Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2019

[Lobat Sadrehashemi]

Yes, I agree with that. It doesn't make a lot of sense, especially now. The Auditor General has said that he thought the IRB was capable of hearing claims and just needed resources and efficiencies. The IRB'S RPD has actually exceeded its targets in the last year. There has been this new investment in the IRB, so why, at this stage, are we creating a parallel process that's inferior and that's going to require a lot of resources and infrastructure?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

One of the issues that was raised is this. According to the Auditor General, they are projecting another 50,000 claims per year. The officials told us today that 3,500 claims would be pushed through to the new enhanced process. That would leave us with 46,500 claims that would go through the IRB, assuming that would be the process people would follow. For all intents and purposes, it's a small number of claims for which they're jeopardizing the entire fairness process for asylum seekers.

The officials said that these claims are not the only reason they're doing it. They're doing it as a deterrent. Then we go to the question that I think Mr. Maguire posed. Why do you think the government has done this? I would speculate. Are they not doing this so they can say now, six months before an election, they would jeopardize the rights of refugees and risk their lives, allowing them to then say they are getting tough on asylum seekers, for 3,500 claims?

Would I be wrong in thinking that way, or do you have any comments to add to that?

[Lobat Sadrehashemi]

I don't have any comments on that.

[Justin Mohammed]

I won't comment specifically, except on one piece you brought up with respect to deterrence regimes. This is something that Amnesty International has documented carefully, including in the report I referred to, and elsewhere on the continent.

We've had discussions. Our Americas director was in Canada to speak about some of these issues. The reality is that deterrence regimes are being put in place in many countries—the example I've given here is the United States. They deter a problem that is much more expansive in other contexts than the one we see here in Canada.

That's not to diminish the challenge in Canada. It's just to add the context of understanding that right now, in Venezuela, there are 3.4 million asylum seekers on the borders of the countries that surround it. Canada is not dealing—

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

I need you to wind this up.

[Justin Mohammed]

I would just end that point by saying this needs to be understood in the context of the North American hemisphere. Canada is largely absent from that problem.

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

The final round of questioning is by Mr. Tabbara.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

We've been in committee for a number of hours now, and on the previous panel, there was a UN representative, Jean-Nicolas Beuze. He said that the new measures are not in violation of international law.

I think, in your testimony, you were saying this is a violation. I just want you to comment. If you had been here for the previous panel, how would you have commented on the representative's remarks?

I'll start with Mr. Mohammed.

[Justin Mohammed]

I won't repeat the testimony I've given already on why Amnesty International holds the position that this is inconsistent with international refugee law. I'll just add that the idea of protection regimes, and other similar measures, has been studied by refugee scholars, who have also talked about the philosophy of excluding certain claims from refugee protection. In this circumstance, we have an analogous ground that can be drawn out, namely, the notion that the claimant has access to protection in another country before making their request in Canada.

Even the UNHCR recognizes that there may be reasons why a person has made a claim in another country, as circumstances can change and the protection regime in the other country can change. As a result, Canada cannot fail to meet its international obligations by failing to consider that claim.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

If that were the case, wouldn't the strengthened PRRA determine that person wouldn't be sent back?

I'll ask the same question that I asked your colleague earlier. If that process were more clearly articulated and the adequate safeguards were in place to ensure a type of hearing process that met our obligations, would that satisfy Amnesty International—even if not all the way, some of the way—in ensuring that we are upholding our obligations to asylum seekers who come to our country?

[Justin Mohammed]

I have difficulty responding to that. Again, it's the reason that I think was referred to by my colleague. Effectively, you're asking me to comment on something that's not in law, that's not in a bill, that's nowhere for me to see.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I'm asking for your recommendation on how to strengthen the law and the bill to satisfy Amnesty's view of it.

[Justin Mohammed]

In that respect I'll return to the comments I made previously. The required protection is there. It's what we have in the IRB. If you're looking for recommendations as to what adequately protects the rights of refugees, look to the procedure in the IRB.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Mohammed, you just said that when a person is determined to come to a country, before we can remove them, they go through a PRRA. What we're seeing here is that anybody who is part of this cohort—of previously claiming asylum in another safe third country—would not only get a PRRA but also an enhanced PRRA that would determine their safety, should they be sent back to their home country. If it were determined that it is not safe for them to be sent back, we wouldn't send them back. They would receive protected status here in Canada.

[Justin Mohammed]

I may have lost some part of the question, but you made reference to a safe third country. That's certainly nowhere in my testimony. The discussion concerned the refugee protection regime as it exists in the four countries that would currently be captured by this legislation and that have deficiencies in their protection regime, which may give rise to a very valid reason why the claimants would be seeking Canada's protection, as opposed to the protection of one of those other countries listed as having an information-sharing agreement.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Canada would rely on the advice of the UNHCR as to which countries would be deemed safe for asylum seekers. That's been a long-standing tradition of Canada to ensure that we rely on these international agencies with the expertise they have to help us make those types of determinations. I think governments of most stripes would at least agree with that—certainly this government.

If there's a way we can ensure a pre-removal process in place with the safeguards to make sure that we don't send someone back to an unsafe country, we would do that. I'm looking at the context of the bill that's in front of us now. Is there a way we can strengthen the pre-removal process and safeguards to make sure we send nobody back to an unsafe situation?

[Justin Mohammed]

With full respect to the UNHCR's position of what they've set out as a safe third country, I think I've also given the committee other resources to look at to determine the extent to which the United States is a safe third country. I've pointed to one report and to decisions by legal authorities in the United States, and certainly the ongoing public discussion about the measures being taken in the United States, I would suggest to you, would result in a different conclusion.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Can I ask you both for concluding comments on the measures the government has taken other than this particular measure—which has been met differently by both of your organizations—that are helping address issues of irregular migration around the world and those who are displaced or are in refugee situations come to this country as resettled refugees or seeking economic pathways, and the government's work to build the capacity and effectiveness of the IRB to deal with issues in a fast, fair and final way?

Do you see those other measures as strengthening Canada's role in both having a strong asylum system and continuing to be a leader in fair immigration as well as in refugee resettlement?

[Lobat Sadrehashemi]

We certainly supported the investment in the IRB. I think that's what makes sense, but that's why this doesn't make sense. The IRB already has a system to do this fairly. Why create this parallel process?

I want to clarify a point, because I think there's some confusion. To be clear, this applies to any country that Canada has an information-sharing agreement with. It has nothing to do with safe countries. Nothing in it talks about making sure that the country has a comparable refugee determination system to Canada's. It just says information sharing.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Can that be sanctioned?

[Lobat Sadrehashemi]

Canada can enter into any information sharing—

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Thank you very much.

That brings the round of questioning to a close.

I'd like to thank our witnesses.

We'll have a brief break, then five minutes of committee business in camera before we call today's session to a close.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]