Evidence of meeting #42 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was safe.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I have 45 seconds and a few pages of notes.
I'll cut my comments off there and say thank you to my colleagues.
I'm very much looking forward to the opportunity to take what questions you may have, and of course to follow up with each of you on the floor of the House of Commons or in the hallways of Parliament.
Thank you so much.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Minister.
With that, we will now go to our round of questioning.
We will start our round of questioning with Ms. Rempel Garner.
You will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Minister.
Particularly given that the United States-Canada safe third country agreement allows for numerous exceptions, does the federal government affirm that this agreement is constitutional within a Canadian legal context?
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's our view that the agreement is constitutional, as was upheld by the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision. Of course, matters are still before the courts and we'll respect whatever decision they have, but it's our view, of course, that the agreement is constitutional.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Does the federal government affirm that Canada's obligation to provide effective protection and to ensure that effective protection is provided by a country to which Canada transfers refugees is being met via current legislative priorities and other related protocols currently in place within the United States of America?
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
You're asking, effectively, if they meet the standard to be a safe country under the agreement.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's my view that they do. We look at a number of factors, including whether they're party to certain treaties, their policies and practices, and whether they have a functioning asylum system that allows people to have their claim fairly adjudicated. It's my assessment that they meet that standard.
We're obliged under the agreement to monitor that on an ongoing basis. We believe that they have met that standard.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
That's right.
Minister, are you aware of President Joe Biden's executive order? I believe it was about a year and a half ago. It essentially said that the United States was going to make more effort to look at gender-based violence and gang violence in terms of its refugee determination system.
Do you believe that this executive order shows further evidence that the United States is meeting its obligation in terms of being deemed a safe country per international law?
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I am aware of it. I believe it's one factor. It's not determinative one way or the other.
We look at whether people are a party to the convention against torture, the refugee convention, policies and practices such as those you've just identified, their human rights record and whether they agree to share responsibility for refugee protection.
That's one of many factors to consider, but it would move the needle towards satisfying the standard that we would require. There are many other factors that we also continuously monitor.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Just to be clear, based on everything you just said, the federal government affirms that the United States currently meets the basic standards of refugee protection as set out in international law.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
That's correct, but more specifically, it meets standards as set out in the safe third country agreement.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
Does the government affirm international law that states that asylum seekers should make their claim for asylum in the first safe country that they reach?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Let me just put a finer point on it. Indulge me for 30 seconds. I promise not to take too much time.
Having a background in international law, the only thing I can tell you I'm certain about is that you'll find people who disagree on different points. If you include the terms of the safe third country agreement, then certainly that's an element of that legal obligation; however, I think, in addition to it having some basis in the agreement, it's advisable. We don't want to encourage people to take on often dangerous or perilous journeys. It's a principle that I've seen the UNHCR support in the past. There is some debate about whether it's firmly embedded in different international legal instruments.
I think it's advisable to adhere to that principle, and it is adopted as a principle in the safe third country agreement as well.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
Given that, does the government affirm that asylum seekers who first reach the United States of America should make a claim in that country as opposed to seeking to irregularly enter Canada to make an inland asylum claim?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
There are always unique exceptions, even under the safe third country agreement. We always do a case-by-case assessment. We try not to have blanketed decision-making in an omnibus way.
The principles underlying the safe third country agreement promote the outcome you've just described, which is to say that, if you're safe in the country where you first arrived, we would prefer to have you make the asylum claim in that country, including people who first arrive in Canada.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Does the government affirm that economic migrants should apply for residency within Canada via regular migration streams as opposed to seeking to make an inland asylum claim?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Yes, it's our view that people who seek to come here for economic reasons should use the economic streams. In fact, Canada is engaged as the chair of the support platform for an organization called Merx to promote regular migration pathways in Central and South America. We believe it is advisable to have organized, regular migration pathways, including for economic migrants, for those who are seeking to migrate for economic purposes.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Do you affirm that reducing the amount of time that passes between an inland asylum claim being made and when the claim is processed could deter persons from seeking to make an inland asylum claim after having reached the United States?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I would have been more inclined to give you a quick “yes” a year and a half ago, before I was in this job. Honestly, Ms. Rempel Garner, I've now met a significant number of refugees and asylum seekers. I haven't met a person who told me that their motivation was processing times. It's been fleeing challenging circumstances in every instance.
Conceptually, I can see why the argument suggests it could. Anecdotally, I've yet to meet a person who has indicated that was a motivating factor.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Non-Canadians who are low-skilled workers have relatively few avenues to access permanent residency in Canada. Do you think this reality, when compared to expedited work permits processing for persons who make inland asylum claims after having reached the United States, strains the asylum system, potentially while sending a message of unfairness to economic migrants seeking to come to Canada via regular means? Ergo, the government should be looking at more pathways for regular migration for economic migrants.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I agree with you for part of your question. I may take a different slant on another element.
I agree that we need to continue to increase pathways for regular economic migration, including at different skill levels. You would have seen in the recent immigration levels plan a significant increase in our ambition and a decision to try to tailor our economic programs to meet different key gaps in the labour force.
I wouldn't necessarily say that we've created an incentive for people to make asylum claims for reasons that are inappropriate, but I do think that we need to continue to do more to make it easier for people who are seeking to migrate for genuine economic reasons through regular migration pathways.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
The time is up for Ms. Rempel Garner.
We will now proceed to MP Ali.
MP Ali, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.
November 18th, 2022 / 2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, thank you for appearing today.
Could you please tell us what additional steps we can take as a country to show compassion to those asylum seekers and move them from their temporary status to permanent residency?