Evidence of meeting #65 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 irb.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
—unless you can reference a standing order that has been breached, your point of order is out of order.
Liberal
TJ Harvey Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
I would like to say that as an Atlantic Canadian and a member of Parliament from another riding in this country, I find it very disheartening—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you, Mr. Harvey.
I will turn the floor back to Ms. Kwan.
Ms. Kwan, before you begin, I would like to ask your indulgence for one minute.
I would like to thank the witnesses and dismiss them. I know that some have travelled from afar. I know that the video conference link will expire momentarily. I'd like to thank the witnesses for their insight and their testimony. We look forward to hearing any additional insights they can provide the committee.
Thank you on behalf of all the committee members.
The witnesses are dismissed and the floor is once again yours, Ms. Kwan.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As I say, if our immigration system is being undermined, as it is right now with the IRB not having sufficient resources to process the claims efficiently and without a backlog, we are not doing anybody a favour. This includes the Atlantic provinces, which need immigration and our immigration system to work effectively.
It is clear that the IRB is doing everything it can. As Mr. Dion explained, they need resources for their board members to be able to meet the demands being placed on the system.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Order, please.
I understand that some people are catching up, but I ask that you do it outside the committee room.
Thank you.
Ms. Kwan, the floor is yours.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
They currently are not able to meet the demand. At my meeting with Mr. Dion in May, the IRB had a backlog of 24,000 cases. Let me just repeat that so committee members can hear this and hear it clearly: there is a backlog of 24,000 cases right now at the IRB. That backlog increases by 1,000 cases per month. Again, let me just repeat that so everyone is clear about the situation the IRB is faced with: the backlog is increasing by 1,000 cases a month.
For various reasons only 50% of the cases are actually heard within the statutory timeframe. IRB is financially stressed. No efficiencies can make up for this. At this very committee I questioned the minister about legacy claims and the need for resources at the IRB. He acknowledged this when stated that “I think the approach should be efficiencies plus resources”. Well, it's clear that the efficiencies are, in fact, being made. What's also clear, unfortunately, is that the minister isn't holding up his end and providing the necessary resources.
To make matters worse, just yesterday the IRB was described as “adequately funded” in response to a question I asked the minister. What prompted this change in opinion? Did the minister misspeak? Was he serious when he said that the IRB was being adequately funded? We had the chair of the IRB say otherwise. They have a backlog of 24,000 cases sitting right now in their docket, and with each passing month another 1,000 cases are added to that. Honestly, in what universe does the minister think this is adequately resourcing the IRB?
You have legacy cases, and people's lives are stuck in limbo for years on end without knowing if they can have permanent residence here or not. I don't know about you, but if I were stuck in that situation and didn't know what my future looked like, each day would seem like a year. These individuals have been stuck in that situation year after year. With this backlog increasing by 1,000 cases a month, we're going to create a brand new category of legacy cases under this government.
Funding hasn't changed. In fact, we know that internal funding has been reallocated, increasing stresses on the system. To echo the serious concerns of the other opposition members of the committee, we need the minister to appear before this committee so that we can ask him these questions. This is a clear and significant change in the way the funding of the IRB is viewed. Members of this committee deserve to know what brought it about. The longer the government fails to acknowledge the issues present in the system, the more the integrity of the system is put at risk in a time of unprecedented global forced displacements and growing anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric. This is something Canada simply cannot afford to allow to happen.
Yet here we are, with this committee refusing to acknowledge the issues in the system and continuing to vote against even debating my motion to have a study on the irregular border crossings. The committee members say I am disrupting the committee and its work. I do not understand why committee members can't even vote on a simple motion.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I put a motion on the table. Give us an answer. Do you agree that we should study the near-crisis situation happening with irregular crossings? The committee members won't own up to it. They would delay the debate, and they won't actually answer the question.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
This is irrelevant to the actual discussion. I don't believe that—
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
The member is entitled to make fair points relating to her motion. But this is leading into another motion altogether. We're not debating two motions. We're just debating the motion that's before us.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
We're getting into debate once again.
Ms. Rempel, you have a point of order.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
A point of order on relevancy has been raised. As a member of the committee listening to Ms. Kwan, I'm finding her case showing how the committee has been unable to pass motions relevant to her argument on why this motion should be passed. So it's my opinion as a committee member that her argument is relevant. I would love to hear her continue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
We're into debate once again.
Let's get back to Ms. Kwan, the floor is yours.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll tell you exactly how the issue around irregular crossings ties into the work of the IRB, because those claims need to be processed by the IRB and if the IRB doesn't have the resources to do it, they cannot do that work effectively. We do have a crisis. A woman just died trying to cross from the United States to Canada. We can stick our heads in the sand and ignore this real issue, but lives are at stake. The work of the IRB is absolutely critical, Mr. Chair, and the board needs to be funded to do that work. That's how it is relevant, Mr. Chair.
The issue of irregular crossings and the increased levels of inland refugee claims stemming from this are contributing to the current stresses on the IRB. Let us be very clear about that. In case people don't understand how that process works, there is a direct link with the IRB. Like other claims, inland asylum claims are subject to statutory timeframes to be heard, and these are contributing to the backlog. If you don't resource it, it will happen. Backlogs will occur and that is what is happening.
Since the Trump administration took office, there has been a significant spike in asylum seekers crossing from the U.S. into Canada at irregular and unauthorized border crossings. From January to April 2017, 2,719 individuals crossing in this manner have been apprehended by Canadian authorities. In all of 2016, a total of 2,464 individuals were apprehended. If this trend continues, we could expect over 8,000 such interceptions this year, over triple the amount of 2016. Imagine the impact on the IRB. If we don't get them resources to process these cases, what will happen to us? How are we going to protect the integrity of our immigration system? We cannot afford to let this happen.
It is public knowledge that the RCMP and CBSA budgets in the communities most impacted by these crossings are being stretched. The biggest impact of this might be the failure of the government to even acknowledge the issue. That undermines Canadians' faith in our system, which we cannot afford to allow happen at this time.
The argument that irregular border crossings allow asylum seekers to “cheat the system” or “jump the queue”, as some people are saying, Mr. Chair, is absolutely false. Inland refugee claimants are included in a specific category in the annual immigration levels plan. The Government of Canada has a settlement target of 15,000 protected persons in Canada, the category under which inland refugee claimants fall, in addition to the 25,000 spots reserved for government-assisted, privately sponsored and blended visa office referred refugees. Any refugees who arrive in Canada by irregular border crossings will not take away settlement opportunities for refugees attempting to come to Canada through traditional channels.
Similarly, inland refugee claims are processed according to their own statutory timeline and will not contribute to backlog in other refugee claims. But that said, each stream will have backlogs if the IRB is not resourced appropriately, and that should not continue.
The notion that irregular—
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
We've heard quite a bit from the member.
We're in a position to vote on this.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I raise this because it has come up several times, Mr. Chair.
I note that in Bosc and O'Brien, at page 1052, the standing order reads:
A member of committee may move a motion at any time in the normal course of a meeting, provided that:
the notice period, if any, has been respected.
There is a large list of other reasons why, but given that that is the standing order and I believe there has been appropriate notice given for this motion, I believe my colleague is in order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
You're quite correct. Our colleague is in order.
Ms. Kwan, you may proceed.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
The notion that irregular border crossing to claim asylum is committing a crime is simply false, Mr. Chair.
Canada is a statutory to the refugee conventions that allow for this to occur under international law. For example, the UN refugee convention declares that:
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
Canada signed this convention in 1969, Mr. Chair.
The idea that the floodgates have been opened and refugees are streaming across the border unchecked at levels that the Canadian system can't handle is also not true. However, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The government can't just ignore it and pretend that we don't need to resource the IRB to deal with it effectively.
The Prime Minister doesn't get to say and note on social media that we welcome refugees, and then not provide the necessary resources to do this work. That is absolutely critical to do if we're going to honour the words of the Prime Minister.
A failure to take any measures will continue to strain the resources of the impacted government agencies, increase backlogs, and undermine public confidence in our systems. If this becomes a crisis, it will be a crisis of our own doing.
The problem is that we're letting it become a bigger issue than it needs to be. We have now seen a death occur. A 57-year-old woman died of hypothermia attempting to make the dangerous crossing from the U.S. into Emerson, Manitoba. The death was entirely preventable. Unfortunately, despite grandiose words and tweets of welcoming, the government's response has been to largely ignore this. When an actual response is issued, it's callous and filled with misinformation.
Take, for example, the Minister of Public Safety, who said, “It is important to follow the rules and cross the border in a legal and regular manner. People should not think that some back door or side door is a free ticket to get into the country.”
Mr. Chair, I believe most of us here today, as well as the minister, know that comment is simply false. The woman couldn't cross at an authorized port of entry. She couldn't, because of the safe third country agreement. The only way for her claim to be heard was through an irregular crossing to make an inland refugee claim.
I've been arguing since the dramatic shift in humanitarian policy in the U.S., following the election of Donald Trump, that the safe third country agreement needs to be suspended. Immigration law experts and refugee advocate groups have long been calling for this to occur.
I have a case in point that highlights the great work the IRB can do when it has the funding and the board members available to do so. On Christmas Eve of 2016, Seidu Mohammed, a Ghanaian asylum seeker whose refugee claim in the U.S. was denied, walked across the Canadian border into Emerson. Freezing temperatures left Mr. Mohammed badly frostbitten and cost him eight fingers. On May 17, the IRB accepted his asylum claim. Mr. Mohammed said his claim was rejected in the U.S. for similar reasons that the Harvard immigration law program, Canadian immigration law scholars and students, humanitarian and civil liberties associations, and others have noted, in repeatedly calling for the suspension of the safe third country agreement. During his lengthy, punitive immigration detention, he was unable to access counsel and adequately prepare for his hearing. Under our system, he was able to do so.
The IRB does good work, and it needs to be resourced to continue to do so. If it is not resourced to that end, backlogs will happen—and they are happening at the pace of 1,000 cases per month, on top of an already huge backlog of 24,000 cases. Mr. Mohammed could have made his claim without losing his fingers had the government suspended the safe third country agreement.
The Minister of immigration, in his answers to me, constantly uses the term “orderly” to describe things. In what way is having successful asylum claimants lose their fingers to frostbite orderly? In what way is finding the woman who died in a ditch from hypothermia orderly? You know what is orderly: crossing at an authorized port of entry and making an asylum claim.
Because of the government's inaction, NGOs are continuing to step in and pick up the slack, while they, themselves, are being underfunded by the government.
I recently met with the Inland Refugee Society of B.C. It has been serving refugee claimants since 1984 and is the primary organization providing emergency support and for settlement needs, such as orientation, information, referrals, and English classes for refugee claimants from when they arrive in Canada. That would be for inland refugee claimants.
They have seen an increase in arrivals in the last two years, and most particularly since January of this year. They have seen their caseload increase by 300% compared to the same time period last year. Their service has been stretched beyond capacity. If the current rate of incoming refugee claimants continues, they will run out of funds for this fiscal year and will have to close their doors. As of May 2017, they've had to cut transit and housing assistance, and they can now only pay the salaries of two and a half staff positions and for the office space they operate out of.
An immediate intervention is needed so that refugee claimants can continue receiving the settlement and integration support they need. Without this support, refugee claimants end up in vulnerable situations, including being homeless, and the transition to self-sufficiency is delayed.
Right now the shelters are full in my community. They have 32 families in a motel that's being funded by the Red Cross. The families are running out of food, and they are desperate for help.
The Inland Refugee Society of B.C. is struggling to stay afloat. By the way, they do not receive one penny from the federal government to do this important work. Inland asylum seekers do not get welfare, and they have no access to support except through agencies like the Inland Refugee Society. Other settlement service agencies and the CBSA are referring inland asylum seekers to the Inland Refugee Society of B.C. It's worth noting that—