Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 15th, 2022

[Janet McFetridge]

I'm just an American private citizen who is trying to be helpful. The American system, to me, is extremely broken. At our level with our numbers on the southern border, which you are seeing coming into Canada because that's the pipeline right now, I'm not really sure what the answer is to that, how they could work better together.

I think maybe my friends sitting next to me might have a better idea.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you for your response.

I will go to Ms. Simbizi for my next question.

Ms. Simbizi, you talked about the stories of people to whom your association provides services who have surely gone through this border crossing.

What do you think we could do to better support these people? What kind of feedback are you getting from community members who have gone through this border crossing?

[Appolonie Simbizi]

We have indeed heard from members of our community who have gone this route. We can say with confidence that, once they were accommodated here, they integrated well. Some come here to study and others to work. They really manage to integrate well into the community.

I think the problem is in how these people are accommodated. The proposal of the Alliance des Burundais du Canada, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is to give more resources to agencies like the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Do you know why people choose to go through this route, rather than the normal route that is already open to them to cross the border?

[Appolonie Simbizi]

I have not done a formal investigation, but from what I have heard, I would say that these people are at an impasse—that is, they have no other choice. As another witness said, if these people are risking their lives by going through these roads even in winter when the conditions are harsh, it is because they have no other choice. What we need to understand is that the people who take—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Simbizi. Time is up.

We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for six minutes.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you can please begin.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today to participate in our important study.

As I would like to address all three witnesses, I will proceed fairly quickly.

I would like to answer Ms. Kayabaga's question: the reason people are not using regular border crossings is because they will be turned away under the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Ms. Simbizi, some migrant advocacy groups and immigration law associations have told us that the agreement should be suspended, at least until the discussions between the U.S. and Canada lead to something positive. That way, people would be accommodated in a dignified manner at border crossings, rather than having to take a road through the woods.

Do you tend to agree with this proposal?

[Appolonie Simbizi]

I think that the proposal to accommodate these people in this way may not be the best way. Anyway, at the moment, the safest way is that way. Otherwise, they would probably be forced to go down much more—

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

So you agree that these people should be accommodated in a dignified manner at border crossings. If the agreement were suspended, that would be the result. So you would agree that the agreement should be suspended, so that people could be accommodated at regular border crossings.

[Appolonie Simbizi]

Are you saying that the agreement needs to be suspended so that people can enter using Roxham Road?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

No, no. If the agreement was suspended, people could go through the regular border crossings located all along the border and be accommodated in a dignified manner. So they would no longer have to go through Roxham Road.

[Appolonie Simbizi]

In fact, they use this route only because they do not have the means or do not meet the necessary conditions to go through the usual route. They are people who are in a desperate situation. I don't think it would be feasible—

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Ms. Simbizi, I don't think we understand each other very well, but that's okay.

If the agreement was suspended, these people would be allowed to go through the border crossings. They would file the same claim, but they would do so at a border crossing instead of at Roxham Road.

Would you agree with that?

[Appolonie Simbizi]

If Canada gave them the opportunity to do so, yes, I would agree.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Simbizi.

Mayor, I congratulate you on your work. I have even seen you on television.

You mentioned vans. In fact, we heard from a television report that some of these vans are used by criminal smuggling rings that charge anywhere from $600 to $10,000 per person to bring people who need help to Roxham Road. They are outright robbed of their money.

Are you aware of this situation?

[Janet McFetridge]

No. I'm not aware that they are trafficking, that they are charging that much money. There's no way that I can know anything about the money. I have my suspicions, but, honestly, when people arrive and it's that many people—there could be 30, 40, 50 people at once, usually families—my concern is whether they have winter coats, whether they have hats, whether they have gloves. That's all I can say.

But I agree that's a big problem and it needs to be shut down.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Of course, people don't want to openly say that they had to pay criminal smugglers. It would break our hearts to know that this is the case. I commend you again for your work.

I will turn to you, Ms. Jamous Imseis and Ms. Tamjeedi.

We have learned that migrant advocacy groups and immigration lawyers' associations support suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement. We have also learned from various news reports that smuggling rings were outright robbing these poor people to take them to Roxham Road. Moreover, once they enter Canada, they have to wait more than 14 months before they can get a work permit. These people are living in extreme poverty, since their only income is social assistance, which is really not much.

At the end of the day, 50% of the asylum seekers who enter the country through Roxham Road will be deported when their case is finally settled, four or five years after their arrival. These people will have integrated into Quebec, learned French, and worked here, only to be deported back to their country of origin.

In your opinion, is this a good way for a G7 country to welcome people?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi, Senior Legal Officer and Head of Protection Unit, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]

I will address a part of that question and I will let my colleague complement as well.

First, I have just a small correction in terms of 50% of those people actually being returned once a determination is done: 61% of irregular arrivals are accepted as refugees in Canada currently. That's quite a high statistic in terms of understanding that these people have merits in their claim.

Then the ones who do not get accepted have to go through an appeal process. From the irregular arrivals that do go through an appeal process on the merits of their claim, a third of them are either accepted as refugees or returned for another refugee hearing because there was a problem in the process before.

If all of the appeal process has been exhausted, then UNHCR recommends states to return people to their countries of origin to maintain the integrity of the asylum system.

I will let my colleague address a few other parts of your question.

I'm sorry. I'm going to have to ask you to repeat which parts you wanted answered.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

We don't have the same numbers.

Be that as it may, do you find it normal that, after four years, when these people have integrated into the country, are now speaking French and working, they are told to go back to their country? Do you find this timeline normal?

[Azadeh Tamjeedi]

That part is not necessarily something for UNHCR to comment on. We do note that, to keep a very sound asylum system that is strong, it should be used only for asylum. Once someone has exhausted all their levels of appeal, they should be either regularized through another immigration pathway, or returned to their country of origin.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

You who work with—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. Your time is up.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

It's a shame, we were having a nice discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have six minutes.

Please proceed.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for your presentations and for your patience today.

My first question is for the representative from UNHCR.

Given that some 61% of the asylum claimants crossing over to Canada actually succeed in proving the claim that they are genuine refugees, do you think Canada should keep the safe third country agreement, because all that process is doing is forcing people to go through unsafe means to get to safety? If the government suspended or lifted the safe third country agreement with the United States, then people would be able to cross over in regular border crossings, get to safety and still make their claim.

Wouldn't that be a better option than to force people to trek through snow in terrible conditions and possibly lose their lives?