I would want to hide under a rock and hope that nobody notices. I think that's what the government is trying to do.
If you look at the bill, you will see that eight pages of changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are embedded within a 392-page omnibus budget bill. This is an affront to the Liberals' promise to end the use of omnibus legislation. It's an affront to the Liberals' promise of sunny ways and real change, and it's an affront to claims of “Canada's Back”. This is an affront, frankly, to our democracy.
To make matters worse, they are trying to limit the study of part 4, division 16 even further by having the finance committee explicitly omit the referral of this portion of the bill to this committee.
Mr. Chair, for us to understand the context of these changes, we need to examine the actions, arguably, and more importantly the inactions, that led the government to believe that these changes are necessary. We need to look back at how we got to a place where the government thinks these actions are appropriate and justified in some way. In the full context, what we see is a government that lacked the courage to stand up for the principles and values to which it claims to hold. It is now caving to political pressure from the increasing anti-refugee rhetoric that they have lacked action in addressing.
As I've been saying for some time now, Mr. Chair, this is a problem of the government's own making, and now they've doubled down on a terrible solution to it, or what they think is a solution.
First we have the problem of ramming through this significant legislation in an omnibus bill. In its 2015 election platform, the Liberal Party announced that there would be real change and sunny ways. On omnibus bills, here's what they said:
Stephen Harper has...used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.
The Liberal government changed the Standing Orders, but the issue is that they don't seem to find it necessary to follow their own rules if it suits them otherwise. The new standing order, specifically section 69.1, states:
(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.
This is the definition of an omnibus bill according to the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:
In general, an omnibus bill seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts, and is characterized by the fact that it is made up of a number of related but separate initiatives. To render an omnibus bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes, the Speaker has previously ruled that such a bill should have “one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments”.
It is my hope, of course, that the Speaker rules in favour of the point of order I made to this effect on April 10, 2019. I think when I left the House, he might have been bringing forward that ruling. I had to come to committee, so I am not quite sure what happened there.
Having said that, given the very serious nature of what is at stake should the government be able to ram through these changes, I feel it is my obligation as an elected official to raise this issue in every avenue I can. Despite these changes, the Liberal government has continued to ram through omnibus budget bills so large that former prime minister Harper's omnibus bills look like light bedtime reading. After all, who could forget last year's 582-page budget bill that snuck in the deferred prosecution agreement provisions that led to the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister's top adviser, and an other minister's office adviser all stepping down and two cabinet ministers being thrown out of the Liberal caucus? We know that this government has utterly failed in its promise to stop the use of omnibus bills to ram through those measures and avoid debate. That is not new.
Then we have the problem of what led this government into thinking that these changes were the appropriate solution. On the refugee determination system, we know that it is not new that they failed to show leadership on this as well. In January 2017, following the election of President Trump in the United States, I was granted an emergency debate in the House of Commons to discuss what we are now expecting to see from our neighbours to the south, as the new president ran on a platform of xenophobia, fearmongering and aspects of blatant racism. He ran on a vow to immediately implement a Muslim travel ban. He vowed to slash refugee resettlement and he was going to build a wall. Latin Americans fleeing violence and persecution were “bad hombres”.
By the time this emergency debate occurred, Canadians knew the story of Seidu Mohammed. He and his friend Razak Iyal crossed from the United States irregularly into Emerson, Manitoba, on Christmas Eve. Seidu was outed as a bisexual man while on a trip to Brazil by his soccer coach as he pursued his dream of becoming a professional player. As Seidu is from Ghana, that put him in immediate and potentially life-threatening danger.
This is from Amnesty International's 2017-18 report:
Consensual same-sex sexual relations between men remained a criminal offence. LGBTI people continued to face discrimination, violence and police harassment as well as extortion attempts by members of the public. In February the Speaker of Parliament stated in the media that the Constitution should be amended to make homosexuality completely illegal and punishable by law. In July he also stated in the media that Ghana would not decriminalize homosexuality as this could lead to bestiality and incest becoming legalized.
Fearing for his life, Seidu fled from Brazil and made his way to the United States. He travelled through nine countries by plane, bus, boat and foot. He told us, when he appeared here in July last year, that he had seen people who had died attempting to make the same trip he had. When he arrived in the United States, he followed the rules and he made an asylum claim. He was put in maximum security detention. He told us how he spent nine months locked up with murderers, drug dealers and other felons. He did not have access to an attorney for his bail hearing. Aware of the policies that then president-elect Trump was championing, and based on his experience to that point with the United States asylum system, once finally released, Seidu felt he had no choice but to make his way to Canada.
The safe third country agreement prevented him from being able to arrive at an authorized border crossing. The safe third country agreement denied him the dignity and respect he deserved to be able to present himself at the border and say, “I need protection.”
Instead, he made his way north and paid a cab driver $400 to get him and Razak as close to the border as the driver could. In the dead of night, with a wind chill of -30°C, they walked through waist-deep snow across farmers' fields, trying to find Canada.
Were it not for a good Samaritan named Franco, both men would have died that night. Instead, they suffered only from severe frostbite. Seidu had to have all his fingers amputated.
It was clear to me during the emergency debate that the only real option in the face of the Trump presidency—which vowed to institute a Mexican travel ban, to build a wall to stop asylum seekers from entering and to dramatically reduce any refugee resettlement, which gave a safe space for white nationalism to grow —was for Canada to suspend the safe third country agreement. Instead, the Liberal government opted to do nothing. There was nothing to see here, no need to take any action. In fact, at the end of January, the Prime Minister vowed, now famously tweeted:
To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada
I was proud of that tweet. I thought it was another thing that the Prime Minister so famously espouses: #RealChange. I thought, “Good on him for standing up.”
I thought that meant that asylum seekers would be treated with dignity and allowed to arrive at our borders to make their claims, and that we would stand up and speak out against the unacceptable policies being enacted in the United States. However, like so much of this government's talk, it was just that: talk.
There would be no action, and there would be no change—just a tweet—so I continued to raise the issue both in the committee and in the House. This government ignored me and the experts, to its own detriment, as it continued to refuse to show leadership.
The government members of this committee continually and in public voted to suspend debate on my motions to study the impact that these asylum claims would have at the IRB. They lacked the courage to examine the issue out of fear that it would make their government look bad and might force the government to take action. However, they also lacked the courage to stand behind their inaction, so they didn't vote the motion down, but hid it, voting instead to adjourn debate time and again.
It wasn't until August that the government even began acknowledging that there was something happening, that there was a significant increase in irregular crossings into Quebec at Roxham Road, primarily by Haitian nationals who were living in the United States, were in fear that the Trump administration was ending temporary protected status for them and were coming to Canada to claim asylum.
The Liberal solution? Just have the military throw up a tent city to temporarily shelter them. Move some of them to Toronto and Cornwall. Stay the course of doing nothing to address the border situation.
Then, in the fall of 2017, the Liberals decided that the best course of action to deter irregular border crossings wasn't to eliminate the incentive to do that, that is, to suspend the safe third country agreement so that asylum claimants could arrive at an authorized border crossing to make a claim. Instead, it made more sense to send government MPs to the United States to speak with communities to try to convince them that it wasn't worth trying to come here.
They also sent the minister to Nigeria to attempt to dissuade Nigerians from entering Canada to transit through the U.S. on visitor visas.
What Liberal government approach is complete without a task force or a period of consultation? Certainly not this one.
Also in the fall of 2017, the government announced that the ad hoc intergovernmental task force on irregular migration would finish with 20,593 asylum claims made by individuals crossing irregularly into Canada out of the total of 50,390 inland asylum claims—about 41% of all claims. The numbers would fluctuate, but the trend of increased asylum claimants crossing irregularly would continue.
The lack of political will to lead on this issue and take the necessary steps to actually back up—
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure if this is a point of order, but we had a business meeting scheduled after this where we intended to deal with this very motion. I'm not sure if Ms. Kwan is aware that that was the purpose of the meeting. We have some responses to it, so I'm not sure if it's relevant, but we're prepared to deal with the motion. She doesn't need to talk out the clock if she wants to get to her motion.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I won't imagine what she is thinking, but she has the floor. I don't think that's a point of order, so she can continue in this vein as long as she is relevant and on the point. It is her right to present a motion during her time and her right to speak to it as long as she wants.
So that folks know, we do have a speakers list following her: Ms. Rempel, Mr. Whalen, Mrs. Zahid, Mr. Tilson and Mr. Maguire.
Ms. Kwan.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As I was saying, the lack of political will to lead on this issue and to take the necessary steps to actually back up rhetoric with action began to create a serious vacuum in the national conversation. Misinformation began spreading online, integrating insulting fearmongering and scapegoating asylum seekers. The Conservative Party's fundraising jumped on board, perhaps because they realized public sentiment might be swayed by this misinformation.
On March 19, 2018, the Minister of Immigration caved to Conservative pressure at this committee and stated that he was fine with using the terms “illegal” and “irregular” interchangeably. This is despite section 133 of IRPA clearly stating that it is not illegal to cross between authorized ports of entry if it is done to make an asylum claim. Even the Liberal member for Scarborough—Rouge Park, who no longer sits on this committee, challenged the minister's comments—albeit after the minister left. He challenged the departmental officials who stuck around.
This was followed by the Prime Minister himself getting it flat out wrong on April 25 in suggesting that “It is indeed illegal to cross the border between border crossings.” Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Immigration has apologized for this serious mischaracterization of the facts and the impact it has.
As we see quite regularly, when Liberal members of this committee see fit to challenge the Conservatives, who are all too happy to label asylum seekers as “illegals”, the Conservatives simply respond with, quote, your minister said they were too. I've asked on numerous occasions for the minister to retract his comments, but he refuses, further allowing misinformation to spread.
By mid-2018, the trend has not significantly changed, so again, instead of actually doing something about it, the Liberal government decided to make it look like they were doing something about it. They created a new position of minister and appointed Minister Blair as Minister for Border Security. This marked another step in the Liberal government's move away from #WelcometoCanada and a step towards caving to anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiments by trying to advertise it: “Hey, we're tough on borders.”
Again, rhetoric and naming a new minister had little impact. By the end of 2018, 19,419 individuals made an asylum claim after entering into Canada irregularly, representing about 35% of the total of 55,020 inland asylum claims. Now, facing re-election, having failed to lead on this issue and instead allowing misinformation and anti-refugee rhetoric to gain a foothold in this country, the Liberals have decided they need to look tougher, so we have these changes. They know that these changes blow a huge hole in their claims of being humanitarian champions, so they don't want them to be examined too closely. It's why this is pushed through in a budget bill. They don't even want to send these portions of the bill to this committee. That was clearly outlined in the letter to this committee from the finance committee chair back on April 9, 2019.
This is an attempt to talk out of both sides of their mouths, nothing more. To potential supporters who care about our humanitarian obligations, it's #WelcometoCanada. To those who criticize them, citing misinformation on a border crisis, it's, “Look what we did. We're tough on asylum shoppers.” It is frankly shameful.
Humanitarian leaders don't try to shut down their borders during a global refugee crisis. Let's be clear about this. Canada is not experiencing a border crisis. Canada is not experiencing a refugee crisis. Due to our geographical position relative to where global crises are, we are merely seeing an increase in asylum seekers coming here in search of safety.
Globally, there are 68.5 million forcibly displaced persons, and 25.4 million are UN-registered refugees. Forty million are internally displaced, and 3.1 million are asylum seekers. These are record levels. Of course, Canada will experience an increase in asylum seekers arriving here, given the global context. We have seen elevated levels in the past. In 2008, there were 36,920 asylum seekers to Canada. In 2000, there were 37,845 claims. In 2001, there were 44,695 claims.
No one was suggesting that we were dealing with a crisis. So what changed? Tragically, it was exactly what I've been warning this government about since 2017: anti-refugee and anti-immigrant sentiment surged in Europe during the Syrian refugee crisis. We saw the rise of fascists, nationalists and anti-immigrant parties such as the Golden Dawn, in Greece, and the Party for Freedom, in the Netherlands, to name just two. We saw European countries outright close their doors to Syrian refugees fleeing violence that included state-sanctioned torture, the use of chemical weapons on civilians and various crimes against humanity committed by ISIS.
I was proud that Canadians did not adopt that approach. Instead, we lived up to our humanitarian ideals and responsibilities and reacted. But in my speech in January 2017, during the emergency debate, I warned the government that this outpouring of humanitarian spirit could not be taken for granted, that if true leadership wasn't shown regarding the influx of asylum seekers that Canada would not be immune to what was happening abroad. I'm not happy to say that I told you so. We have now seen public opinion in Canada moving away from accepting refugees and asylum seekers. This is nothing short of a failure of leadership on the part of the Liberal government.
Why is it so important for this committee to undertake a deep study of these changes? Well, let's discuss that.
Since I don't have a lot of faith in this committee, given past practices, we have to really understand the issues at hand. Part 4, division 16, of Bill C-97 is eight pages of legislative changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. One of the proposed changes would extend the bar on applications for the pre-removal risk assessment and applications for the permanent resident status on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds for refugee claimants who have applied to the Federal Court for judicial review. This in effect serves as a deterrent or a punishment for refugees who use the legal recourses they have under Canadian law.
Given delays between an original decision of the refugee protection division, the refugee appeal decision and the Federal Court decision, it could leave claimants in limbo with a precarious and vulnerable status for extra years. Perhaps the plan is that by extending this bar the government is hoping that the claimants will just be removed from Canada before they actually exhaust their legal rights that are carried through the removal before the individual becomes eligible to file the next stage appeal. However, we won't know unless we actually get a real opportunity to study these provisions.
Immigration law experts that I've spoken to have also raised serious concerns about the difficult situation this then puts refugee claimants in. These changes, along with the others that will be discussed soon, effectively create separate pathways instead of the current more straight-line approach that a person can take to try to establish permanent status here. Refugee claimants must now decide. Do they risk requesting judicial review? Do they ignore their right to judicial review and just hope a pre-removal risk assessment is successful? Do they ignore their right to either of those and instead make a H and C application? Immigration law experts have explained to me that often the difference between a failed pre-removal risk assessment can be a successful H and C or a successful PRRA that came out of a failed H and C and can be very difficult to anticipate. They are the experts. It appears that those provisions could put people in danger, because the merits of their cases could now be less important than the particular form they were advised to fill out.
When we're dealing with refugee claimants—individuals and families who could face persecution or death if they return to their country of origin—we must ensure that decisions are made on the merits of their claims and that they have access to their legal rights here. Choosing one application should not bar them from another long enough to deport them. This is willfully avoiding our international obligations and potentially putting lives at risk. We won't be able to know the extent of this risk if we don't closely study this change and hear from the experts on this at the committee. It would be shameful if we don't.
We also need to examine the likelihood that this would drive individuals underground as they try to wait out this extended bar. There is no good reason to incentivize refugee claimants from hiding in Canada so they can stay here long enough to be allowed to take the next appeal. By extending the bar, however, that's what we're doing.
What is the justification for this? Why would we create this incentive? Again, we won't know until we study it, and this government appears dead set against that, at least based on the letter from the finance committee chair that was sent to this committee on April 9. That's why I have to table this motion.
We have a lengthy study. We need a lengthy study of these provisions. It's absurd that the government would make these changes in a budget bill. It should be a stand-alone bill. At the very minimum, these changes should be studied at length by this committee, not by the finance committee.
Next, we have a very strange change that would grant new powers to the Governor in Council to suspend the processing of applications from citizens or nationals of a foreign state or territory for temporary resident visas, work permits and study permits. This would apply to cases where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the government or competent authority of that state or territory is unreasonably refusing to issue or unreasonably delaying the issuance of travel documents to citizens or nationals of that state or territory who are in Canada.
At first glance, this appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Why does the government need this power? In what ways would this power be used and for what purpose?
Looking at the provision more closely, it seems that the Liberal government wants to engage in an act of collective punishment against citizens of a state whose government isn't doing what ours wants. That seems fundamentally unfair and possibly discriminatory. After all, a cornerstone of our immigration system is that each application is processed and decided on the individual merit of each applicant. We do not discriminate or give preferential treatment based on the country someone comes from, but these changes appear to allow the government to do just that. To punish an individual applicant because of their country of origin's ability or willingness to issue travel documents to someone else has nothing to do with the merits of that application. This would be a stark departure from that cornerstone principle. It's also one that could have far-reaching implications if the powers were actually used.
Why is it in this budget bill? Why is the finance committee studying this change and its possible far-reaching implications? This simply makes no sense. It is a significant change that's being sneaked through in a nearly 400-page omnibus budget bill, allowing potentially flawed legislation to slip through the cracks. The government never mentioned publicly that this was a power they needed. They offer no justification whatsoever.
The immigration committee must examine this provision closely and thoroughly. Ramming it through is simply unacceptable.
The changes that are really igniting experts' rage are the ones that effectively entrench and expand the safe third country agreement. At the very minimum, these provisions prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these changes should be discussed by this committee and not by the finance committee. If this government were serious about living up to its international obligations, these changes would be made in a stand-alone bill on which this committee could undertake a thorough study. Instead, the Liberal government is ramming these changes through in an omnibus budget bill and allowing only the finance committee to look at it.
Proposed section 306 of Bill C-97 amends subsection 101(1) of IRPA by adding paragraph 101(1)(c.1). This new paragraph would render a claim automatically ineligible for referral to the refugee protection division of the IRB. It reads as follows:
the claimant has, before making a claim for refugee protection in Canada, made a claim for refugee protection to a country other than Canada, and the fact of its having been made has been confirmed in accordance with an agreement or arrangement entered into by Canada and that country for the purpose of facilitating information sharing to assist in the administration and enforcement of their immigration and citizenship laws
This is troubling for a number of reasons.
First, this takes the safe third country agreement beyond just an agreement between countries, and instead formalizes it in law. Given the ongoing debate and the fact that the safe third country agreement's constitutionality is being challenged in court at this time, this step should not be buried in a budget bill and only studied by the finance committee. That's irresponsible governance at best.
To make matters worse, much of the basis for the call to suspend the safe third country agreement stems from the fact that the United States is not currently a safe country for the asylum seekers. I will outline those arguments in a minute.
This argument matters because IRPA currently requires continual review of any country designated as a safe third country to examine, among other things, “its policies and practices with respect to claims under the [1951] Refugee Convention and...obligations under the [1984] Convention Against Torture”, and “its human rights record”. However, it does not appear that the proposed change in clause 306 of Bill C-97 is subject to the same level of review. Instead, it appears that all that matters is that Canada has an information-sharing agreement with a third country. Many have suggested that this implies the Five Eyes countries: Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. I've spoken at length about why the United States is not a safe country for asylum seekers, so I won't recap all of those examples. However, I will speak to some new information.
In January, the office of the inspector general in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a report. Under the heading “Key Takeaway”, it wrote:
The total number of children separated from a parent or guardian by immigration authorities is unknown. Pursuant to a June 2018 Federal District Court order, HHS has thus far identified 2,737 children in its care at that time who were separated from their parents. However, thousands of children may have been separated during an influx that began in 2017, before the accounting required by the Court, and HHS has faced challenges in identifying separated children.
So far, we know that at least one of these children, seven-year-old Jakelin Caal, has tragically lost her life due to these policies. An autopsy found that the indigenous girl, originally from Guatemala, died from a bacterial infection while detained by the U.S. Border Patrol. Jakelin is one of two children who have died. But now we learned, last week, that the U.S. government is actively looking into housing migrant children at Guantanamo Bay.
I wish I were kidding. I wish this wasn't true, but it is. However, this is the country that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have claimed remains a safe country for asylum seekers, a country that is shopping around the idea of sending migrant children to detention in the same offshore detention centre it holds terrorism suspects. It is unconscionable.
We also have to look at the other Five Eyes countries, which these changes would expand the safe third country agreement to. In a similar fashion to what the U.S. is now exploring, Australia has had a deeply troubling approach to preventing asylum seekers from even arriving. For years now, Australia has been sending and redirecting boats with asylum seekers to offshore detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru Island.
The United Nations ruled in 2016 that Australia's indefinite detention of asylum seekers on Nauru Island on secret security grounds was both arbitrary and illegal. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other associations have long spoken against the practice. In 2017, courts in Australia ordered the government to pay over $70 million to refugees and asylum seekers who have suffered physical and mental injuries while being detained in Manus Island detention centres. In fact, a 105-page communication has been sent by 17 international scholars, prepared by the Global Legal Action Network and Stanford Law School's International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, to the International Criminal Court arguing that treatment of refugees in these island facilities has reached the level of crimes against humanity.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I reiterate that we have, on our side, an opportunity to resolve the issues raised by the motion with the member, but if she walks the clock out, we won't be able to have any meetings, and it won't be for any lack of efforts on our side to make her motion come to fruition.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you.
She has the floor.
There have been moments that are dangerously close to repetition, so I ask the member to make sure that she brings new points to bear as she continues.
You have the floor.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much.
I'm glad to hear that Mr. Whalen is eager to support my motion. That would be fantastic. I will be done shortly, and then a vote will be called. I would love to see the government support my motion, so that we can get on with the study and, in fact, overturn the decision of the finance committee. Mr. Chair, that moment is coming up, and I'll be watching to see whether or not the Liberal members will support my motion.
This Liberal government is apparently saying that what is happening in Australia is just fine, too. We can trust that the Australian system for asylum seekers is good enough, too. On what basis? There doesn't even appear to be a review mechanism on this. What if Australia is found guilty of crimes against humanity for its treatment of refugees? We still have an information-sharing agreement with them. Does that mean that we still trust their asylum system?
This is why you can't ram these changes into a budget bill. These are serious questions that need to be studied at length. Frankly, the actions of this government are unacceptable.
The changes in Bill C-97 would also make asylum claims ineligible if they are pending in one of these countries. That is, the Liberals would like to reject a claim before any other jurisdiction has even heard it. What is the justification for that?
Let's not just take my word for this. How about the opinions of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and Amnesty International? It appears that on Friday, April 26, they launched an email speak-out campaign, which I assume everyone around this table is aware of. The email reads:
I am emailing the Standing Committee on Finance and my member of Parliament to join the voices of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL), the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and Amnesty International Canada in calling on the finance committee to request the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) to study all amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) proposed in Bill C-97.
Changes to refugee rights should not be rushed through an omnibus budget bill, particularly not changes such as these which will have significant impacts on refugee rights.
The organizations above have warned that these amendments could mean that thousands of refugees may be denied an impartial hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board, and that a proposed oral hearing before an officer instead of an independent tribunal member will not sufficiently protect the right of refugee claimants to a full and fair hearing.
The finance committee, while well-positioned to debate matters of finance, does not possess the subject matter expertise to consider the far-reaching rights impacts of the proposed IRPA amendments tucked inside C-97.
I ask that the finance committee request that the CIMM [committee] study these amendments thoroughly, without rushing them through, in order to allow a full, fair and public debate on the important implications these amendments will have on refugee rights in Canada.
The reason I know that everyone around this table is aware of this is that every single individual who has signed on to this campaign has had their email sent to all members of the finance committee, the chair and vice-chairs of this committee, the Minister of Immigration, the Minister for Border Security, the Prime Minister, and their local MP. As of Monday morning, I have received over 2,600 emails. I can't be sure of the exact count at this time because the emails are coming in so fast that my office's general inbox has been continually crashing since last Friday morning.
Recently, the UNHCR representative in Canada wrote an op-ed in which he stated that because the PRRA still exists, Canada is still meeting the bar of not breaking international law.
Oh, how we have fallen, if this is the bar. We've gone from a Liberal government that claims it provides the gold standard, to “Hey, we're not breaking international laws”.
Canadians expect better. We're supposed to be setting the standard that other countries strive to live up to. It is not what the PRRA is even meant for. According to the most recent government review of PRRA in 2016, “one of the key findings from the previous evaluation was that the program had evolved from its original intent of providing a safety net for migrants requiring removal to providing failed asylum seekers one more step in the asylum system, evolving into a de facto appeal mechanism.”
Thus, PRRA is supposed to be a final safety net to ensure that Canada is not putting a person at imminent risk of persecution or death by removing them. It was not intended to be just another appeal stage. It's absolutely not intended to become a parallel refugee hearing system, yet this is what the Liberal government is attempting to do as a “fix” for the increase in inland asylum claims.
In his op-ed, the UNHCR representative speaks of a successful irregular asylum seeker originally from Haiti. He notes that the budget 2019 changes would bar people like him from appearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board to have their claim heard, but in his next breath he suggests that it's okay because the pre-removal risk assessment process exists.
However, his example highlights a serious flaw in this approach. PRRA is provided “pre-removal”. Haiti is one of the 14 countries for which Canada has administrative deferral removal or temporary suspension of removal. Those countries are currently deemed too unsafe to deport an individual to. With no removal, there is no pre-removal risk assessment. Individuals like Pierre will be left in limbo, unable to have their claim heard by anyone, and unable to formalize their status in Canada one way or another, unless the government changes how the PRRA works.
PRRA currently also does not guarantee a claim hearing. In his op-ed, the UNHCR representative states that he was informed by the government that no one will be deported without a hearing. Does this mean that the government has acknowledged that the pre-removal risk assessment is insufficient and that it is planning to add more to that process? Why add more procedures and mechanisms to the PRRA when they already exist at the IRB? This is the definition of duplication and inefficiency. Who will be trained to hear these claims? Where will the claims be heard? How quickly will they be decided? What capacity will IRCC have to hear these expanded PRRAs so that a backlog similar to that at the IRB doesn't occur?
To further highlight this needless duplication and inefficiency, when the Conservatives overhauled the refugee determination system, PRRAs were supposed to be moved over to IRB. The IRB has been waiting for cabinet authorization for this move since 2013. The Conservatives never got around to it and the Liberals haven't either. Instead, the PRRA is staying with the IRCC and is being expanded. Now it will be a de facto additional refugee determination hearing stream. Is this what it's meant to be under Bill C-97?
This is what happens when you ignore an issue for years. The failure to provide leadership leaves a vacuum that's filled with anti-refugee rhetoric and misinformation. Then, in a last-ditch effort for re-election, the government caves to those voices and comes up with a scheme to look tough on border security.
The IRB already does what the Liberals seem to envision the PRRA becoming, and that's not what the PRRA is for. This way, they think they can avoid standing up to the President of the United States and calling out his anti-refugee policies for what they are. They can pretend they are tough, and they can claim they still believe in the #WelcomeToCanada ideals.
The reality is that none of this is accomplished. It makes the system more complex and more costly, and it increases the risk of a person in genuine need of protection being put in danger. This is why we need to be studying this provision of Bill C-97 at this committee. This is why these changes should be included in a stand-alone bill. This is why these changes have deep flaws, create more questions than answers, and could put people's lives at risk. Frankly, I would suspect that if this passes, it would be challenged in the courts. I firmly believe that.
Why is the government doing this? Is it all in an effort for re-election? Is it to look tough on borders?
I implore the members of this committee to vote in favour of my motion. It literally is the very least we can do about these provisions.
Mr. Chair, I heard from the eagerness of Mr. Whalen that perhaps he and all the Liberal members will support my motion, and then we can get on with doing the work this committee is charged to do.
I would also suggest that a key difference with my motion is that there is no timeline tied to it, as opposed to the finance committee, which has tied the other section of the immigration bill to its study. This cannot be rushed. We can't jam it through a budget bill and make it into a confidence vote and think that it's okay. To rush through the study of this would be a disservice not only to asylum seekers and to Canadians, but to all of us across the international stage.
Canada remains and can remain a beacon of hope. That's what we started to work on after the 2015 election. We were that beacon of hope, and where are we now with this kind of provision?
I truly hope that members will look at the provisions within Bill C-97 and think for themselves what this means—not just taking orders from someone, not just reading the messages being given to them, but thinking about it and what it means for the people on the other side.
Effectively, if those provisions pass, individuals who want to claim asylum in Canada, if they've made a claim in those Five Eyes countries, will be ineligible to make a claim. If those individuals have a pending claim, they would be ineligible. I hear Ms. Bendayan saying that I'm incorrect. Well, I hope that I am, except that I'm not. If I'm incorrect, that means that CARL is incorrect. That means that Amnesty International is incorrect. That means that the BC Civil Liberties Association is incorrect. That means that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is incorrect. That means that everyone in this field, who are experts, are incorrect. It's funny how that is.
I know the government will fall back and say that the UNHCR is the saviour, because according to them, PRRA is the way to go. The evidence has already shown, and the government's own internal report actually says, that PRRA should never be the de facto appeal process for asylum seekers. That's what it is becoming. It's becoming the de facto appeal process.
If members on the Liberal side think that is the way to go, to use the last resort as the mechanism to determine whether or not a person is eligible to seek asylum here as a regular stream, I guess this is the ticket. However, if you believe in better than that, if you believe in an independent judicial process to make asylum claims, then you need to keep intact the process that we have in place and to honour it. Honour it for the asylum seekers, honour it for Canada's reputation and honour it for humanity. That's what is required.
I look forward to members voting on my motion. If the government members truly support shining a light on this section of the omnibus bill, they will support my motion. If they want a thorough study of this, they will support my motion, because anything less will only reinforce the very fact that they do not want thorough debate and study on this bill, that they don't want Canadians to really know the fact that they're talking out of both sides of their mouths and that they don't really want Canadians to know they are bringing through this horrific bill at the expense of humanity for political gain.
April 29th, 2019 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I do support this motion. I just want to put a couple of pieces of information on the table.
It's my understanding from the finance committee that they're not sure when they're even going to get to the immigration component of the bill, which suggests there's not going to be a lot of time allocated at the finance committee for study. I'm not certain the finance committee members even have an understanding of when or who the immigration officials will be who are to appear. I think the finance minister will probably be hard pressed to answer a lot of the questions that I think we all have on this particular issue.
I'll just make this note. In the 42nd Parliament, I believe this committee has only dealt with one piece of legislation, Bill C-6. There was another motion that we dealt with, and I think that was it.
In terms of reviewing government legislation from a legislative perspective, this committee's been pretty light. There are a lot of substantive changes in both of these divisions in the bill that I would have specific questions for the government on, so I think it would behoove us to take this on and prioritize that review.
I'm happy to let the government members.... I'm not sure, Chair, but I would presume that they're just going to adjourn the debate on this motion. I hope not, but I think even just two hours.... This is weighty stuff, and there are a lot of different groups that I know want to testify on this and who have varying opinions on it. I think, given that we have not really reviewed legislation.... Really the only legislation that this minister has introduced—I guess he's not introducing it, because it's the finance minister introducing it in the House.... To have it not come to the committee, you know, would be a real change, I guess, so I would encourage my colleagues to support this motion, and on behalf of the Conservatives, I would say that we wholeheartedly support it.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you.
I hope you're not disappointed if you don't get a motion to adjourn the debate.
Mr. Whalen.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thanks, Mr. Chair, for your work behind the scenes to speak with officials to see what we could arrange so this committee could be in a position where we could do this good work.
Before I speak too much to the motion at hand, I just want to propose some amendments and then speak to why we're proposing each of the amendments. It might allow us to do this more quickly.
I'm going to propose that we—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
One amendment at a time, but you're suggesting.... Is it one amendment or would it all be...?
You can introduce them all, but we will have to vote on them one at a time and debate them one at a time.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Hold on one second.
It would be your choice to make it one amendment with three parts or three amendments.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
The way I'm going to do it is to propose four amendments, just so we can keep some of the structure of what Ms. Kwan proposed. That way I think we will get to all of the items. Just trust me, as I think we can get through this.
The first amendment I am proposing is that after the words “the Committee” in the first line, strike the word “immediately” and replace it with the words “at the request of the Standing Committee on Finance”.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Do you have this in writing for the clerk to look at as we're doing it?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I can hand it out after I've read it all out, and then she can see it. Is that the best way to do it?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Yes.
Then immediately after where it says “Part 4, Division 15”, insert a semi-colon and the words—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I will interrupt. I think that it makes for a much better process if you give a narrative to the committee as to what you intend to do and help them understand what you're doing, because for them to hear what you're doing as you're doing it doesn't make a lot of contextual sense. If you could provide a narrative as to what you intend to do and then present it, I think that would be much more helpful for the committee to understand.
