Evidence of meeting #25 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 ukraine.
A video is available from Parliament.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you, Ms. Desloges.
Next is Ms. Janet Dench.
The floor is yours.
July 19th, 2016 / 3 p.m.
Janet Dench Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
Thank you very much. I am here today to represent the Canadian Council for Refugees, which is an umbrella organization with about 180 member organizations, many of which are heavily involved in resettlement.
First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for putting the focus on vulnerable refugees. Canada's resettlement program should be designed to respond effectively to vulnerable refugees globally. At times in its history, Canada has used economic criteria to select refugees for resettlement, which is not appropriate. The immigration regulations still require that those resettling to Canada be able to successfully establish themselves in Canada.
I have a couple of comments about internally displaced persons. While refugees, by definition, have fled their country of origin, IDPs are displaced within their own country. This distinction is more than just one of geography. From a legal perspective those who are outside their country need to rely on the international community, whereas someone within their country is entitled to expect that their own government will protect them. For this reason IDPs are not generally considered for resettlement, which is a solution for people who need some other country to provide protection and a permanent home.
International law assumes that people facing persecution will seek protection within their own country if they can reasonably do so. Refugee claimants in Canada are regularly asked to explain why they could not have gone somewhere else in their country to escape persecution. This is known as the internal flight alternative.
In some cases, IDPs do not enjoy the protection of their own government because the government is unwilling or unable to provide protection. In such cases, the person may need international protection, but it is because of the lack of protection available and not because they are displaced.
Currently, Canada's immigration regulations exclude from resettlement anyone still in their country of origin. This was not always the case. Before October 2011, Canada had a source country class. This class provided for resettlement of people still in their country of origin.
The CCR recognizes that there are a number of challenges in using resettlement to respond to people still in their country of origin, including political and diplomatic issues with the source country; security issues for Canadian officials processing the case and for those being processed; and serious problems in identifying an organization that can do referrals, given that this is not part of the UNHCR mandate. The CCR opposed the elimination of the source country class. We wanted to reform it to make it work, and we maintain that position.
I have a comment now about equity. CCR shares the horror felt by the committee over the human rights abuses suffered by the Yazidis, as well as by many other religious and ethnic minorities. At the same time, we need to be careful about targeting specific groups, as it can compromise equitable treatment. Often there are individuals at extreme risk who do not fit within a specified group, but are just as deserving of priority consideration. We should not say to someone at risk that you won't be considered for resettlement simply because of your religion or ethnicity. In this regard, we note the dishonourable recent history of Canada trying to force a bias in referrals from UNHCR. The principle of non-discrimination is a fundamental one, and it must be respected scrupulously.
The issue of equity is a particular concern for the CCR and its members at present in the context of the current focus on Syrian refugees. Many individuals and institutions are generously reaching out to support Syrian refugees. As welcome as that is, when the benefits are directed only to Syrians, there is an injustice to other refugees. In particular, Canada's resettlement response has not been good to African refugees. As a result, we believe it is important to design policies and programs that are equitable to all refugees globally without targeting particular nationalities or ethnic groups.
We also have concerns about the politicization of the refugee selection system. We need to avoid having decisions made based on which groups have the best lobbyists, which groups have the best access to the minister's ear, or which groups catch the media's interest. We note the rise in recent years of ministerial priorities in the private sponsorship program, which we consider very problematic.
The UNHCR has the mandate to identify vulnerable groups for resettlement. We recommend letting the UNHCR take the lead. This does not exclude having open consultations about Canada's resettlement plans in dialogue with the UNHCR.
We're worried about the urgent protection program. Sometimes vulnerable refugees need very quick resettlement. Canada has an urgent protection program that should allow Canada to respond to vulnerable refugees facing imminent protection threats. However, sometimes Canada struggles to meet the timelines for the program. We would like to see the government use the successful experience of doing the rapid processing of Syrian refugees to find ways to move refugees very quickly when there are urgent protection needs.
Now I will mention other immigration measures. Canada can respond to human rights crises by opening up immigration possibilities that are not strictly tied to the refugee category. This could reduce some of the legal and diplomatic issues. For example, the CCR has been recommending that Canada offer temporary resident permits to Syrians with family in Canada.
Finally, a word about alternatives to resettlement. Canada can play an important role in ways other than resettlement to support IDPs and refugees. The UN report on Yazidis has a series of recommendations, and in fact, resettlement is not one of them. Governments can and do engage diplomatically, provide funding, advocate for the rights of IDPs, and respond in other ways. Since our organization's expertise is in the area of immigration, which is also this committee's mandate, we do not pretend to have specific recommendations to make, but many NGOs are engaged in these issues and can give input.
Thank you.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you, Ms. Dench.
Now we move on to Mr. Dyck, who has seven minutes.
3:05 p.m.
Brian Dyck Chair, Canadian Refugee Sponsorship Agreement Holders Association
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for this invitation to speak to this committee.
The Canadian Sponsorship Agreement Holders Association is a group of about 100 sponsorship agreement holders, or SAHs, as we call ourselves, who facilitate the application process and settlement of most of the privately sponsored refugees who arrive in Canada. For the most part, SAHs respond to people who come to our doors. That makes our work slightly different from what the government is doing. Typically, our selection process involves working with someone in our community who is worried about friends or relatives who are refugees. So we're not looking at the global needs structure, but at what's in front of us.
Though the refugee resettlement pie is much bigger this year, and we're very thankful for that, and it's bigger than it's been in a long time, many SAHs worry about that slice being carved off and parts of it being lost to us. This is a worry because of the restrictive caps on new sponsorship applications for SAHs that have been part of our environment since 2012. As you know, the caps were brought in to deal with the long wait times and backlogs of applications, which were indeed a problem. Because African visa offices were the most oversubscribed places, these caps have impacted African sponsorships particularly hard, as they deal with many old cases there.
Between 2012 and 2015, by my rough estimate, about 2,000 Africans were sponsored to come to Canada. By comparison, last year alone SAHs were able to submit almost 10,000 Syrian and Iraqi sponsorships—and that doesn't include what was done in Quebec, as I don't have those numbers—because they were prioritized and there was no cap on those two populations in 2015.
Prioritizing one group necessarily has an impact on the whole Canadian resettlement system and can cause problems elsewhere. While no one wants to get into the morbid science of comparing one refugee's plight with another's, there are many who wonder why someone who has been waiting for more than five years may need to continue to wait while others appear to be zipping through the process because they're prioritized.
There are certainly compelling reasons why some refugees need to be resettled on an urgent basis. Canada already has a system for that—the urgent protection program that's been talked about. However, as a rule, SAHs want to see applications processed in the order that they came into the system to see equal access to sponsorships from around the world. That's why I think it's important to focus on building a robust refugee resettlement system that can handle the ongoing demands and at the same time respond to the urgent protection situations that come up. That's something that will take careful building and planning to put resources where they're needed and to realize the efficiencies.
In terms of resettling internally displaced people, Canada, of course, had a unique program to deal with this a number of years ago called the source country class, which has been talked about already. While many were resettled to Canada over the years through this program, there were a number of problems with it, which have been highlighted. It was limited to a few countries that were available, the embassies designated were often difficult or even dangerous to access, and many people who applied did not qualify, so the rejection rates were high.
I worked for the Mennonite Central Committee, and we, as MCC, were somewhat involved in source country sponsorship in Colombia because we have had a program working with IDPs for many years in that country. Generally, our programs were focused on helping IDPs to find new life within Colombia because, most of the time, moving the IDPs away from the threat they were facing eliminated the threat: the threat did not follow them. If, however, they continued to get death threats, we tried to walk with them in the process and apply for resettlement in some cases.
For a number of reasons we never did very much of that. Our first option was always local integration because that's what worked the best. We knew that it wasn't easy to resettle and for most displaced people that's not what they want. They don't want to go to a place like Canada. They want to stay closer to where they are. Also, we knew that if this were a key focus for us, it would be dangerous for our staff and the people and churches who were involved in this. We were also beginning to see more fraud as people began to see this as a way to get to Canada. So there were problems with that. If Canada embarks on a program like that, I think it would be important for us to think about how to deal with this selection process in a way that's safe and effective and fair. That's not going to be a simple thing to figure out.
Finally, I think it's important to keep in mind that resettlement is but one tool in our tool box in responding to forced displacement. I note that the report from the UN that this committee referred to does not mention resettlement in its recommendations. The focus instead is on trauma healing and rebuilding of the communities.
The Mennonite Central Committee has worked in the Middle East for decades, including in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and in Syria itself. Our partners of all faiths on the ground are not really talking to us about resettlement. When we asked them what was best to do, the response was along the line of help us to reach out to our neighbours who are in need. That involves development work, and more importantly involves working at relationship-building in this community.
In Iraq, for example, our partners work with Yazidis and Christians and other groups on trauma healing, which extends across religious boundaries. In Syria, thanks to grants from the Office of Religious Freedom, we have seen Christians and Muslims working together on relief and development projects, and even standing up for each other in the face of violence. These are small steps, but can be the seeds of peace in a place of conflict—conflict that is often imported into the region.
I know there are many forgotten groups around the world and this committee has been hearing from them. To hear the plight of those people is a very important thing. However, it can be difficult to decide whom to help when we cannot help everyone. Many of us who are SAHs struggle with this on a daily basis, and it's the hardest thing we do on a regular basis, deciding where we can help and where we can't. We as SAHs handle this in a number of ways and we do what we can.
Stepping back for a minute from the SAH world, it's important to have a global discussion on how best to use the limited number of spaces for resettlement available each year from various states, and to use them well. As you think about recommendations it will be important for you to think not just of the people who come to you with these compelling stories, as important as they are, but also how that resettlement can work together with other efforts to work with victims of forced displacement.
Thank you very much.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you, Mr. Dyck.
Ms. Zahid, you have seven minutes, please.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
I want to take this opportunity to thank all of our witnesses for providing their input today and for all the work they are doing in settling the new immigrants in this country.
My first question is for Ms. Chantal Desloges.
As we all know, sponsorship agreement holders can identify the refugees they want to sponsor, which is one way for those not prioritized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and IRCC to be resettled in Canada.
What in your opinion is the right balance between the privately sponsored and the government-assisted refugees? What percentage of the total number of immigrants do you think is the right level for the refugees?
3:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Desloges Law Group, As an Individual
I'm a big fan of the private sponsorship of refugees program and less so of government-assisted refugees, although I do think that government-assisted refugees do have their place in our program.
If it were up to me, I would much more heavily weight the balance toward private sponsorship simply because the demand is so great right now, and there's really no downside risk for Canadian society or Canadian taxpayers.
As to an overall percentage, I don't really feel qualified to say what the total mix of refugees versus economic class or family class immigration should be. I really hesitate to comment on that.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
You are more inclined towards the privately sponsored refugees in the total mix of the refugees.
3:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Desloges Law Group, As an Individual
I am.
I think if the government is going to spend money, it should spend money towards helping private sponsors do the wonderful work they're already doing.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
The government-assisted refugees are usually considered to be more vulnerable. What is your feeling on that?
3:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Desloges Law Group, As an Individual
As I said, I wouldn't say that you should totally eliminate government-assisted refugees. I think that possibly for smaller, targeted projects for specific groups of people maybe it would be a good idea. However, I wouldn't say that government-assisted refugees are necessarily more vulnerable than privately sponsored ones, just that the privately sponsored ones have more local Canadian support after their arrival.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
How does the internationally accepted legal definition of “refugee”, which requires someone to have crossed an international border, complicate the ability of the international community to provide assistance to the internally displaced people?
3:15 p.m.
Lawyer, Desloges Law Group, As an Individual
Yes, that's a huge problem. I think in terms of IDPs, that's our number one legal challenge in that department.
I would really hesitate to tinker with the definition of “refugee”, which has stood in good stead for such a long time. I think rather than think about changing those things, we should focus on not reinventing the wheel. Using section 25, exempting people from that requirement in the right circumstances would achieve the same thing without requiring legislative overhaul.
But I do think you're right to identify that; it's a very significant problem for IDPs.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Is there any other country you know of that has done that?
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
My next question is for the Canadian Council for Refugees.
Since yesterday, we have heard about some of the groups of people who are vulnerable, but with your broader perspective and the number of people you deal with, could you outline different groups of internally displaced people around the world and what challenges those groups are facing?
3:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
There's a very large number of people who are internally displaced, and they do tend to be forgotten in various different ways. It's a complicated business to respond to internally displaced people. Their situation in some countries can be particularly vulnerable because they are within their own borders, and if their own government is unwilling or unable to protect them, then it's difficult also for the international community.
The UN obviously cannot just walk in to any country and act as it wishes. It has to have the approval of the government of that particular country. There was a period when the UNHCR was really putting a lot of focus on internally displaced people and there was a bit of an effort internationally to try to find some solutions to those problems, but then it seemed to go a bit off the agenda.
I believe that the new high commissioner is wanting to push it back and to get more attention. I think that if the Canadian government were willing to play a leadership role diplomatically to try to address more attention to finding feasible solutions for internally displaced people, that would be a terrific contribution that Canada could make.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
You know that resettlement is not the only solution. Based on the resources available, as an international community, what can we do, other than the resettlement, to help the internally displaced people?
3:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
I think that the Canadian government is engaged, in terms of funding, for example. There's a lot of reliance by IDPs on support from the international community that Canada can and does contribute to and could do more.
As I say, there are ways of engaging diplomatically, playing a role in discussions locally and with other governments and UN agencies to ask, “Well, in different circumstances, what are some of the solutions that could be found for people?”
There's also a question of highlighting the protection needs, because of course the concerns for IDPs are whether or not their rights are being properly protected.
Canada can both directly raise those issues and encourage the host government to respect people's rights.
It can also support local people, IDPs themselves, who organize themselves in order to draw attention to the ways in which their rights are not being respected. That's another way that Canada can provide some support.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I might just use some time to make a few comments because we've had so much testimony in the last couple of days.
I can accept criticism of our government's approach. I am happy to do that. What I can say is that we did our best in terms of.... I think it was right to say that we were going to put a focus on vulnerable, persecuted, and ethnic minorities. I don't accept the testimony we just heard here that we shouldn't be doing that. I think it's very easy for us to become bogged down in bureaucracy, and I realize that we have to act quickly in certain situations.
It would be very difficult for someone not to be moved by the testimony that we heard from people in Ukraine, from Nadia Murad today.
To your comment, Ms. Desloges, I realize that while there are situations where people are affected—everyone is affected—there are people who are affected more.
I can accept criticism. Can the government realize that they need to act and change their position? I'm putting that on the table.
I was on a television panel many months ago with one of the members in this room, and he made a comment that we make no bones about treating Syrian refugees differently. But when pressed on why that was, he couldn't respond. I think that's where the government has an opportunity here. I think we do need to treat certain cohorts differently so that we can respond quickly to needs. That's not saying that somebody's case is more or less valuable, but there are situations, as we've heard from many disparate groups with many disparate political affiliations today, where we need to act. I think that's very important and I think that's something that we've heard loud and clear. I think we need to have clear criteria when we are acting in those situations.
The comment that not all groups can go home afterwards, I think is absolutely valid. I think, when we have a declaration of genocide, that's very clear.
Some of the witnesses said that the UN report doesn't deal with resettlement. I find that completely false. On page 39, paragraph 212(g), the UN itself asks us to accelerate the asylum applications of Yazidis. In my understanding—and we have legal experts here who might clarify this—an asylum claimant is someone seeking asylum and a refugee is someone who's had a successful asylum claim. To say that it doesn't do that, I think, is just crazy, and misses the point of the whole report.
As for the comments around bias in referrals, I certainly don't want to see our refugee process politicized either, but I think that we need to ensure that the principle of helping people who are facing genocide—for example today—needs to be enshrined in our immigration system when it comes to refugees.
I'll just very briefly ask for some comments. There's been much raised about the source country class—I think that's what it's called. I know in 2012 when subsection 25(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was implemented, that was done in response to the fact that we heard from the community that the source country class was not nimble or flexible enough, or didn't offer the minister enough immediate authority to go in and help people.
The criticism of how we operationalize that, I think, is valid. I think that the government has an opportunity here to direct the department on how to do that. I'd love to get feedback on that as well.
The comment around...and I know I'm burning my time, Mr. Chair—
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
—but I can use my time however I feel.
The other thing that I'd like to see is an examination of our actually.... The government has now imposed a cap, or an exemption from the cap that was previously there for Iraqi nationals. I think that given the designation of genocide by the United Nations and the minister's admission that it is actually happening, this is an opportunity for the government to do some of these things.
Ms. Desloges, with the amount of time that I have left—I think I have a couple of minutes left—I was just wondering if you could provide some additional feedback or clarity on some of the comments that I've just made.
3:25 p.m.
Lawyer, Desloges Law Group, As an Individual
I agree with Mr. Dyck. We can't help everyone. So at some point, we have to set parameters. We have to prioritize. In fact, we're already prioritizing. If you look at Mr. Casasola's testimony yesterday, he talked about how the UNHCR selects which priorities they're going to designate in terms of resettlement. They're already putting priorities in place. It's just that not everybody will necessarily agree on what those priorities are. So it's not an issue of prioritization; it's an issue of how we prioritize.
The UNHCR is a very large bureaucracy. If you try to make a policy change, it's like trying to turn around the Titanic. It simply cannot be as fast as everybody would want it to be. As I said, it's a wonderful organization, and I'm not criticizing it. It's just that it's a very large organization.
Look at the fact that it wasn't until 2007 that the UNHCR actually publicly recognized that Iraqis needed to be resettled. There had been people targeted for eradication in Iraq since 2003. It took four years for the UNHCR to announce publicly that it was in favour of resettling them.
Those are just two examples of my point.
I respect my friend, Janet Dench, so much, but I don't think this is about politicizing, and it's not about lobbying. We're talking about groups that are subject to genocide. It's not who has the loudest voice; it's who is being targeted for these kinds of horrific crimes.