Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I guess really there are two things—the time it takes to get their so-called brown papers, and then the time it takes for the IRB to process them.

[Perla Abou-Jaoudé]

Recently, we've had approximately a year to get the brown paper, and then, from that, when they are transferred to the IRB, we've had a waiting time of approximately two years, sometimes more. I think the IRB will be able to answer the delays exactly; however, we've seen an acceleration in going in front of the IRB and having their hearing.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

One thing we can do as a committee is make recommendations to the government. One thing that's coming to my mind as we go through this testimony is that we should recommend that the government reduce the wait time in the IRB significantly.

What do you think of that, and what do you think would be a reasonable time frame to shoot for for a waiting time for the IRB?

[Perla Abou-Jaoudé]

The problem is not the waiting time. I think the problem is access to justice and access to a lawyer. Right now, the problem in the field is claimants' having access to a lawyer, being able to be well represented and being able to present their case in the proper way. This is one of the problems we're seeing in the field.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Let's say that a claimant does have access to a lawyer. What's a reasonable time for the IRB? What would you suggest?

[Perla Abou-Jaoudé]

Fastest is best. It depends on whether the file is ready, but right now, it's not what we're seeing in the field. I cannot give a time frame, because it really depends.

If you're talking about giving the story, to be able to fill out the forms and give their story, right now they have 45 days; however, we think it's a short period of time. To be able to get the story from a client, create that lien de confiance—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but time is up for Mr. Redekopp.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kayabaga.

Ms. Kayabaga, you will have six minutes. You can begin, please.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses again who are with us today.

Mr. Reichhold, I would like you to tell us about Quebec's views on the safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States. In your opinion, in connection with the bilateral negotiations underway between the two countries, would Quebec prefer a stricter approach to border control that would involve tightening the Roxham Road entry, or an open and soft approach to the border that would allow refugee claimants to enter openly via the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle port of entry?

[Stephan Reichhold]

To my knowledge, because those two aspects are not under its jurisdiction, the present Quebec government has never stated an opinion on the safe third country agreement or how the arrival of refugee claimants at the border should be dealt with. Certainly Quebec has something to say when it comes to taking in and looking after refugee claimants.

However, like some of my colleagues around the table, I am convinced that if we suspended the safe third country agreement, immigrants arriving and being taken in would be handled in a much more orderly and controlled way. It would be spread across Canada as a whole, and that would relieve a lot of the current pressure on Quebec, particularly when it comes to newcomer assistance and legal services. We are completely in favour of suspending that agreement, like the settlement organizations.

I suspect that Quebec and the federal government prefer to have people enter via all Canadian border crossings.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

If Roxham Road were closed, would that prevent refugees from crossing the border into Quebec?

[Stephan Reichhold]

Absolutely not. In fact, I don't know how the road could be closed. Suppose we put a kilometre-long wire fence around Roxham Road. We can see what people do at the Mexican border or the Greek border or elsewhere, where they go around the fence and enter anyway, but in a much riskier way and with a problem of...

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

What pressure do you think there might be on the refugees who take this route to Quebec, if it were to be closed?

[Stephan Reichhold]

I can't imagine how you can close the border. How do you want to do that, maybe by erecting a fence? People are going to get around the fence; that is to be expected, it's human. Everybody will do that and will still get in, but there will be no oversight. They will enter Canada without oversight. I don't think anyone wants that.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Do you think the number of claimants would increase if Roxham Road were to be closed? Do you think we would see the same numbers as the United States is currently seeing?

[Stephan Reichhold]

If we closed Roxham Road, which we can't close, the only solution, in my opinion, would be to suspend the safe third country agreement. No one would need Roxham Road anymore.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Do you think that if that road were to be closed, that would be a step backward or forward?

[Stephan Reichhold]

It would lead to indescribable chaos. People would try to find other roads, roads much less safe than Roxham Road. That would not benefit anyone—not refugees, not Canada's security, not the provinces'. It's an idea that looks good but isn't.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Reichhold.

Ms. Silcoff, I'm going to move on to you.

I just wanted to ask you a question about some of the people who make the decision to cross over and do not see the United States as a safe country. For example, Mr. André earlier mentioned the Haitian community. We also heard that other people, such as Burundians, land in the United States but still make it to Roxham Road.

Why do think that is? Why are they not seeing the United States as a safe country for them to stay?

[Maureen Silcoff]

I think we have to look at very specific aspects of the U.S. asylum system to understand it. When people say “It's not safe”, they don't have a clear conception.

What we do know is this. Someone can have a gender-based claim because they fear domestic violence, they fear sexual assault from strangers, or they've been subject to female genital mutilation. The law in the United States is so restrictive that the UNHCR has criticized how restrictive it is. In comparison to the Canadian law, it's much more narrow. That's a specific example of a class or group of people who don't have a fair shot of getting protection in the United States. That's why people would want to come to Canada to make a claim. That's one specific example, to bring it to practical grounds.

Another example is that there's a one-year bar in the United States. If you don't make your claim within that one year, you can't enter the asylum system. That's another huge problem. In fact, this is linked to gender-based claims. Often when you're in that situation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. Time is up for Ms. Kayabaga.

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

You can please begin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses who are here as we do this important study.

Mr. Reichhold, I think it is relatively obvious that we have to distinguish between closing Roxham Road and suspending the safe third country agreement. They are two completely different things. I sincerely agree with you that if we try to put up a fence, there is a good chance that people will try to get around it.

I want to address the AQAADI representatives and I think it was you, Mr. Abou-Jaoudé, who is going to be answering questions.

I heard Mr. Desbiens say in his presentation that there were gaps in terms of access, not just access to certain necessary tools, including the services of a lawyer, for example, but also access to certain other basic services. Can you tell us about that in more depth?

[Perla Abou-Jaoudé]

The number of claimants puts pressure on Quebec's system because there are insufficient lawyers to handle them all, and this limits those refugee claimants' access to justice.

We think that suspending the safe third country agreement would result in a better distribution of claims throughout the country, and one result would be to enable claimants to have access to an Association lawyer. That factor is very important for them to be well represented and for them to be recognized as credible by the judge.

In addition, that would give claimants better access to housing, food, and various services, including interpretation. By relieving the pressure on Quebec's system, it would facilitate better access to all these services.

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

There are those who sometimes say malicious things about lawyers. You have just shown us that you actually want fewer clients, so there is no financial motivation in your case. You want people to be able to use the services of a lawyer everywhere in Canada.

Am I right in believing that this will therefore mean there will be fewer clients for immigration lawyers in Quebec?

[Perla Abou-Jaoudé]

I don't think it's going to reduce the number of clients who will have lawyers in Quebec in that situation, because for now, we are not able to provide...

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

I'm sorry, I expressed myself badly.

If we suspend the safe third country agreement, the pressure on Quebec will be spread all across Canada. That also means there will be less pressure on the system of legal representation in Quebec for those people.