Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 25th, 2022

[Stéphane Handfield]

Personally, I'm not aware of any studies that show that suspending the agreement would result in 100,000, 200,000 or 300,000 new asylum seekers annually.

You have to look at what was happening at the time, before the Safe Third Country Agreement went into effect. We were not getting disproportionate streams of asylum seekers. It was pretty much the same from year to year. So I don't see how suspending the agreement would worsen the situation, quite the contrary.

I would remind members that, so far in 2022, 99.3% of asylum seekers who enter Canada irregularly have done so through Roxham Road. This means that virtually all irregular entry into Canada happens at Roxham Road. If the agreement were suspended, asylum seekers would no longer converge there. In addition, people would no longer be forced to deal with smugglers. We forget that claimants will spend tens of thousands of dollars dealing with unscrupulous smugglers to get them to Roxham Road. Instead, asylum seekers could simply show up at any checkpoint and be properly handled by Canadian authorities, the way it used to be done.

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

I'm trying to understand what's going on. When it comes to this, most experts like yourself in the field, immigration law associations, migrant advocacy groups or community organizations tell me that the agreement absolutely must be suspended. Yet, the government refuses to do it. For four years, we've been told that they want to modernize it, and nothing gets done.

Your opinion, why hasn't the government made a move? Is it afraid it will offend the Americans?

[Stéphane Handfield]

That's a tough question to answer.

I've been working on the Roxham Road issue since 2017. It's important to reiterate the government's position on this issue. In the summer of 2020, following a challenge, the Federal Court struck down the Safe Third Country Agreement. The government could have acknowledged the decision at that time and acted accordingly. Instead, it appealed. That went all the way to the Supreme Court and we're awaiting the decision, which is expected in the next few weeks.

Why hasn't the government budged on this issue, when all the stakeholders are advocating for the suspension of the agreement? As I said at the outset, Article 10 of the agreement allows the government to unilaterally suspend the agreement for three months, without even requiring authorization from the U.S. government. It would therefore be very easy for the government to suspend the agreement and see how things play out on the ground. If some people's fears are realized and Canada were to receive 100,000 or 200,000 new asylum seekers, government could opt to reinstate the agreement. The situation may also remain stable.

We could do that. Why don't we do that? You would need to ask the minister that question.

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

We did ask him, actually, and we got no response. His response to us was that he anticipated an increase in asylum seekers. However, as you said, we could always suspend the agreement for three months and, if necessary, reinstate it later.

We're told they are working on modernizing the agreement and negotiating with the United States. In your opinion, wouldn't suspending the agreement be a way to speed up negotiations with the Americans?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Handfield.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. Your time is up, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

We will now end our panel with Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have five minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for their presentations.

I'd like to continue with Mr. Handfield on this line of questioning.

With respect to the safe third country agreement, some would argue that the United States is a safe country and, therefore, the people who are trying to get to safety here in Canada are asylum shopping.

I wonder what your response is to that. What is the current state in the United States at the moment for asylum seekers?

[Stéphane Handfield]

I think it's a mistake to compare the two asylum systems. The situation in the United States is quite different from that in Canada. Canada is much more open and has much more flexible criteria for recognizing that a person is a refugee. Let me give you some examples.

First, sexual orientation. A person seeking asylum in the United States on the basis of sexual orientation could not be recognized as a refugee by the U.S. immigration court. Conversely, in Canada, membership in what's called a particular social group is grounds for recognition as a refugee.

Then there's the fact that a person fears certain crime groups in their country of origin. That is not a recognized ground in the United States, whereas it is in Canada. Those are obviously major differences.

The two systems also have different views on the detention of migrants. In Canada, this is the exception: migrants are detained in purpose-built immigration detention centres that house women, children and families. In the United States, migrants seeking asylum are instead held in common law prisons, alongside criminals, sometimes even hardened criminals like murderers.

The two systems are completely different. In fact, that's why the Federal Court struck down the agreement in 2020. The system was seen as different, and, contrary to popular belief, the United States was not a safe third country for people who feared persecution if they were to return to their home country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much for that.

I'd like to turn to the representative from MOSAIC, Ms. Nezakat.

There is a lot of focus on Roxham Road, of course, because of the volume of people crossing over irregularly. In British Columbia, we also have numbers.

Do you have any sense of what the impact is on people crossing over irregularly at the British Columbia border?

[Marzieh Nezakat]

Thank you so much for asking that.

As I mentioned a little bit earlier, when they cross the border irregularly and they are not intercepted, they need to claim inland. When they claim inland, the whole process of the refugee claim is way more difficult and longer because of the backlog we see with legal aid. It would take, at times, one or two months for a refugee claimant to be able to start working with their lawyers to put their claim in. Then it will take some time to receive income assistance and work permits are delayed for up to 18 months or more.

During this time they do not really have any other financial resources and the stress of not having legal status, of not receiving results on their eligibility interview and from the risk of being denied and found ineligible after more than a year of being in the country puts a lot of pressure on refugee claimants. We receive refugee claimants every week in need of counselling services and one-on-one sessions for the trauma they are going through. They are stressed out.

We're seeing families being separated because they cannot take the pressure any longer because of the uncertainty. It has a toll on these refugee claimants.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Does MOSAIC receive any federal funding to provide support to asylum seekers?

[Marzieh Nezakat]

That's a very good question.

In the province of British Columbia, all of the services directed to refugee claimants are only provincially funded.

There is only one federally funded program, which is called Reaching Home by IRCC. It is only for some of the transitional houses. We do not have many transitional houses for refugee claimants in B.C. That is a small program, so I would say that nearly all the funding is provided by the provincial government and not by IRCC.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

So effectively all of this pressure is offloaded onto the province. We see that happening in Quebec as well, in Manitoba, and we see it in British Columbia.

Because immigration after all, even if it's asylum seekers, is a federal issue, would you say that the federal government should be supporting provinces in trying to manage the situation, and of course doing it on a compassionate and humanitarian basis?

[Marzieh Nezakat]

I am not really sure of the reason for the federal government not funding refugee claimant services in B.C.—that is a question I do not have the knowledge of—but, of course, I would say yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Madam Nezakat, but the time is up for Ms. Kwan.

With that, our panel comes to an end.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for appearing before the committee and providing important information.

If there is something you would like to bring to the committee's attention, you can always put it in writing and send it to clerk of the committee. That will be circulated to the members of the committee as we finalize the report.

With that, this panel comes to an end. I thank all of the witnesses. They can leave.

For members of the committee, please log off from this public meeting and then log in for the in camera meeting so that we can do the committee business.

With that, the meeting is suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]