Citizenship and Immigration Committee on July 18th, 2016

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Absolutely, that's understood, and you've been assisting groups as they come to Canada, which is incredibly helpful.

However, going there, to Iraq, on the ground, and trying to help, is an incredibly different exercise. For example, as you know full well, a lot of the displaced people in Iraq have a lack of access to documentation. That's one huge challenge you would face. Another challenge, of course, would be that in the event that you did select even 400 people, you would have to ensure their security until they were to leave that country.

How would you deal with all these cascading challenges, which are bound to confront any group that goes to Iraq?

[Dr. Martin Mark]

Thank you very much.

I really see the concern and I'm very happy about it, because it shows we are probably seriously approaching a good resolution. Most of the people who will be in the delegation have already been in Iraq or they are Iraqis, such as Kurdish people or others. We also have had colleagues working on the ground for several years, so we will work together.

In terms of the lack of documents, I think it's very similar to the Somali program. In Dadaab or Kakuma when we have Somalis without documentation in any other part of the world, the refugee law of Canada is really favourable to us in helping us in how to do it, and we have the access to the community to ensure that we establish identity and family composition.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I was trying to illustrate one of the many challenges that you would face.

Pardon me for asking, but, as you know, some of the most vulnerable groups have fled. They are in refugee camps in Turkey. Have you thought of visiting Turkey, as opposed to actually descending upon Iraq?

[Dr. Martin Mark]

On several occasions I visited Turkey, and we feel that while the situation in Turkey is worse than in some other neighbouring countries, for the Yazidis the worst place is northern Iraq, so if we want to focus on humanitarian help then, as I mentioned, we have a program in place in Turkey, but....

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

As you know, Yazidis are in refugee camps in Turkey as well, so it would behoove groups that are interested to actually go to those refugee camps and assist them there as opposed to going through the challenges of visiting a country where they're not invited.

Of course, I am sure you have cast your mind to the reality that if a variety of private groups decided to actually visit countries that are in crisis, that would have huge implications for everyone and quite frankly could very much hinder the possibility of assisting. Have you thought of that particular perspective?

[Dr. Martin Mark]

To the first part of your question, I apologize if I was not clear. Basically we have hundreds of applications going on for people in Turkey. We definitely use all the opportunities to resettle refugees based on a given framework right now. However, we feel that the situation in Turkey, based on the experience of other colleagues of mine, is nothing compared to what you can experience as a Yazidi in northern Iraq.

We feel just to leave out northern Iraq.... Some parts of northern Iraq are safe enough for diplomats, safe enough for UN operations, and our partners are working on the ground, so we cannot just ignore that area. The pontifical mission has a permanent representative and is working in the Yazidi refugee camps. We have no concerns. We monitor the situation. If the situation changes, we can definitely modify the plan, but in the refugee world, this is how we work.

One day there is peace and another day you have to flee. We have contingency plans every time.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

Last, I understand you had the benefit—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

You have 10 seconds.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

—of hearing Professor Macklin's testimony. She very eloquently explained that the international humanitarian regime is moving away from actually using groups and is more focused nowadays on highlighting the grounds on which individuals should be resettled in other countries.

Do you have any misgivings about that particular approach?

[Dr. Martin Mark]

I fully agree that we could open up the source country class based on this or that type of persecution or anything that is identified in the Geneva convention as a group. Just removing the requirement that the person has to be outside of the country would perfectly solve the problem and help us, with the assistance and help of the local governments, to start to resettle IDPs who are in need.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

That will conclude this part of this session. We will now suspend—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Just for the record, Mr. Mark, I don't think I or Ms. Zahid or Ali have any personal issue here. The questions that we've put to you are about the plan. I take it that this—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't understand why my colleague is getting—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It's a point of clarification.

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

I would like an opportunity to respond with extra time, as my colleague does as well. It's a point for debate.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'm just clarifying that we're asking about the plan. It's nothing personal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

There will be an opportunity when I suspend to make any comments that anyone would like to the witnesses at that time.

As this point we will suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Welcome back.

I would like to welcome the next panellists before the committee. Appearing before us on the second panel are Mr. Balpreet Singh of the World Sikh Organization here in Ottawa. We also have witnesses by video conference: Ms. Tarjinder Bhullar from Calgary, and Mr. Kang and Mr. Mattoo from the law firm of Kang and Company. They're appearing from Surrey.

Thank you.

Mr. Singh, you have seven minutes, please.

[Balpreet Singh, Legal Counsel, World Sikh Organization of Canada]

Good evening. I'm legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization of Canada. We are a non-profit human rights organization established in 1984 with a mandate to promote and protect the interests of Canadian Sikhs as well as to promote and advocate for the protection of human rights of all individuals, regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, and social and economic status.

Our traditional understanding of refugees is that they are persons who have fled their homes for fear of persecution and are seeking asylum outside their home countries, but what happens when a group faces terror and persecution and is unable to escape its home country? What becomes of those people? This scenario describes the situation of Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan, and I'm grateful that the committee is taking the time to look into this pressing issue.

By way of background, Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan currently face an unliveable situation in many parts. The Sikh and Hindu communities that have lived in Afghanistan for centuries now have approximately 2,000 people. Prior to 1992, their population numbered approximately 200,000.

My experience with Afghan Sikhs began in November 2014, when I received a desperate series of messages from a remote Afghan Sikh community that was facing imminent danger. Their businesses had been publicly boycotted and stoned. Since then, I've come to meet and become friends with members of this community who have now, in some numbers, with great difficulty, managed to flee to India, with assistance.

Sikhs in Afghanistan find themselves oppressed in almost every facet of life. They're unable to leave their homes freely for fear of attack and harassment. Sikhs are unable to find employment or to freely operate their businesses. Sikh children are unable to attend school for fear of harassment, physical attack, and pressure to convert. Sikh women are unable to leave their homes unaccompanied and must wear the burka. Girls are routinely married by the age of 16, because families fear that they may be kidnapped, raped, and forcibly converted and married if they don't marry earlier. Sikhs and Hindus are unable to respectfully cremate their dead, as funeral processions are often stoned and forbidden from proceeding. Funerals must be held clandestinely. Land that Sikhs and Hindus have lawfully owned for centuries has been occupied. Police and government officials are unable or unwilling to do anything about it. As a result, large numbers of Sikhs and Hindus live collectively in gurdwaras.

Many Afghan Sikhs and Hindus are also forced to pay the jeziah, which is a monthly tax on non-Muslims extorted by the Taliban or other extremist elements, or face the imminent threat of death.

Afghan Sikhs and Hindus are by all definitions communities under siege and in serious danger. As conditions worsen, travel for Afghan Sikhs has become increasingly difficult, because Sikhs are so visible due to their articles of faith. They are accosted on the street and subject to random searches by the police, including the forcible removal of the turban to humiliate them.

Just by way of an anecdote, I know an Afghan Sikh who told me that he was once travelling on a bus that broke down, and he was almost lynched by his fellow passengers, who blamed him for incurring bad luck on them for not being of the correct faith.

Sikhs who do travel do so in small groups or face being kidnapped.

With respect to Sikhs right now on the ground, there are Sikh communities centred in three main areas: Kabul, Jalalabad, and Ghazni. There are also some businesses operated by members in smaller towns, but by and large, those who are in smaller communities have now largely moved to cities or have left Afghanistan. The Sikhs and Hindus who remain in Afghanistan are mostly the vulnerable who are unable to move due to a lack of financial resources. These include lone female caregivers and their children, whose male family members have been lost or killed in conflicts. The community also includes elders who have been stranded by children who fled abroad during previous conflicts.

With respect to finding solutions, gauging the true situation of Sikhs and Hindus in the various parts of Afghanistan poses a challenge in itself, as members of the community are distrustful of outsiders and fear retribution and are therefore reluctant to speak openly about their circumstances. Afghan Sikhs who leave Afghanistan are often reluctant to even provide their names, as they fear that family members remaining behind may be targeted for kidnapping and extortion. That's not an unfounded fear, given the story of Kulraj Singh, a 22-year-old Afghan Sikh who came forward in September 2015 with a story of having spent 40 days in captivity facing torture and forcible conversion. He was only freed after the local Sikhs paid a ransom of 500,000 rupees.

The relocation of Sikhs and Hindus within Afghanistan is also not a viable option. No area in Afghanistan is hospitable to these communities or allows them to freely practise their faith. Furthermore, as visible targets due to their articles of faith, Afghan Sikhs face significant travel risks in any internal flight option in the form of IEDs, roadside attacks, kidnappings, summary execution, etc.

Members of the Afghan government have proposed creating a township specifically for Sikhs and Hindus and relocating all members of these communities there. The idea, as you can appreciate, is deeply flawed and disturbing, as it amounts to forced relocation into what is a proposed ghetto and what would be an easy target for extremists.

Fleeing to neighbouring states is also not an option for Sikh and Hindu religious minorities. Afghan Sikh and Hindu refugees who have fled to neighbouring Pakistan and India have for decades faced discrimination as minorities and have been systematically denied access to health care, education for their children, and long-term legal status.

Without the possibility of meaningful local integration or the prospect of voluntary return to a decreasingly stable country, permanent resettlement of Afghan minority asylum seekers into third countries is the only viable long-term durable solution. We would suggest that Hindu and Sikh communities in Afghanistan be surveyed by NGOs that they can trust to determine what supports they can be provided with, whether material, security, political, or otherwise. These may be able to allow some of them to remain in their country, which they have called home for centuries.

When these communities demonstrate an inability to exercise basic human rights or face overwhelming persecution and threat, Canada has a humanitarian obligation to assist them in their evacuation and resettlement. Canada has previously directly admitted persons in refugee-like situations without recognition as convention refugees under the source country class, which was eliminated in 2011. Other countries, recognizing the severity of human rights crises, have also accepted and protected asylum seekers directly from their homes. In 2015 Canada also temporarily waived refugee status recognition document requirements for sponsored refugees from Syria and Iraq.

Amongst Canadian Sikhs, there is a growing enthusiasm to help bring these suffering members of the Afghan Sikh and Hindu community to Canada. This project was championed by my late friend Manmeet Singh Bhullar, who dedicated himself selflessly in the final months of his life to see that Afghan Sikhs and Hindus who were most vulnerable could flee to safety. Despite the serious challenge I outlined earlier, efforts are ongoing to find a way to take his mission forward.

Regarding the challenges with respect to mobility and travel, we submit that an expedited or waived procedure should be established for Afghan Sikhs and Hindu refugees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Singh.

Next is Ms. Tarjinder Bhullar, from Calgary. You have seven minutes, please.

[Tarjinder Bhullar, As an Individual]

Good evening to the members of the committee as well as to my fellow panel attendees.

In the simplest of terms, I am here today because the person who should be speaking to you about this is no longer with us. My name is Tarjinder Bhullar. I am the sister of Manmeet Singh Bhullar.

October 2015 was the last Thanksgiving that I will ever have with my brother. During that dinner and many Thanksgivings like it, we would spend time going around the room, sharing with each of us what we were thankful for. At this one Manmeet was particularly jubilant. Maybe it was because he was enjoying putting others on the spot when it was their turn to speak or maybe it was because he truly realized that he had so much to be thankful for and so little time to tell us.

As he stood to give his thanks, he began by giving gratitude for his wife. He continued with his commanding voice and a glimmer in his eye as he said, “I am thankful for the Sikhs in Afghanistan.” Though I wish so badly that I remembered every word that he spoke, I unfortunately do not. However, the ones that stand firmly ingrained in me are the ones when he said the work of making sure that Afghan minorities were brought to safety was his life's mission, and those words I remember all the time.

So it continued. I saw Manmeet take every audience and every opportunity he had, and whether it was birthday parties, family dinners, meeting a cousin's in-laws for the first time, any sort of social gathering, a wedding reception, or a media interview, he wanted to spread the word on how religious minorities in Afghanistan were experiencing hardships that are unimaginable to those of us who have the privilege of being Canadian.

In May 2015, Manmeet was re-elected to his position as member of the legislative assembly for the constituency of Calgary—Greenway with one very distinct difference. He was now a member of the opposition. As his family and his friends, we naively thought that this would now free him up and give him time to relax, to focus more time on himself, and just generally slow down from his hectic pace. It sounds ridiculous now, as that is not how he was built. He knew that time was precious and he knew that it was to be spent doing seva, which is selfless service.

Through conversations he had with trusted friends, such as the Honourable Tim Singh Uppal and Mr. Balpreet Singh, he came to know of the plight of the Sikhs in Afghanistan. Manmeet was built in a way that once he knew someone was in trouble, he took on his or her troubles as his own.

So for the next seven months, Manmeet used every moment he could to find a solution to the troubles that plagued his Sikh and Hindu brothers and sisters in Afghanistan. He did so not because it advanced his political career or agenda and not because it was a glamourous topic that would garner him attention on social media. Rather he did it because he knew that knowing of someone being treated unfairly and doing nothing about it was not how he was brought up, it was not what he was taught to believe in, and it was not what we do as Canadians.

For months, Manmeet communicated with Sikhs in Afghanistan, not allowing time zones or languages to become barriers. Instead he adjusted his schedule as much as he could to make himself available when they needed someone to talk to. He would even go so far as mimicking their Punjabi so they felt comfortable sharing their stories with someone who sounded almost exactly like them.

Manmeet didn't talk to them simply to save face. He talked to them to get a keen sense of what their day-to-day challenges were. That's how he worked. No matter what his task was he needed to know everything so that he could dissect the information and masterfully come up with what he thought was the best solution, never fearing what would seem too daunting or ambitious to others. I say that not because he was better than anyone else, but because he simply had this innate quality of never taking no for an answer and always believing that yes was a possibility.

In August 2015 Manmeet was determined to travel to Afghanistan to meet these families first-hand. A series of bombings in central Kabul determined it would not be safe to travel. Though he was not able to get to Afghanistan Manmeet did travel to India to meet those who were able to make it there safely. He also travelled across Canada as well as to Belgium and the United Kingdom to speak to individuals, organizations, government officials, basically anyone who he believed could step up and be a part of the solution.

Manmeet, with the help of his loyal and dedicated staff, worked with Sikhs in Afghanistan to ensure their safe travel to India. He showed his commitment to this project by not only asking others to give, but first giving himself. Once in India he arranged for locals to greet the Afghan Sikhs, assist them in registering as refugees with the United Nations, and then make their way to the province of Punjab where shelter awaited them.

In October 2015, when our father was in India, Manmeet made sure that he assisted Afghan Sikhs who were arriving and gave them temporary residence in our family home.

In November of 2015, Hamreet Bains committed to this project by travelling to India and assisting those arriving from Afghanistan and coordinating resources on the ground to make the transition as smooth as possible.

She was in communication with Manmeet on a regular basis to see what could be done to make this challenge possible for them to come to India. To date, 200 Afghan Sikhs have found temporary refuge in Punjab. Children are attending classes. Women are in a community where their gender does not make them targets for vicious attacks, and men are learning job skills that equip them to provide for their families. But this is definitely a temporary solution. Though they have their basic needs taken care of for the time being, shelter is limited and resources are based on the generosity of people in Punjab and those from Canada who are committed to seeing this project through.

Although Manmeet was able to meet the initial few Afghans who made their way to India, he was not able to see them start their new lives, ones that we hope are full of promise. Manmeet believed that Sikhs in Afghanistan could be given the opportunity to come to Canada. He believed that Canada could give them a safe place to live, work, and play, a place where religion simply does not make you a target.

Manmeet knew full well that government policy and procedure could be adapted to meet the challenges of the current day because he did that himself as a minister. He knew that change was sometimes met with hesitation, but he insisted on finding solutions that better serve the values and ideals that we have come to expect as Canadians. If Manmeet was here with you today, and speaking to you, he would so adamantly implore you to examine how we can assist in bringing Afghan Sikhs to Canada. He would tell you that bureaucratic processes, although necessary and respected, could always be examined for efficiencies. He would tell you that timelines could always be expedited. He would remind you that as Canadians we intrinsically open our hearts and our doors to those in need. He would take the time to promise you, as I am doing now, that the Sikhs that we welcome to Canada will give you more than they will take.

They, like those who have come before them, will build on Sikh principles of giving and sharing with others. Sikh Canadians have proven time and time again that they recognize the responsibilities that come with the rights and privileges of this country. We don't ask for a handout, we give a hand up to fellow Canadians. We will take an active role in making sure that the Sikhs who come to Canada are given the resources that they need, and we are asking in return that you hold hope.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Kang and Mr. Mattoo, seven minutes, please.

[Narindarpal Singh Kang, Barrister and Solicitor, The Law Firm of Kang and Company, As an Individual]

Thank you to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for the honour and opportunity to speak to you on this topic, immigration measures for the protection of vulnerable groups.

Following my comments, my colleague at the B.C. bar, Mr. Jasdeep Mattoo, will be addressing specifically the issue of source country class. I thank him for his input on my prepared comments.

By way of background, I have practised public international human rights law since 1991. I was also appointed for two mandates through order in council to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada from 2002 through to 2010, with the return to private practice in advance of my end of mandate in 2007.

While there are many groupings of persons throughout the world who are worthy of protection, and internally displaced persons, I thank the committee for focusing on two prominent examples of peoples who have suffered persecution in their countries of nationality to the point of internal displacement as a result of that persecution. These are the Yazidi people of modern-day Iraq and Syria and the Afghani Sikhs, also known as Pathan Sikhs and Hazara Sikhs.

For the latter example, I wish to especially recognize the efforts of the late and great member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, the Honourable Manmeet Singh Bhullar, whose untimely passing last year while assisting a stranded motorist deeply affected Canadians across our land.

Respecting the Yazidi, one month ago, on June 16, 2016, a United Nations mandated human rights enquiry reported that the Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham or ISIS, also known as ISIL and Daesh, is committing genocide against the Yazidi people that amounts to crimes against humanity and war crimes today. Hundreds of thousands of them are now in refugee camps as internally displaced individuals on Syria's border regions with Iraq and in Iraq itself.

Today, according to various subjective sources at the United Nations and the Afghan government itself, an estimated 4,000 Sikhs remain isolated or as internally displaced persons in Afghanistan and the Hindu community is virtually considered extinguished, a sad indictment indeed.

Prior to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan the community was magnitudes larger, in the hundreds of thousands, vibrant and well integrated. There are many analogies between the Sikhs of Afghanistan prior to extremist Taliban focus and the Yazidi prior to the destructive focus brought by ISIS against them. Hence, how Canada or other entities can afford protection to such peoples is a timely matter for this committee to examine.

Examples of laws proposed and implemented in Afghanistan, for example, were laws prohibiting Sikhs from building new worship centres, riding horses in the city, wearing clothes similar to Muslims, shaking hands with Muslims, and living in houses with Muslims. They also had to fly yellow banners above their houses and shops to distinguish themselves. One does not need to be a student of history to understand the significance of that type of action.

It's no small wonder that many have fled Afghanistan over the decades, but the plight of those remaining is dire indeed. The main unfortunate tie that binds the plight of the Yazidi and Afghan Sikhs is that their main agents of persecution have been non-state actors—and of course I mean their agents of persecution, not the government's—that the state is unable and or unwilling to control.

To date, the United Nations definition respecting who the refugee is has governed our domestic law, specifically the 1951 UN convention. The committee is well familiar with the definition. The definition is one that fits the post-World War II time period, as state actors were generally the agents of persecution. While reliance upon this definition is warranted for many persecuted people, the main confining characteristic is that persons concerned, by necessity, must be outside of their country of nationality. What ought to be noted is that our Canadian case law supports the contention that cumulative acts of harassment can amount to a finding of well-founded fear of persecution. This is very significant, insofar as one need not wait for individualized persecution to commence for one to fit within the definition.

Absent a significant amendment to this 1951 convention where hundreds of nations are now signatories, there exists really no or little formal protection one can offer to internally displaced persons.

Given the very limited time frame that we have to speak on this, I shall concentrate only on two potential avenues of redress and safety for those suffering acts of persecution within their own national borders, namely, a genocide determination and a differing application of what's commonly known as R2P or responsibility to protect.

First, turning to the designation of genocide that finally was achieved this past June 2016, such a designation, rare under international law, would mark the first recognized genocide carried out by non-state actors rather than state or paramilitaries.

It's significant insofar as the nature of conflict crosses international boundaries with increased technologies and mobility. In countries such as Syria, non-state actors such as ISIS operate in many areas with impunity, and the United Nations can arguably engage in robust peacekeeping initiatives supported wholeheartedly by Canada where such genocide designations occur.

Now, the clear deficiency in this process helps the survivors, but it requires many victims in advance. How, then, can Canada be proactive as opposed to reactive in this realm?

This requires some thinking outside of the box, and respectfully I suggest another potential avenue based on the R2P, or the responsibility to protect. This doctrine is an innovative human security regime that Canada helped to establish under the strong advocacy of former prime minister Paul Martin. In September 2005, R2P was adopted at the UN world leaders summit in New York.

Jennifer Welsh, a Canadian-born international human relations expert at Oxford, noted that Prime Minister Martin reached out to a number of world leaders, convincing them to support articles that acknowledge the responsibilities of individual states and the international community to protect populations from mass atrocity crimes. In the words of Prime Minister Martin, “R2P says that if a government is oppressing its people, or if a government is unable to protect its people from oppression, then it is the duty of other countries to step in and make things right”.

Thus the focus is upon human security as opposed to national security, which is often invoked by nation-states in the governance of people within their territories. Now, under R2P, sovereignty is based upon the degree to which a nation can protect its people; and if protection is inadequate, sovereignty is clearly amended and can be abridged.

Admittedly it sets a high bar. For example, as a former cabinet member noted, all other options—sanctions, arms embargoes, no-fly zones, etc.—should be exhausted before the UN authorizes the use of military force against a nation-state.

What is clear, though, is that R2P is a Canadian contribution, and in many ways it's an initiative designed to protect those such as the Yazidi and the Afghan Sikhs, if one is to take it to its logical conclusion. Canada can again lead the way in proposing a methodology to assist such individuals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Kang, unfortunately your time is up. We are over the seven minutes.

I understand there is a problem with translation. The issue is that, because of a white noise hum, it's not possible to translate simultaneously the testimony.

Obviously we won't be able to have simultaneous translation for these particular witnesses. I don't believe any of the committee members require translation.

The other option would be to unfortunately thank our guest for the presentation, and there would not be an option for him to further take part in the committee hearing.

Unless someone feels strongly otherwise, I would suggest we proceed with option A.

We appear to have unanimous consent.

At this point, we will continue. I would like to thank the panellists for their initial seven-minute presentations and we will begin the seven-minute rounds of questions with Mr. Sarai.