Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2019

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

I have this problem regularly before committees, so I'll slow down.

By way of example, two-thirds of the people who cross irregularly, the single largest group of migrants to Canada in term of irregular entrants, have been Nigerians who enter the United States on visitor visas. We also have the same documented phenomenon with regard to Saudi nationals. I cite those in particular, because that is from open source information. It is here, for instance, where co-operation with U.S. authorities is integral, given that it is the mainstay of about two-thirds of the people who are crossing irregularly. It is not individuals who are seeking to escape decisions with regard to temporary protected status, as some people have suggested.

It's important to maintain effective checks and balances to maintain access to our asylum system for people in need of protection while limiting actual and prospective abuses to the system. I point here in the legislation in particular to clause 306. With my colleague, Geoffrey Hale, with whom I co-authored the submission, I think an absolute ban on sequential applications may be an excessive response to a valid concern. For reasons that we don't have time to get into, concerning different administrative processes and whatnot, we would suggest limiting the proposed exclusion of eligibility for refugees to perhaps three years from the date on which previous claims in countries with whom we have agreements have been finalized.

With regard to clause 304, it makes sense.... With the enforcement of reciprocity in the application of national immigration laws, the way that clause is worded leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I have lots of concerns about the ambiguities that leaves with regard to the minister, which would need to be clarified.

In general, we strongly support the measures in the current budget, given that it's always been difficult for governments to anticipate and manage all the trade-offs associated with policy decisions in general, in particular with regard to migration.

I would like to close on the issue of the way forward. The way forward has to be to restore section 41 of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, a regulation that's known as the so-called “direct back provision”. That provision allows a person who is at significant risk to apply for refugee protection status from within the United States, if they are not otherwise covered by provisions of the STCA. Such measures would provide a safety valve in case of changes to U.S. temporary protective status provisions, likely to significant risks of another surge in the regular migration.

However, a necessary condition of reinstating section 41 would be to include amendments within the revised STCA that would provide for standstill and prospective U.S. deportation proceedings for any person awaiting a Canadian refugee protection hearing under these provisions. Implementation of such measures would require safeguards to clarify the categories of persons at risk who are subject to such provisions, to preserve the benefits provided by the STCA and provide effective triage of claimants from third countries.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Thanks, Mr. Leuprecht.

You've managed to squeeze that in. However, if you have that particular recommendation in writing, we can table it.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

It's in the submission. I think there just hasn't been time to get it translated. The request came on a rather short fuse for me to appear.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Thank you.

Ms. Naso.

[Nafiya Naso, Spokesperson, Canadian Yazidi Association]

Thank you for having me. It's an honour to be here and part of such an important conversation. Today I'm here representing the Yazidi community in Canada to talk about the importance of family reunification.

We are thankful to the Canadian government for extending the one-year window opportunity. This has given hope to many families who have found out that family members who have escaped ISIS now have an opportunity to reunite once again. We are receiving news of family members escaping frequently, and to know that this barrier is no longer an issue is key in reuniting families. We have only scraped the tip of the iceberg, however.

The Yazidis traditional way of life consists of a mother taking care of the home, and the father doing the labour outside and providing for the family. The Canadian government has brought in primarily women and young children from the Yazidi culture, which has known this way of life for thousands of years. How can we expect them to successfully integrate and become a positive addition to our economy and social fabric in Canada if we are setting them up to fail and be forever reliant on social welfare? They will not integrate or settle successfully.

We need to expand the definition of family to include distant relatives for this vulnerable and traumatized Yazidi population to succeed and prosper. We need to amend the definition of family under the family reunification program. Currently only immediate family is considered. It has been five years now since the genocide began, and many still have heard nothing of their immediate family members' whereabouts, or they have already been confirmed dead. Just as a special program was created by the government to sponsor Yazidis, we now need our policies to reflect the realities on the ground and to be understanding of the special circumstances surrounding this traumatized Yazidi population.

It's been five years since the Yazidi genocide began, and it's still ongoing today. The Yazidi women who faced the most barbaric attacks from ISIS are seeking answers and justice. In Iraq and around the world, different steps are being taken to help, and victims are beginning to heal. For example, countries such as the U.K and Germany are starting to collect evidence in order to pursue legal actions against the perpetrators and justice for the victims. In Iraq a group of investigators was sent under Security Council Resolution 2379 to collect evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal acts by ISIS and to begin the exhumation of mass graves.

I work with the Yazidi women in Winnipeg and have spoken with the Yazidi community around Canada. There is a consensus that justice to them right now is to be reconnected with their family members. This is one of the main reasons the Canadian Yazidi Association has been prioritizing the reunification of families.

A couple months ago members of the Canadian Yazidi Association went door to door to every Yazidi family in Manitoba and recorded the names and information of family members who are still left in Iraq. We have recorded just over a thousand names. We have the capacity, the will, and the financial means to reunite these families and allow them the opportunity to live a successful and productive life in Canada, but a political will of action must be present for this to happen. We hope our government will do the right thing and allow these vulnerable families to be whole again.

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Thank you for your comments, Ms. Naso.

Mr. Beuze.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before this committee once again regarding the proposed change to Canada's asylum system as outlined in the BIA, the budget implementation act.

Providing technical advice to increase efficiencies in the asylum system is an integral part of UNHCR's—the UN refugee agency—advisory role worldwide. We support any measures that ensure prompt decision-making while upholding the essential element of a fair asylum system. While the number of asylum seekers arriving in Canada increased over the last two years, I have previously noted before this committee that measures taken have maintained access to asylum in a humane and efficient manner with adequate security checks.

UNHCR recognizes that governments, including Canada, must strike a balance between managing migration flows, ensuring border security and maintaining public confidence in asylum and immigration systems. In doing so, they must abide by their international obligation to grant refuge to those at risk of persecution. In this context, mixed flows and onward movement from countries like the United States may be perceived, particularly by the general public, as a misuse of asylum. This was referred to earlier on. It is, therefore, legitimate for governments to take measures to address such concerns and find ways to triage cases to ensure fair, efficient and robust processes in a timely manner.

UNHCR welcomes important investments to Canada's asylum system in the 2019 budget. They build on increased efficiencies gained over the last few years, and the recent proposed legislative changes that we are discussing today form part of a broader strategy. They include a significant increase in funding to the police, border agency, legal aid, and Immigration and Refugee Board. They seek to increase cost-effective efficiencies at the front end of the asylum process. Investment in refugee health care, as well as housing, will also benefit refugees and asylum seekers.

Under the proposed changes, as we have heard today, individuals who have made an asylum claim in other countries with whom Canada has a data-sharing agreement will be barred from having their cases heard before the IRB. However, they will not be barred from claiming asylum in Canada or from being recognized as refugees. Indeed, they will be channelled through the pre-removal risk assessment, also known as the PRRA. The PRRA has the same protection objective as the refugee determination process at the IRB. It is based on the same grounds and confers the same degree of refugee protection. In other words, the same definition will be applied to assess whether someone is in need of protection in Canada because of the risk that he or she may face in his or her country of origin.

I would like here to take a moment to discuss a concern often heard recently. It is true that the PRRA has an acceptance rate of 7% when it provides last recourse measures after a negative decision by the IRB and the Federal Court. This low acceptance rate suggests that the IRB and the court are performing their mandate in a effective manner. However, the acceptance rate goes up to approximately 30% when it is the first instance mechanism. It must also be noted that based on the last two years of data, some 3% to 4% of claimants will be channelled to the PRRA as a first instance mechanism. Any discussion around acceptance rates should be taken with a grain of salt. What ultimately matters is that no individual is forcibly returned to a country where he or she will be at risk of torture or persecution, and every case must be assessed on its own merits.

Protection safeguards built into the PRRA process may not be fully utilized, and all stakeholders have a responsibility to make sure that they are used to ensure that there is a fair PRRA process. We have heard Minister Blair explain those measures. With those enhanced PRRAs referred to by the government, UNHCR has received assurances that no one would be removed without due process, which notably includes a right to a hearing prior to removal. This is in line with Canadian and international jurisprudence.

Asylum seekers falling into this new stream will need to continue to have access to information about the PRRA process, effective language interpretation and access to counsel. Similarly, PRRA officers will have to be trained further on how to specifically conduct individual hearings in a fair and efficient manner, including by ensuring that counsels play their role fully through interventions during the course of the hearing. Again, we have had both ministers and civil servants explaining the measures that are now contemplated.

In the past, UNHCR has also advocated for the reduction of procedural steps throughout the front-end case process that cause delays and increase costs. Our recommendations included exceptions for people coming from moratorium countries to be given a protected person status, given that they cannot be returned home, and automatic stays of removal during appeals of negative asylum decisions.

UNHCR is looking forward to lessons learned from the various pilots that relate to inter-institutional coordination on case processing, which was referred to in the example of Montreal; simplification of data collection and forms; triaging and streamlining. In addition, timely removal of those not in need of international protection, after all available remedies have been exhausted and due process completed, will continue to be key to guarantee an asylum system that is fair and efficient, and thus maintains the public's confidence.

UNHCR has long supported the IRB and its independence as a model, and continues to do so. Finding ways to increase efficiencies through better triaging while upholding access to fair procedures are, however, legitimate. In discussing these complex realities, often of a technical nature, we all have a responsibility and must work together to ensure that the conversation about asylum and refugees remains objective and balanced, based on sound legal analysis and facts. Asylum systems must, at times, be flexible to address changes in the patterns and profiles of asylum seekers to remain fair, cost-effective and efficient, thus ensuring public confidence in their integrity.

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Thank you very much, Mr. Beuze.

Thank you to all of our guests for keeping their presentations timely.

We'll begin now with Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you all for your presentations.

I'll first ask Mr. Leuprecht. You spoke about the three ingredients that make a successful immigration policy. I won't go over them due to time. You're a fellow at the NATO Defense College. How do you think this proposed legislation will be perceived by at least the Five Eyes partners who are members of NATO as well? Have you ever had any conversation with them? Is it in line with similar language used by any of them?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

I think that's a very apt question, because of course the challenges that we're discussing here are not unique to Canada. They are challenges from across the world.

One way to sum up the problem is that the supply of potential migrants greatly exceeds the fiscal and social capacity of most receiving countries, as you point out; and the effective management of immigration policies is vital to our continued prosperity, social cohesion and democratic legitimacy.

Much of the world looks to Canada for its being able to build a successful model not just in terms of immigration.... But what's unique in Canada, especially since the mid-1990s—and Keith Banting and Stuart Soroka have done some very interesting work on this—is the increase in popular support for immigration policies at the same time as we've raised the levels of immigration. These are not necessarily negatively correlated.

I think it is important that Canada is able, in terms of the problems that are laid out, to lead by example, because so many other countries are struggling with this. I think there is a risk that, in light of the challenges that I've laid out.... I think this is the struggle that....

One of the unique things in Canada is that 95% of the people who come to Canada are people whom Canada selects, and 5%—a bit larger since 2016—are people who just show up. In Europe, we have the opposite challenge, where 95% are people who just show up. I think that within the Five Eyes countries there's a sense of that. Because of our unique, geo-strategic situation, we have an opportunity to build and ensure we can coordinate a system that is legitimate and sustainable.

If we can't find a way forward that effectively deals with the current circumstance in terms of irregular migration, I think it will send a signal to our partners that there's probably not much hope especially for our European partners, for instance within the Dublin process, to find a measure of coordinating effectively on refugee policy. I think the medium-term strategy within the Five Eyes—and I think most people understand this—with the co-operation that we have, has to be somewhat more harmonization in the way we approach this particular issue.

There is a high level of awareness of exactly the problem you lay out.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Beuze, you commented in The Globe and Mail on April 16 that the federal government's tougher line on asylum seekers is no cause for alarm.

Can you explain this?

[Jean-Nicolas Beuze]

Those were the words used by the journalist. What I said precisely was that the measures contemplated now under the budget implementation act would not violate any international obligation of Canada, because asylum seekers will still have access to the PRRA by which they will be assessed in terms of their risk of persecution. Since we heard that the government is ensuring this will be done through a hearing with the right of counsel—legal advice—this meets the jurisprudence of both international mechanisms and Canada in ensuring that there's a proper hearing before somebody is removed from this country.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

You monitor migration patterns and asylum claims around the world due to the nature of your work. Do you think people migrated to Canada because of a tweet by the Prime Minister or because of the global conditions that have displaced 23 million people?

[Jean-Nicolas Beuze]

I've had the opportunity to clarify this point. It's very clear that there are push and pull factors causing people to cross international borders and to seek asylum. Every case is individual. I think it would be inappropriate to think that people who are fleeing persecution would end up in Canada just on the basis of a tweet. They do that as a last resort, when they feel their life or the lives of their loved ones are at risk. They take a number of risks in doing so, including sometimes having to resort to smugglers and traffickers. It's also why it's important that we keep the integrity of the asylum system fully respected.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Do you think Italy or Greece issued any similar types of tweets in 2015-16 that justified the large numbers of migrants who sailed across the Mediterranean Sea to seek asylum?

[Jean-Nicolas Beuze]

Again, I repeat that I don't believe that a tweet or any particular statement made by government officials here or in other countries triggers the movement. People have difficulty leaving their homes, have difficulty crossing international borders, and do it only as a last resort when they feel that it's the only way to protect themselves and their loved ones.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I asked Mr. Leuprecht this earlier. Do do you know of other countries, asylum destinations perhaps, that have issued similar types of legislation, where if you claimed asylum somewhere else you cannot repeat it elsewhere? Has there been similar types of legislation to this, or is Canada the leader on this, as he said, in terms of expectations on immigration and asylum?

[Jean-Nicolas Beuze]

Asylum countries are finding ways to triage cases to make sure they find not only the most effective, but also the most cost-effective, way of assessing who is in need of international protection. It's important that this process remain robust and fair, which is the case with the measures contemplated now by Canada. But it's also important that we ensure that people are being processed in a timely manner so they don't continue to have to ask questions about whether they will be able to remain legally in the country where they have sought asylum.

Therefore, European and other countries have been enacting similar measures in triaging cases.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jenny Kwan]

We're 20 seconds over time, so we're moving to Ms. Rempel.

You're going to split your time with Mr. Tilson?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I think so. We'll see.

I'll start with you, Dr. Leuprecht. You've written extensively, I think, about human smuggling and some of the issues. I'm going to go on to that, but I just want to touch on some of the comments you were making with regard to the Dublin renegotiation and the coordination of asylum system reform.

It's my understanding that Canada can operate the safe third country agreement with the United States and still be in compliance with our international obligations because of some of the provisions that are in article 19 of the Geneva Convention, which, again, are there to prevent asylum-claim shopping, and because of how the agreement is structured.

It seems to me that division 16 of the budget implementation act, Bill C-97, or whatever it is.... I'm not sure it's going to survive. First of all, I don't think it's going to survive a court challenge in the Canadian context.

It doesn't really impact people. As the minister just said, it's going to impact less than 10% of the people who have entered Canada from the U.S. in the loophole in the safe third country agreement over the last few years and have claimed asylum.

For that reason, my position has been that we actually need to undertake—it's one of the roles Canada could undertake—global asylum system reform, where we're looking at a network of safe third country agreements. We could use international fora to really lead a discussion on what constitutes a safe third country and what monitoring agreements need to be in place in order to ensure that they happen over a long period of time.

I don't think division 16 is that; I think it's a last-minute shortcut—that's kind of how I read it—that probably isn't going to work. Would you say that this assessment is correct or is in the right ballpark?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

Look, we have to start somewhere, I think, given the current situation. I always say that hope is not a method. Just sitting and hoping something is going to change in light of the factors that are pointed out is not going to happen—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I know. In this situation, though, this is not hope. There's something on the table, but if it's likely to be heavily litigated within the Canadian legal system, cost the government a lot and then see appeals and then grandfathering—blah blah blah—as we often see, would that hope not be better placed in taking concrete action?

I was in Europe last year and meeting with European parliamentary colleagues of all political stripes on the Dublin renegotiation. It's a start, but again, it doesn't offer a lot of hope. I'm just wondering if perhaps what Canada should be doing is really taking a leadership position and saying, look, we support asylum claims, and we don't support asylum systems being used to facilitate economic migration—frankly, calling a spade a spade, really, that's what's happening in Canada right now—so here are the venues by which economic migrants can come into Canada.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

With regard to refugees, the Dublin negotiations, as you know, are at an impasse. One of the things that Canada needs to think about.... Yes, we need to establish an international regime among countries that are sought after as destination countries, ultimately, and, as the bill points out—and as Mr. Sarai also pointed out—we have a Five Eyes arrangement emerging, and that's the most likely prospect. I think we build this from the bottom up.

At the same time, I think we could do better at how we can incentivize better behaviour by people who—for instance, in the Dublin process—are the veto players. For instance, I suggested even at the time when the government decided to admit a significant number of Syrian refugees that we could perhaps use some of the numbers we have at our disposal to incentivize the sort of agreement that the Europeans are currently lacking, by saying that Canada will bail out, for instance, for x number of years, some of the countries that are currently veto players in the Dublin process so that these countries can very slowly not only ramp up systems, but—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That sounds like a lot of money.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

—can also—