Evidence of meeting #20 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.
A video is available from Parliament.
Professor, York University, As an Individual
I'm not sure I completely understood, but if you're saying that we don't want transparency on situations involving people....
Conservative
Fred Davies Conservative Niagara South, ON
Well, it's an allocation of 35,000 people, and we have no real idea of who they are, where they come from, but they can have access to permanent residency, without much transparency.
Do you think that's a good idea?
Conservative
Fred Davies Conservative Niagara South, ON
You mentioned earlier that rights were created that really didn't exist before.
Can you explain that, please?
Professor, York University, As an Individual
If we look very carefully at what the Prime Minister and the government were saying in 2017, they were saying that anybody showing up at the border has a right to a hearing. We were referring to the Roxham Road situation, but in 2024 the Prime Minister said in a YouTube video, in the French version only, that, “Oh, that was actually abused.”
We then changed the rules because we don't have an automatic right to claim asylum at the border. There are actually some inadmissibility questions. The refugee convention doesn't give you that right if you're protected in another state. You're supposed to protect refugees, but where they're actually protected is a diplomatic issue, and a whole bunch of other factors come in.
Conservative
Fred Davies Conservative Niagara South, ON
When you said we need to align ourselves with our partners in the world, is that one of the key sectors you would suggest needs alignment?
Professor, York University, As an Individual
Yes, that is what I'm suggesting.
The solutions that our partners—and I'm spending a lot of time with our European partners—and the governments are looking at are different ways to deal with this, hopefully in a humane way. We want to protect the balances, and I agree with what my colleague was saying. We do want to be careful about xenophobic tendencies, but we want to be realistic about it.
I'm saying we went too far on the rights. Our partners are actually quite active on this, and I'm afraid that if we don't start working here much more actively, they'll be innovating different kinds of protection systems and we'll be left behind.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Thank you, Professor Barutciski.
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
Again, this is a study on our immigration system. If you have specific data that you feel should go in the annual report, please make sure to submit that to our committee so we can consider that at report time.
Thank you.
The next five minutes go to Ms. Salma Zahid.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to all the witnesses for appearing before the committee.
My first question is for Madam Sreenivasan.
Thanks a lot for appearing today.
An ENCA article in December said that you “accused Canadian politicians of exploiting 'a global current' surrounding immigration, where newcomers are blamed for a range of challenges, including housing shortages and overstretched healthcare systems.” You said, “Canada's population is declining and immigration is essential to our future prosperity," and you warned “against the use of 'toxic and xenophobic narratives' that can harden attitudes against newcomers.”
Could you please expand on that point? What can those who recognize the importance of a managed immigration system do to counter those narratives?
Co-Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
It is essential that we have data-informed and evidence-based information that we share with the Canadian public. We're hearing it even now.
When I speak about the importance of the narrative, the narrative is a story that has to be based on a response that Canadians can understand and based on the evidence of what is happening. There is such a positive and evidence-based story that governments at all levels can tell about the role of immigration in Canada and the functioning system, the skills and the capacity we have in order to maintain Canadians' confidence in the immigration system and the system of asylum.
It's really important on the asylum question to recognize that Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board and Canada's overall asylum system are actually looked to around the world as world-class systems that have developed an evidence-based way to have a quasi-judicial hearing so that all claims are heard on the evidence. The IRB looks carefully at the evidence, and it determines which claims are substantiated and which claims are not.
When we say that people have a fundamental right to claim asylum, that is, in fact, fundamental. With respect to the suggestion that rights have been invented, that kind of language creates an uncertainty and a fear that don't help. The rights are very clear and codified in both the UN convention and the Canadian charter. You have the right, if you cross a border, to ask for protection. You don't have the right to get a “yes”, but that is not the system we have. We have a system that establishes the merits of a claim.
It was very clear from the Singh decision that everyone in Canada, including temporary residents if they're in Canada, has a right to speak to the merits of their claim before being deported to potential danger, because officials make mistakes and these are matters of life and death. The Singh decision said you cannot render a “no” decision without a hearing. That is the only right the community and human rights lawyers are defending. It is, in fact, what the Supreme Court has backed. It is, in fact, what the UNHCR testified before this committee is missing in Bill C-12.
The obligation for us to think about is the opportunity to describe for Canadians the places the system can be improved. For example, when we speak about the money, what is the money being thrown around? Could it be spent better? Yes, 100%.
Our member organizations are saying there is an incredibly positive story we can tell that builds on Canadians' values to welcome refugees in terms of how we create the effective infrastructure to welcome them. There are cost-effective solutions to interim housing that take pressure off city shelters and enable refugee claimants to get access to the supports they need to get a job and get on their way with their lives. We can do that by welcoming more people in dignity and enabling them to contribute to Canada, rather than having very expensive emergency systems that don't think about what refugees may need when they come to seek asylum and end up with last-minute measures, such as busing people to different parts of the country or putting them in hotels. We can have a much more cost-effective and dignified system, and then we can tell the story.
My point was to say we can tell Canadians that we can maintain an open country, one that gives people due process at the border, supports people to have dignified lives and be able to contribute and strengthens all Canadians, because we need to respond to their rights as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Thank you, Ms. Sreenivasan.
Thank you, Ms. Zahid.
Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wouldn't want to be the analysts here. There really are two completely different opinions on something that I believe should be factual. It's either true or false.
Mr. Barutciski, are people entitled to a hearing? We currently have two different opinions on something that should be easy to understand.
Professor, York University, As an Individual
The Singh case concerns seven people of Sikh origin facing deportation to India during the 1980s, at a time of tension. In this situation, it was said that they couldn't be deported without a hearing.
Canadian legislation contains inadmissibility provisions. For example, people may arrive at the border but, for reasons of criminality, they won't even be allowed to seek asylum in this country. Canadian legislation allows for this. The 46 articles of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees don't even mention the word “asylum”. They say nothing about procedures.
So, in the discussion at hand, this is where things get a bit tense. For many years, the legal community and advocates believed that we were offering quite progressive rights. Over the past few years, it has become clear that, in reality, this may have been a bit of an exaggeration and we have a whole host of problems. This discussion has been going on for years. I find it a bit sad to see that part of our community wants to help refugees and says that the standards have been in place for decades.
A number of people have written, as we just said, that individuals are automatically entitled to a hearing. I'm saying that this isn't exactly the case. We can see the issues today. Our colleagues and friends in Europe and other countries are also exploring these issues.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
We hear that newcomers can have an impact on health care services and housing, for example. According to some people, this is dangerous rhetoric that targets newcomers. However, isn't this instead a healthy discussion on government policies? These people have nothing to do with government policies and they certainly shouldn't be targeted.
Professor, York University, As an Individual
Migrants were being criticized. I hope that the people, the migrants, aren't being criticized.
I've tried to write this in many newspapers. We should be focusing on government policies and criticizing these policies, if necessary. That seems clear to me.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Thank you, Professor Barutciski.
We have seven minutes left in this round, so I'm going to give three and a half minutes to Ms. Rempel Garner and three and a half minutes to Mr. Zuberi.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Sreenivasan, I want to go back to something you said earlier. You claimed that there is “no correlation” between the rapid immigration growth of the last several years and the decrease of Canada's available housing supply. Is that correct?
Co-Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
Yes, more or less.
I think there—
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
You think that, even though we had millions of people come in, this had no impact on housing supply or prices in Canada.
Co-Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
I'm saying that the factors that drive the cost of housing and the availability of housing are much more related to the questions of the financialization of housing as an asset, rent control, policies that are—
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Just to be clear, you don't think bringing in millions of people in a very short period of time had an impact on housing, even though major economists and most Canadians' lived experiences say otherwise.
I'm just asking from a perspective so that we can qualify your comments in a further report, because that seems a little bananas to me.
Co-Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
I appreciate that there's a sort of natural logic that input supply must have an immediate effect on demand. I am sure that in specific markets there are—
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you. That's all I need from you.
With the time I have left, Mr. Barutciski, we will have about three million people, by the end of this year, who have expired or expiring visas. The government has continued to set temporary resident targets, making the assumption that these people will leave. If these people do not leave, as the law requires them to do, should the government continue to accept hundreds of thousands of temporary residents as it has currently outlined in its levels plan?
Professor, York University, As an Individual
No, the government shouldn't, and that's why we should be cutting. We don't know what will happen with those three million.