Evidence of meeting #158 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 process.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
We're going to need incentives.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
—I want to go to Ms. Naso.
I'll ask you a very simple question, Ms. Naso, and I'll give you the rest of my time to answer it. Really, at the heart of this conversation is a conversation on who should have priority access into Canada's refugee and asylum systems. I want to give you some time to articulate your position on that and why.
Spokesperson, Canadian Yazidi Association
Where do I start? I work as a full-time settlement coordinator and I assist Yazidi refugees. My job was to assist the privately sponsored Yazidi families and the wave of the GARS who came in. We're now assisting them. The families that have come in are all broken families, young mothers with lots of young children. We're constantly getting calls from extended family members back home who are left in refugee camps. There are hundreds of thousands of Yazidis struggling in refugee camps in Turkey and Iraq today. Well over 3,500 Yazidi children and women are still held captive by ISIS.
One of the biggest projects that we're working on right now is to work with all levels of government to reunite some of these families. For example, I'm dealing with a family right now who is here with a stepmom and three step-siblings. About a year ago, she found out that her 17-year-old brother was alive and had managed to escape ISIS and was actually bought back from smugglers for $14,000 U.S. We put forward an application forward in the hope that the government would reunite these siblings. The application was rejected. It was rejected because they need the signature of the parents. Well, the parents are missing and probably dead. So these are the things that need to change for this specific population. When we say “broken families”, these are families in which, for the most part, a lot of people are missing. So with family reunification, when we say we need to amend the definition, we mean it needs to be not just parents and siblings. We need to expand that. We need to include aunts and—
Liberal
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you to the witnesses.
I'm just going to build on what Ms. Naso said for a minute here and let her finish her thought, because I think that is a very important point for her to present, to call on the government, if I understand her correctly, to expand the definition of family beyond just parents and underage children for sponsorship, but rather to move beyond that to recognize siblings, as an example. Some would argue for including even aunts and uncles, because many different communities define their immediate families differently. Am I correct in interpreting that?
Spokesperson, Canadian Yazidi Association
Yes, you're correct. Thank you for that.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
By the way, Canada used to have a program that allowed for siblings to sponsor each other. That's how I came to Canada. My aunt sponsored my dad and a family of eight to come to Canada, and that's how we made Canada our home. We should actually go back to the system and extend that to the refugees.
Thank you so much.
I do want to turn to the UNHCR for some of my questions. The UNHCR wrote a 20-page report speaking out against the 2012 Harper government's changes to the refugee determination system under Bill C-31. That was back in May of 2012. Amongst other things, there were a number of key recommendations. One of them is that the UNHCR is recommending against the differential treatment of refugees and asylum seekers where it infringes on established rights of refugees. As far as I can see under Bill C-97, there are different treatments of refugees under different streams now. So why is it okay now in this stream and it wasn't okay back in 2012?
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
It's important to remember that the pattern and profile of an asylum seeker changes over time. The situation in 2012 and the situation in 2019 are radically different in terms of the numbers, but also in terms of the profile of people who arrive in this country, including through irregular means. That's the first point.
The second point is that we clarified, as you noted, that it is about procedural guarantees. As we have heard today, under the process, this new stream of people will still have the guarantee of a hearing and the right to counsel that will be actively participating in the discussion. It's not about the body. It's about the procedural guarantees that are afforded to asylum seekers to ensure that it's a fair process.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you for that.
I would argue that of irregular crossers who have come over so far, under our IRB determination process more than half of them have been deemed to be valid claimants. That said, I'm going to park that point for a minute. However they cross over is not really the issue, is it? It's whether or not they have access to a proper process once they get to Canada. That's your point.
You say that under Bill C-97 there is a proper process for them. I would beg to differ. Right now, those who are made to go through the pre-removal risk assessment process would not have an appeal process. The UNHCR back then recommended that all asylum seekers have access to an appeal process on their merits to the refugee appeal division. Under this system, when people go through the pre-removal risk assessment process, there is no appeal for them to go to. They cannot go through the RAD process. OCASI, an organization in our community, in fact spoke out against that. They were deeply concerned that Bill C-31 would create a two-tier system of refugee protection in Canada, which would result in some claimants being denied the right to appeal. That is what's happening right now under Bill C-97. Why is it okay now and not okay then?
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
I beg to differ from your interpretation. They will have a right of appeal to the Federal Court, which is in line with both Canadian and international jurisprudence.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Well, people who go through the pre-removal risk assessment process do not have a right to go through the RAD.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
They can appeal to the Federal Court. The UNHCR has been very clear in international jurisprudence and is very clear that it's about a fair process, which is entrusted to the Federal Court. I think amongst all of us here, we can agree that it is a robust mechanism to assess whether the PRRA officer may have missed some element in the determination of whether the person needs to be protected as a refugee in Canada or not.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I would be interested, too, in looking into the access to the Federal Court and how difficult it is for refugee claimants to access that procedure and that process and to get the representation, so that they can in fact have the due process and fairness afforded to them. I would argue that most people do not have that access.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
This is why we were very pleased to hear the minister confirm that they will have access to a legal counsel.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
The minister stated that the process is there, but who would actually really be able to access it remains another story and another issue. Many asylum seekers, as we know, do not often have access to legal representation and, therefore, access to the court procedures.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
We are very pleased that the federal budget increased the legal aid.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Actually, we just heard that in Ontario, legal aid is being cut. In fact, refugees do not have access to it.
I do want to go into this other issue, too. We clearly differ in that opinion. The UNHCR also recommended the removal of the five-year bar for designated foreign nationals to file an H and C application from the date of decision or the date of designation. That was back in 2012. Now, under Bill C-97, there is also a bar for people to make application under H and C.
Again I ask this question, why is UNHCR now silent on the current expansions of the H and C application bar?
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
We do hope that mechanisms will be put in place, for those who need to have an H and C to be able to receive the protection of the H and C. As I have mentioned in my statement, we are kindly suggesting that there is also a stay of removal pending a final decision by the Federal Court for all cases—not only those that are part of this new stream, but also for those who, under previous provisions of the law, may be at risk of being deported before there is a final decision by the Federal Court.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
With respect to the bar for H and C claims under Bill C-97, a group of refugees would not be able to access H and C claims under this current system. Effectively, that means some individuals would be denied that opportunity. I raise this issue, because what's really important is that at the end of the day what Canada has to live up to is to ensure that all refugees have access to the same process—which is the original position of the UNHCR—with respect to the refugee determination system. That is what is at risk right now under Bill C-97.
Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
I want to repeat that it's the same procedural safeguard.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Beuze, I've been listening to the questions carefully.
Canada has always been considered a safe haven, even more so now. I would say the system is even better today. In fact, that's part of the reason for the increase in the number of claims.
As Mr. Leuprecht said, Canada's geostrategic situation is unique in that 95% of the people who come to Canada are people Canada selects. That's the figure that was given. Achieving the right balance is crucial. We have to strike a balance between what we must do, what our international agreements require of us and what Canadians are willing to do and accommodate. That's the government's job, and that's what we've done over the past few years.
I always find it troubling when immigration and refugee protection policies are the subject of hypocritical language and doublespeak. Parties call on the government to block or turn away certain refugees, and at the same time, they focus on the economic side, talking about investing more money or providing more services to refugees, for temporary housing, for instance. That fuels misinformation.
What we want is to make sure we are bringing in quality people in order to keep Canadians safe, and that's one of the things this bill does. It reassures Canadians so we can ensure Canada remains a welcoming nation.
Explain to us, if you would, how the current process works when the claims of refugees and immigrants are denied. I'd like to hear about their rights in that regard. Sometimes, a person's claim is denied but they have the right to appeal the decision. A question was raised earlier. Who is going to be able to help them because they will no longer have access to the services? Someone suggested consultants; that's one possibility.
What is your view, Mr. Beuze?
