[Translation]
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, and witnesses.
[English]
I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, where we have the privilege of gathering today.
My name is Adam Brown and I am the chair of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, or CASA. I'm also the vice-president external of the University of Alberta Students' Union, and a fourth-year student completing a business degree in business economics and law.
CASA is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that represents roughly 350,000 students at colleges, universities and polytechnics across the country. Through a formal partnership with the Quebec Student Union, we are a trusted and truly national student voice. We advocate for a post-secondary system that is accessible, affordable, innovative and of the highest quality.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting CASA to participate in this important study on migration challenges and opportunities for Canada in the 21st century.
We live in a globalized world that is becoming ever more interdependent, interconnected and complex. Canada must ensure that its workforce is highly educated and equipped with the skills and experiences necessary to contribute to and succeed in today's global realities. Diverse and cosmopolitan post-secondary experience enhanced by the presence of international students is instrumental in preparing Canada's students to work in an increasingly global community. International students also become prospective ambassadors who serve as a voice for Canada abroad, sharing Canadian interests, values and culture, while strengthening international collaboration in higher education, research, trade and diplomacy.
In addition to the cultural diversity and opportunities for global interconnectedness, international students also help to drive Canada's economic growth. They bring about $15 billion to Canada's economy annually, which helps to create around 170,000 Canadian jobs. International students who decide to stay in Canada after their studies are also essential in addressing the ongoing and increasingly imperative issue of skilled-worker shortages in Canada.
While the opportunity that international students present for Canada's cultural and economic prosperity is great, we have identified many administrative and regulatory barriers that prevent them from easily accessing work opportunities or navigating the immigration system. As a consequence, it becomes harder for international students to stay in Canada after their studies.
With work-integrated learning opportunities becoming an integral part of a quality post-secondary education, international students should have equal access to these experiences. Unfortunately, as it stands, international students must apply for an additional work permit on top of their study permit should they decide during their studies that they would like to pursue a co-op internship, apprenticeship or other work-integrated learning opportunity. This additional permit can take up to six months to get, which prevents many bright and talented international students from partaking in work-integrated learning opportunities that come up often on very short notice during the course of their studies. In order to leverage the valuable opportunity that international students bring to growing our skilled labour force, it is vital that they have access to work opportunities that allow them to build networks in Canada and transition into the workforce after their studies. CASA therefore recommends that the federal government modify the study permit to allow international students to participate in full-time, work-integrated learning placements during their post-secondary studies.
Another barrier that hinders international students transitioning to employment following their studies is the short-term period allotted to secure employment and apply for a work permit. Currently, international students have just 90 days after graduation to find a job and apply for a work permit. This tight time frame is not reflective of the current workforce realities, or of the fact that many other life challenges occur post-graduation. In Canada it takes an average of nearly five months to find a job after graduation. While international students can apply for post-secondary work visas, this is yet another bureaucratic burden imposed on international students that could be easily avoided by modifying the work permit. Since the Government of Canada has identified international students as a key demographic for responding to the shortage of skilled labour in Canada, this government should remove unnecessary barriers that make it difficult for international students to stay in Canada after their studies. CASA recommends that the Government of Canada extend the post-graduate job-search period from 90 days to six months to better reflect the average time it takes to find a job after school, helping to keep international students in Canada.
Additionally, international students must deal with the immigration system prior to arriving in Canada and throughout their studies. Each of these steps can be complex, especially for those operating in their second or third language. With this in mind, institutions should provide a welcoming atmosphere with accessible services to set international students up for success in Canada.
However, the regulatory change brought forward in section 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2011 has inadvertently limited on-campus access for students to immigration information. Post-secondary staff must now obtain a special certificate, which requires 300 hours of training in the busiest months of the school year at an estimated cost of $2,600.
Not all institutions can afford this commitment of both time and resources. I'll give you an example. Red River College in Manitoba has 1,500 international students, nine campuses, and only one certified international student adviser to serve all of them. As you can imagine, this leaves many international students without any access to on-campus immigration information.
Currently, other organizations, including religious and non-governmental organizations that do not charge a fee for this service, are exempt from requiring the additional certification. Post-secondary institutions do not charge a separate fee for this service either, and they believe it is logical that they should also fall under this exemption.
Therefore, CASA recommends that the federal government exempt post-secondary staff from the requirements established in section 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the committee, once again, for having given us the opportunity to present the issues international students face, as well as the opportunities we are given. I hope that we can continue to work together to make Canada one of the best post-secondary education destinations for students the world over.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and esteemed members.
Until a couple of years ago, I never wanted to tell the people I met that I was a refugee claimant. I tried to justify hiding the truth about my status. I told myself that, if people knew, they might respond to me with fear, hatred or, at best, with sympathy.
A refugee is a security threat or an economic liability. A refugee is a creature who needs help. Many people, even advocates and sympathetic policy-makers, view refugees only from a humanitarian lens. They overlook them as sources of talent and opportunity. Today, as a refugee, I will talk about refugees as opportunities and power to be harnessed.
I spearheaded non-profits and sincerely worked and still do to make Canada a better place. I co-founded organizations like Jumpstart and the Syrian Canadian Foundation. Jumpstart helps hundreds of newcomer refugees from all backgrounds gain meaningful employment and improve their language skills. As a community leader, I have promoted Canada's refugee program in meetings with government representatives from Sweden, Italy and the Middle East.
I have contributed to the development of the global compact on refugees at formal consultations in Geneva as a member of the Network for Refugee Voices. I met and discussed topics with many state members from the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, the EU and others.
With all of that, the question that still boggles my mind is why so many people shy away from the conversation about refugees' economic contributions.
Why shy away when the City of Vancouver told us that about 2,500 Syrian refugees would contribute at least $563 million to Canada in 20 years?
Why shy away when the Penn Foundation proved that every dollar invested in refugees earned $2 back in less than five years?
Why shy away when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued research showing that refugees gave back $63 billion more than what they took in services in the last 10 years?
Why shy away when my organization, Jumpstart, which was founded, co-managed and run by refugees, contributes $7.50 yearly in tax-saving contributions to Canada for every dollar invested in supporting refugees finding meaningful employment?
Why shy away when the Syrian refugees who started the company Peace by Chocolate in a Canadian town of less than 5,000 hired close to 50 local citizens?
Why shy away when a young Syrian refugee woman, Aya Hamoud, learned coding in less than six months and started working with one of the most successful Canadian start-ups at the age of 20?
Why shy away when my friend, James Madhier, who is a refugee from South Sudan, founded the Rainmaker Enterprise that employs nine Canadians and positively empowers 1,500 people in South Sudan?
Why shy away when Mr. Marty Trim from Alberta gave six acres of unused land of lost potential to two refugee families who turned it into a farm that provides Canadians with fresh local goods and the CRA with fresh tax dollars? They even donated 800 pounds of lettuce to Calgary food banks.
These examples can go on and on, so you tell me if resettling refugees and welcoming refugees is good for Canada.
My recommendation lies in the fact that there will be only two full-time working Canadians for each retiree, and this tells us that Canada is in great need of immigrants and refugees. Adopting the global compact on migration and the global compact on refugees and co-hosting global refugee forums to share best practices of inclusion and partnering with other nations is the right path to pursue.
Economic studies tell us that Canada's investments in refugees and immigrants are, above all, the smart thing to do. We had better constructively criticize and improve our settlement and resettlement efforts to be more efficient, rather than spread fear to divide this nation that was built on the shoulders of refugees and immigrants.
It is in Canada's interest to build on the success and the leadership of innovative programs that enable the mobility of refugees between countries, including private sponsorship, humanitarian admission, and the economic mobility pathway project, a world-leading pilot program pioneered by Canada.
Canada would benefit by realizing and advocating for refugees to be seen as legitimate contributors, as policy-makers who can themselves participate in settlement and resettlements efforts, peace-building, transitional justice, and reconstruction. Nothing about us should be without us.
Finally, I could never think of a better story to leave you with than that of Omar, a seven-year-old kid in one of the Lebanon camps. Omar kept jumping up and down, yelling, telling the camp supervisor that he is smart, and he can count and write in English, from one to 100, something he learned on his own in the camp. Not thinking, the supervisor told Omar to bring a pen and paper to show him. With a sad, thoughtful face, Omar told the supervisor to wait, and then he started running from one tent to another. Then Omar ran back to confess that he did not have a pen or paper. While confessing, Omar squatted down on the ground, dug his nails and fingers into the mud, and started tracing out the numbers. Omar is a symbol of 68 million resilient human beings who are refugees, waiting on nations like Canada to see their power and determination, and to do something.
Thank you.
:
Honourable Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit a brief and appear on behalf of Talent Beyond Boundaries.
We are engaging the global private sector and national governments to provide safe and legal economic migration options for skilled refugees in addition to traditional humanitarian protection. Our goal is for skilled refugees to be able to move from places where they cannot work to companies and countries where they can do so safely and legally, to move to secure futures based on their skills, not just their status.
To do this, we are demonstrating the wide range and depth of talent among refugee populations. We're engaging private sector employers who need to fill skill gaps, and we're working with governments to identify barriers in economic immigration systems that unintentionally penalize refugees. Economic immigration streams were not designed with refugee circumstances in mind. That has led to unintended barriers to the participation of skilled refugees in economic immigration.
If allowed to compete for positions, skilled refugees can be part of the talent pipeline that fills skill gaps and fuels economic development. We know that among refugee populations there are many educated and skilled people who want to compete for international employment. In 2016, we created a first-of-its-kind, online digital platform for refugees to share with us their education, skills, work experience and language abilities.
In less than a year, more than 10,000 refugees in Lebanon and Jordan had registered and become part of a searchable talent catalogue database. They span more than 200 occupations, from engineers, IT developers and health care providers to carpenters, tailors and chefs. Across Canada, Talent Beyond Boundaries is now working with employers facing labour shortages in diverse sectors, including IT, health care and manufacturing. While these employers have embraced our mission to help open new solutions for refugees, they partnered with us because they face a critical need for skilled workers.
Let me give you a couple of examples.
Bob Collier is the president and founder of Davert Tools, an advanced manufacturer in Niagara Falls. He had long-time employees retiring and could not find anyone to fill the position of a tool and dye maker. He interviewed refugee candidates and made a job offer to a tool and dye maker who's a Syrian refugee currently residing in Lebanon.
Bonfire is a fast-growing e-procurement firm in Kitchener–Waterloo. They cannot find software developers fast enough. After a competitive recruitment process, they offered a full stack developer job to another refugee who had fled to Lebanon.
These are two successful job candidates who can immigrate to Canada with provincial nominations through economic pathways and not through a refugee stream. They can move on the basis of their skills and are headed to good jobs in sectors that need more talent.
Having successfully identified skilled refugees who can help fill skill gaps, and private sector companies that need and want them, we are now working with the Government of Canada to ensure that there is a viable economic immigration pathway for those with needed skills and the human capital.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has developed the economic mobility pathways project, EMPP, to test refugee access to federal and provincial economic pathways. We are working with them to identify barriers, and we hope to develop solutions. The EMPP does not create a new pathway to Canada. Rather, it considers refugee access to existing economic pathways. Provinces and territories taking part in this project are Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Yukon. Eligible skilled refugees are from East Africa and the Middle East.
This innovative project evidences Canada's commitment to understanding how the global refugee talent pool can fit into Canada's skilled immigration future. We believe that Canada can strengthen its economic pathways to ensure Canada's competitiveness as a country that attracts top talent from anywhere in the world, including among refugees.
Talent Beyond Boundaries is committed to working with the government to build on the economic mobility pathways project and to removing barriers across federal and provincial economic pathways.
Adjusting economic streams to be more equitable to skilled refugees makes sense. Labour mobility is a market-based solution that generates economic benefits while contributing to resolving a humanitarian crisis. It is complementary to traditional humanitarian resettlement and Canada's community sponsorship programs.
Canada has the opportunity to develop this new, durable solution for refugees and their families that benefits Canadian businesses and communities in need of talent.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your invitation to appear before you. My name is Muzna Dureid and I work with the White Helmets as liaison officer. First, I would like to thank the Canadian society and the Government of Canada for their historic intervention to protect the White Helmets members who were given the opportunity to flee Syria, the country of fear and death. Without your moral intervention, our team and their families would have died in Syria.
The life of the members of our team who remain in Syria is still in jeopardy, and they are targeted by the forces of Bachar al-Assad and Russia. A lot of them have been killed, and we lost 302 volunteers. The White Helmets were set up in 2013 to come to the assistance of the victims of war. We are also known by the name of the Syrian Civil Defence. That humanitarian organization was funded by Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan.
Inspired by the UN Blue Helmets and aiming to support emergency assistance, Syrian Civil Defence brings together volunteers who intervene on the ground or in prisons. There can be as many as 3,000 volunteers. We carried out approximately 200,000 rescue interventions. In Canada, the 19 White Helmet families are continuing to arrive. They now live in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. We hope that our mission will continue; that is why we are in contact with the Canadian Red Cross and the National Search and Rescue Program. We want to integrate and serve our new country, Canada, as our new homeland. We hope to be able to continue to be active in the same way in Syria, and we would like to contribute to saving lives here, if possible. I thank you for your efforts. We are grateful for the work done by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
In 2016, the United Nations announced that it would begin to work on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in the context of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. This declaration came to be following the wave of migrations that led to the death of over 7,500 migrants in the Mediterranean Sea in 2015 and 2016 alone. Since the year 2000, as the refugee crisis unfolded, the number of irregular immigration victims went up to over 60,000. The destination countries did not carry out rescue operations; they only countered the ocean-going migration attempts. To support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, human rights and the protection of the most vulnerable, the compact includes among other things the establishment of a forum to review international immigration. As a follow-up mechanism, a meeting will be held every four years as of 2022. We recommend that Canada support that forum.
In that context, following up on the commitments made by the countries of the pact will be essential. That is why we are asking the UN to respect the plan described to that end in the Global Compact, which plans to include civil society organizations as stakeholders, including migrant community organizations. The Global Compact is not legally binding. There is a risk that its progressive measures will only be lip service if no leadership is shown in that regard.
Investing in refugees is an investment in the future. We are human, just like everyone else. I lost my friends to the Mediterranean Sea, people who were looking for a better life. All of those who say no to the pact are voting in favour of human trafficking, slavery, rape and the murder of all these human beings who are looking for a better future. I am an asylum seeker here in Canada. I arrived in Montreal in November 2016. I used to work with the women in the camp before I left for Canada. I used to deliver whistles and flashlights to the women simply so that they could go to the washrooms during the night. Just imagine the situation of these women in the camps. They make up 48% of the refugee population.
I was one of the finalists among those chosen as the 25 best immigrants in Canada after spending only one year here. I was chosen by the Quebec Ministry of Immigration, Diversity and Inclusion as a Montreal leader.
I also took part in consultations on Canada's 2017-2022 National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. I did all of that in a year and a half.
All we need is the opportunity to change our reality. You will see that we deserve it. What we don't deserve is that our lives be wasted. We should not be used as a political threat.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate Mr. Alio and Mr. Cohen, in particular, for the comments about the contributions that new refugees make to this country.
I can tell you that in my riding, which is a semi-rural, semi-urban community, there's a company that makes auto parts. It has told me that it is having trouble finding Canadians to work on the lines. It will pay to train new Canadians to come and work on these lines because it can't get Canadians to work on these lines. They are well-paid jobs; Canadians just don't want them.
Your observations are good about the contributions that new Canadians make to this country economically and culturally.
One of the issues that I look at, however, is that there are different types of refugees. I would like you to philosophize a little bit about this. There are well-educated, wealthy people who come to this country for different reasons. There's another group of people who aren't. They come to this country because things back home are terrible because of war, the way they have been treated, poverty, climate issues, all kinds of things, and they are in desperate shape.
We have to spend a fair bit of money to provide language training, housing and social services. It is the second group I'm talking about. I have no idea what the percentage is between those two groups.
We had the some time ago come forward with the levels plan as to what we should have in the future. I think he's talking about 350,000.
Is that a fair number? Should it be less? Should it be more? Knowing all the things our municipal, provincial and federal governments have to do, do you think there is a limit as to what we can sustain?
:
In terms of the overall need, Canada, as was noted, is in a situation where we have a labour and skills shortage. We're in a situation where in some provinces, and particularly in the Atlantic provinces, there are more people dying than there are people being born. We need refugees. We need immigrants. We need newcomers. As was mentioned, this country was built by newcomers. To that end, it does tie into the levels.
Right now, we are receiving, in all of the different streams, 350,000, which is 1% of the overall population. The question was asked about whether or not we can absorb more. Economists would say that we can. In fact, the government had undertaken to form a special advisory group—an expert panel, if you will. It recommended half a million—450,000.
With respect to refugees, given that there is a humanitarian crisis, with 70 million people displaced across the globe, and given that we know what contributions refugees do make to our Canadian society.... With respect to government programming, would you advocate for government to increase our levels? Don't give me a number, but should we increase our levels? At the moment, what Canada contributes, with all of our streams put together, is about 0.1%, in terms of our contribution to the overall global crisis. Do you think we can do more?
We'll just go down the line this way.
I'm going to ask my questions in French.
I thank all of the witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Dureid, I would first like to congratulate you on your achievements. I'd like you to tell us more about the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Countries do not sign on to that pact. They ratify it and make a voluntary commitment; there are 180 countries. Canada is one day away from ratifying it.
You focused on the importance of that pact, which made me even more of a believer. However, there are some members around this table from other political parties, particularly the Conservative Party, who are against that pact.
What are your views about that negative attitude toward the pact?
I always feel it's common sense for anyone to learn from their own journey. It's smart to learn from others' experiences.
I did negotiate drafts with state members in Geneva on the global compact. We did suggest.... One of the ironic things in the global compact is that when that started, the main issue of it was to increase and improve the resettlement. The final draft of the project actually turned not so much to this as actually sharing best practices.
When you refer to withdrawing from the agreement, for me it's withdraw from what? Is it to withdraw from actually learning from other nations that are doing something good and just not doing it and being stuck?
When I discussed topics with Germany or Ireland, it was really inspiring for them to learn what's working well in Canada and for me to learn what's working well over there, and that maybe we can share that.
We contributed to the draft the meaningful participation of refugees—Muzna and I—at that point. We contributed the fact of improving the data collection on refugees and hosting countries, and overseas.
Yet we keep saying that it's an unbinding agreement. It is an unbinding agreement. To be honest, it always boggles my mind every time I hear that someone is withdrawing from this. It's just withdrawing from learning best practices.
:
Honourable Chair and committee members, We are honoured and grateful to have the opportunity to speak to you today about the gaps and challenges in Canada's refugee and immigration policies.
First, I will provide you with some background on the clinic. The Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic is unique in Canada. It is the only clinic that provides specialized services for women who have experienced violence. Since 1985, the clinic has provided legal representation, counselling and language interpretation services to over 65,000 women. Over the years, we have experienced a steady increase in the number of women seeking our assistance. In 2017, we assisted 4,700 women. This year, we saw an 84% increase in service requests, assisting over 7,000 women.
Today the clinic submits that the official Canadian migration policy remains problematic, unresponsive and insensitive to the needs of vulnerable survivors of gender-based violence. Canada's refugee and immigration policies fall short of the government's international obligations and public stance in favour of gender recognition and equality.
We will focus our submissions on two broad areas. First, Canada's strict border control policies, including the safe third country agreement with the United States, impose severe barriers to entry on vulnerable women and expose women to a higher risk of being trafficked. Second, Canada's migration system perpetuates gender-based violence through its procedural aspects as well as through its impacts.
Starting with our first area of concern, female migrants fleeing gender-based violence face a number of barriers in seeking asylum in Canada.
The safe third country agreement with the U.S. is based on a presumption of safety, namely, that the U.S. is capable of resolving refugee and asylum claims. Thus, any incoming asylum seekers to Canada, subject to certain narrow exceptions, are presumed to already be safe. Given the current conduct of officials in the U.S., it may no longer be accurate to say that women fleeing gender-based violence are safe upon arrival there.
Canada is experiencing a dramatic increase in irregular border crossings from asylum seekers who are unable to enter Canada through official channels because of the safe third country agreement. This exposes women who are fleeing gender-based violence to a higher risk of being trafficked.
We recommend the measures that serve to restrict access to Canada's borders, especially the safe third country agreement, should be abandoned effective immediately.
Next, we'll briefly highlight some of the concerns surrounding Canada's immigration system and how it perpetuates gender-based violence through its procedure and impact.
One of the most blatant forms of violence faced by migrants who enter the country irregularly is immigration detention. Female migrants fleeing gender-based violence face an increased risk of detention, as they are unlikely to be carrying identification documents, particularly when they are fleeing domestic violence.
Detention is traumatizing for survivors of gender-based violence, because detention replicates the experiences of confinement, abduction and sexual assault that led them to flee in the first place. Additionally, children are routinely detained by immigration authorities or separated from their parents, which exacerbates the powerlessness and trauma experienced by survivors and causes grave mental health consequences for children.
Another way in which Canada's refugee system unwittingly perpetuates violence against women is through the designated country of origin provisions. Under section 109 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the minister of immigration may designate a country as one which meets the basic requirements of a democracy, also known as a DCO.
The issue with the DCO provisions is that a presumption of safety fails to account for how gender-based violence operates. Violence against women remains widespread in many countries that appear stable and democratic. Often in cases of gender-based violence, the state plays an indirect role in facilitating the violence. For example, the police may systemically fail to respond to allegations of domestic abuse or rape, or there may be excellent black letter laws in place on the books, but authorities just don't enforce them. Therefore, we submit that the presumption of safety should not apply in cases involving gender-based violence.
Another problematic provision is paragraph 117(9)(d) of the immigration and refugee protection regulations which requires that applicants for permanent residency disclose all relatives on their initial application. Any undisclosed relatives are ineligible to be sponsored in the future.
In the clinic's experience, non-disclosure is often incidental to or the result of either miscommunication, a failure to understand expectations and consequences, or pressure from external forces. Non-disclosure can jeopardize a woman's ability to sponsor her relatives in the future. To prevent these women from sponsoring their family members at a later point in their lives runs contrary to key fundamental objectives of Canadian immigration law, including family reunification, and unduly punishes women facing gender-based violence.
The clinic submits that the federal government should repeal paragraph 117(9)(d).
The next problematic piece of Canada's current immigration policies relates to how the caregiver program enables employers to exploit survivors of gender-based violence. Canada has had labour migration programs for live-in or home-based caregivers since the 1950s. The program was most recently restructured in November 2014. However, the restructuring maintained most of the elements of the earlier live-in caregiver program, which marginalizes migrant caregivers and introduces new challenges that create further risks of exploitation.
Migrant caregivers are able to work in Canada only on what are called tied work permits, which allow them to work only for a specific employer, doing a specific job at a specific location and for a limited time period. Any work that's done outside of those parameters is called undocumented work, which can render a migrant worker deportable or make them ineligible for future work or permanent residency.
The caregiver program enables employers to exploit migrant caregivers through wage theft, extremely long work hours and excessive work demands. Migrant caregivers are also often subject to sexual harassment or assault. The frequency of this issue has actually led the clinic to develop a specialized clinical program in advice for precarious workers who face economic coercion and sexual violence.
In February 2018 the government announced that it would be changing the current caregiver program, and it would end in November 2019. However, there have been no details as of yet regarding what that looks like.
Since 2017 the clinic has also seen a rise in the number of cases in which sponsored spouses and partners who leave relationships due to abuse and violence are investigated for marriage fraud. To penalize women for leaving abusive relationships is antithetical to Canada's continued claim to gender equality. Additionally, fraud investigations discourage women from leaving abusive situations and relationships, out of fear that that they will erroneously be found guilty of fraud and deported. Sensitivity toward and an awareness of gender-based violence are necessary. Once it's determined that the spouse left the relationship because of gender-based violence, fraud investigations should cease. For these reasons, we urge Parliament to conduct a comprehensive gender-based analysis of the impact of Canada's immigration policies and procedures.
Changes to Canada's immigration regime must include a commitment to a gendered analysis, recognizing the unique pathways and drivers of migration for women, in a system that was designed with the migration patterns of men in mind.
Thank you very much.
My name is Syed Hussan, and I am the co-founder and coordinator of the Migrant Workers Alliance, Canada's largest migrant worker rights coalition. Our members represent almost all the self-organized migrant worker groups in Ontario. I also help steer the Migrants' Rights Network, a Canada-wide national body that aims to represent all self-organized migrant and refugee groups in the country.
On behalf of our organizations, we want to make four key recommendations that we believe this committee has not heard yet.
First, Canada must create permanent immigration programs for workers in low-wage streams. Specifically, care workers, farm workers and other temporary foreign workers in low-wage streams deemed low skilled must be allowed to come to Canada with permanent immigration status. Migrant and undocumented people already in the country must be given permanent immigration status. Levels and mixes of immigration must be revamped to ensure this change.
Second, Canada must immediately halt all deportations to Haiti and place a moratorium on deportations to countries that Canada has a travel advisory for.
Third, Canadian immigration and refugee policy must account for Canada's and its corporations' role in forced displacement, including the impact of Canadian mining companies, Canadian arms exports, and Canadian emissions on creating the conditions for migration.
Finally, we urge all political parties to not criminalize or politicize migration. We specifically call for an end to divisiveness and pitting migrants, refugees and citizens against each other.
Let me elaborate on these four recommendations.
First, it is important to note that there is nothing temporary about the temporary foreign worker program. The seasonal agricultural worker program is over half a century old. Women have been coming to perform care work in Canadian homes since Canada's very inception. So-called low-skilled work is a permanent need and part of our economy, particularly in the absence of a national care strategy. To deny permanent residency status to workers performing the essential work of raising our families, taking care of our sick and feeding our communities, and to assert simultaneously that they are temporary, is both inhumane and factually incorrect.
The caregiver program is expiring. It is a program where a pathway to permanent residency exists but is largely inaccessible. According to a study conducted by care worker organization members, which I'm submitting to the committee, the vast majority of migrant care workers are facing wage theft, labour exploitation, human rights violations, lack of dignified living arrangements, and physical and mental health deterioration due to family suppression.
A pathway is not available to many of the other migrant worker streams. This is not the case of a few bad employers. The structure of the program is such that abuse takes place. This is why care workers are calling for a federal care worker program.
A few weeks ago, director general Philippe Massé of ESDC presented to you an outline of steps taken by them to expand migrant worker rights. In my last meeting with the director general, I received information about a group of migrant Jamaican women who had been working for three straight months without a single day off, for over 12 hours a day, without full meals, working toilet facilities, breaks or livable sleeping arrangements. Upon asking for their basic rights, the employer drove them to the airport, handed them tickets, and watched them cross into customs.
Despite my sharing this information directly with the director general and his support staff, something almost no migrant worker can do, ESDC was not able to provide us with any basic guarantees or assist the workers, most of whom left. This is because the very principle aligning the temporary foreign worker program is to provide workers, deemed commodities, to employers, rather than to uphold worker rights.
The temporary foreign worker program cannot be fixed by minor tweaks or rights education. We need a fundamental restructuring away from temporariness towards permanent resident status upon arrival.
Second, Canada currently has a travel advisory issued for Haiti due to civil unrest, yet deportations to Haiti continue. This has put tremendous numbers of people at great risk. The federal government halted removals in November, but has since reinstated them. The same is true for removals to Somalia and other countries facing unrest. Canada's deportation policies must be brought into alignment with actual geopolitics. No one should be deported to places where their lives will be at risk.
Third, the global compact on migration, as you know, is a toothless, unenforceable document. After years of meetings and tremendous amounts of money spent, we deserve a global agreement that works to end displacement and ensures rights for migrants in receiving countries. The GCM fails to do both.
It is essential that immigration and refugee policies be closely linked to questions of accountability and responsibility. We cannot separate the question of Haitian refugees from that of Canada's complicity in the removal of the democratically elected President Aristide in 2004. We cannot separate the question of Filipino migrant workers from the well-documented and oft-criticized record of human rights abuses carried out by Canadian companies like OceanaGold and TVI Pacific. Neither can we separate the question of Yemeni refugees from that of Canada's arms sales or Canadian support for the Honduran government, which has impelled the migrant exodus.
Decisions about migration and refugees must be situated in this regard, and Canada must do more to end displacement and educate its officials and the general public about Canadian responsibility to migrant refugees' rights.
Last, we've seen political parties pit inland and overseas refugees against each other. The Conservative Party, whose actions in regard to migrant workers are a matter of public record, issued a statement in August 2018 suddenly calling for a path to permanent residency for foreign workers but insisting that we deserve status more than the Roxham Road border crossers.
We want to be absolutely clear. As a group of organizations that actually represent migrant refugees, we reject this division. As people in precarious work, we understand the ways in which poor and low-wage workers in Canada feel stretched in living from paycheque to paycheque. People are suffering economically. They need real change, and not to be riled up with xenophobia. Immigrants and refugees are not to blame for low wages, job loss or precarity. Such politics are neither responsible nor welcome.
We strongly urge all political parties to assert unity, not division, particularly as we enter the election year in 2019.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a privilege to be part of this meeting today. Thank you very much for your invitation.
Today I'm going to share my own immigration journey to Canada and talk about the results and recommendations of my graduate student research.
My name is La Trinidad. I'm a Philippine national currently residing in Duncan, British Columbia. I hold a Master of Education in teaching English to speakers of other languages, and am currently completing my Master of Arts in language and literacy education at the University of British Columbia.
I teach immigrants and refugees in a rural setting. As a 35-year-old woman I am employed, I am advancing my education, and I am giving back to my community. I have two teenage children. My son is learning to play the violin and the flute, and my daughter has made it to her school's volleyball and basketball teams. They have been volunteering at the society and teaching new immigrant and refugee children.
My Canadian partner of almost seven years is a retired assistant school superintendent and a very loving house husband. Who do you think is taking care of the kids today? We pay our taxes. We get child care benefits. I could go on and on about how my life seems to be as mundane as everyone else's. I might as well complain about the weather, but the thing is, I wish my life had always been this boring.
Growing up in the Philippines was tough. My memories of school not only include understanding concepts and memorizing prayers, but also mastering wading through floodwaters while keeping my books dry. When I went to university, my daily 16-kilometre commute took almost two hours every day because of traffic. I dared not complain to my mother about all these things since she had survived Marcos's martial law.
My father was working in Hong Kong then so I didn't want to worry him either. We had everything we needed until somebody got sick. In the Philippines I was fighting natural, political and economic elements on a daily basis. The search for a better life outside the country seemed to come intuitively.
A few years after I finished university, I thought it was time to move out of the Philippines. I was married then. The children were still very young and the bills were piling up. We considered moving to the U.S. but the complexity and costs associated with the application process turned us off. After that we visited a Canadian immigration consultancy firm, but after we were assessed, they determined that we did not have enough points to get to Canada.
In December 2006, my husband at that time responded to a job ad to work in the United Arab Emirates, and after six weeks, he was gone. Nine months later, we arrived in Dubai as permanent residents. As you can imagine, it was extremely hot in the Emirates, but for six years, I had lots of tax-free income as a college instructor.
When my marriage ended and I found my partner, I left the U.A.E. In 2012 my partner and I moved to Thailand, and I studied Thai for a year on a student visa and then my work visa allowed me to teach English at Chiang Mai University. We had no firm plans to come to Canada until my partner was offered a job in Vancouver. I applied as an international student at UBC and then had to apply for a visa at a processing centre in Bangkok. After spending three months putting together the application, I was accepted in a diploma program at UBC, and my visa was approved in two and a half weeks. I arrived in YVR in June 2014.
I enjoyed the academic rigour at UBC and desired to stay permanently, so five months after my arrival, I lodged my PR application as a common-law partner living in Canada. Before going to classes, and between assignment submissions, I filled out more forms, collected documents, sought the help of our MP, , and phoned the IRCC. The whole application process was a full-time job.
Finally, on May 19 of this year, I became a permanent resident and my children were able to join me in July.
In my master's thesis, I documented the home literacy practices of a Philippine child whose mother worked as a caregiver worker in Canada. I observed the child at home, collected artifacts and conducted some structured interviews for a period of six months.
My study aims to contribute to the literature and literacy practices of adolescent immigrants in Canada. It has a potential to provide information to parents, settlement workers in schools and classroom teachers about who these adolescents are and how to best support their needs.
The results of my study revealed a lot about the identity and community of this immigrant child. For the purposes of this meeting, let's call her Maria. She spends a lot of time studying alone at home. She's an award-winning artist and works part time to help her parents pay the bills. Her immediate community consists of Philippine friends and family living in Canada, followed by Philippine friends and family living in the Philippines, and finally, teachers and school counsellors in her school here in Canada.
It took her a while to realize what she really wanted to take at university as there was pressure to continue the path her mother had taken to become a caregiver worker just like her mother. In spring this year, she finally decided to take a degree related to medicine, but she had to delay her application to go to university because she didn't have the two prerequisite courses needed to get into the program. She had to miss a year of school, so for now she works full time at a fast-food chain.
In this study, one of my recommendations includes the strengthening of settlement programs for youth. This means giving guaranteed sufficient funding for the kind of work that settlement workers in schools do. These immigrant children are the future citizens of Canada. They should get all the support they need, including career planning, after-school and summer programs, and navigating the school and university systems in Canada.
Maria has a chance to become a very successful individual given the qualities that she already possesses. However, she's encountering setbacks that could have been avoided if she had been given timely support by settlement workers.
In summary, people's immigration to Canada can be long, painful and confusing. When they get here they need all the support to become part of the fabric of Canadian society. As I mentioned in my research, some youth need special supports so they can get reacquainted with their parents and get to know Canada.
Thank you very much.
My second question is for Yasmine.
Yasmine, we come across a lot of cases in my constituency office, particularly with regard to marriage fraud, as well as spousal abuse. Getting that balance is very hard.
I recall that Mr. McCallum, the former immigration minister, made a choice to reverse a decision that was made by the minister of immigration prior to him, who was a Conservative, but there was a stepped process for PRs for spouses. The person would have to wait two years and then do a post interview. That was to see if that person was still around. It was to prevent marriage fraud. We saw that a lot of spouses stayed in abusive relationships in order to avoid being deported or sent back, so they were really taking a lot of abuse. For that reason, the previous minister and the department changed that.
Now you're saying that in cases of fraud investigations there are concerns. I agree with you in terms of where abuse is determined. I think that's hard for an officer to determine until a court makes a decision on whether an assault took place or not versus arbitrary evidence of he-said-she-said.
How do you balance marital fraud with abuse until you get a court decision? I would like your advice because I sincerely would like to know. We get those cases, and it's a very tough option to deal with. I also see a lot of people, men and women, duped by people who pretend to want to marry them, but as soon as they land, they leave them. We want to make sure that those people aren't abusing the system.
Do you have any ideas on that?
:
I can't really speak to that, but I can tell you what we see often in the clinic. At least in our experience there, we often see that since the conditional permanent residence scheme that required, like you said, the spouses to live together for two years before permanent residency would be finalized.... That was removed, and that was a good move forward.
However, when the spouse who was experiencing violence leaves the abusive situation, what we've often seen is that the abuser will send what we call a poison pen letter to the IRCC stating that this woman—in our case, because we serve women at the clinic, it's always a woman—left him and that she was using him to get status in Canada. What they don't understand is the abuse that she took throughout the course of their marriage and the fact that she left as a result of abuse.
She won't even know that this letter went out from her spouse, her ex-partner, asserting fraud until she's called in to an admissibility hearing or a misrepresentation hearing. At that point, she's standing in front of an officer and trying to prove that, yes, her marriage was genuine and, yes, she left because of abuse.
Again, because she was in an abusive situation, she doesn't have all the documentation. She was an immigrant woman. She might have been afraid to approach the police. There are so many factors surrounding—
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for their presentations.
It's important to note that government-assisted refugees, inland asylum seekers—which is under the protected persons stream—immigrants and so on are all under different streams. To somehow create an environment where they are competing against each other is a false dichotomy. I had to say that and put that on the record.
Ms. Abuzgaya, I think you raised really critical issues around the safety of women—sexual violence, violence against women, domestic violence and so on—and the fact that women need to seek asylum because of that.
You mentioned that the United States, under the current administration, is not a safe country anymore, and therefore, you say that the safe third country agreement should be suspended.
On the flip side of it, the Conservatives argue that we should in fact apply the safe third country agreement to the entire border. Within the government, Minister is in fact considering that because he did not refuse to entertain that at the public safety committee.
I would just like to have your quick comments on that aspect, please.
Historically care workers used to come here as permanent residents, and that was taken away. We know that historically most of the first wave of settlers were given land and encouraged to come here as farmers and given permanent residency. It is when racialized poor people from the global south started coming here and working.... When I talk about 12 hours of work, no breaks and lack of decent, dignified living, this is what people's experiences are. If people are working here, they should be able to get permanent status on arrival.
I want to add that we want to make sure that even if people are so-called “not good enough to work” then they shouldn't be deemed inadmissible, for example, for medical reasons. We want to create a society where everyone should be able to come here and live with dignity.
Very quickly, if the safe third country agreement is expanded, people will continue to come but in more and more risky situations. Migration is not going to stop until displacement stops. If people need to move, they will move. If we make it harder, we're just putting their lives more at risk.
:
I do need to end it there.
Thank you, witnesses, but stay here for a minute. I just want to give the committee a few dates to keep in mind.
This is a reminder that we won't be meeting this Thursday. That meeting is not called.
This study is coming to an end. We've asked the analysts to come with a summary of evidence. We've asked that it be available January 21—that's a working date, a goal of January 21. You should receive a summary of evidence of the study to date.
To back up from that, it means we then need to begin the settlement services study. It's the only study that's now agreed to. You've already all submitted your witness lists. I'd ask that you review your witness lists for settlement services, if you want, and make any changes to them by January 7. We have a long list of witnesses, but you just might want to take a look at that.
We will resume on January 28 with a business meeting where we'll consider the summary of evidence, and you'll decide whether you want to hear more witnesses on the migration study. We'll begin on January 30 with the settlement services study. That will be for five meetings. The motion calls for seven. We'll have five meetings, and I'm going to reserve a couple of meetings in late February in case you want more witnesses on the migration study.
Right now what you need to know is this: January 7, review your lists; January 21, expect the summary of evidence, God willing, inshallah. On January 28, we'll have a business meeting to consider the summary of evidence to see if you want more witnesses on this study. On January 30, we'll begin with five witnesses, probably beginning with departmental officials. Then we will continue with the settlement services study until the draft report is ready for consideration. Then we'll consider that.
One last note is that you'll remember we passed a motion with respect to travel. We have not heard back. The buzz seems to be that it will not be a unanimous consent motion this week, but we haven't heard anything official on that.
Mr. Tilson.
Thanks for that update, Mr. Chair.
I know that in the last appearance with the we lost some time with him, for reasons that I won't go into. We all experienced it.
Given that, and with this study coming to an end, I would like to suggest that we ask the to come back to discuss the levels plan. We haven't had an opportunity to do that effectively, I think, with the minister, because of the various interruptions that have occurred.
Mr. Chair, if that needs to be moved as a motion, I'm happy to do that, or give notice of the motion.