THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 27, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:32 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally.
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I am Salma Ataullahjan, senator from Toronto and chair of this committee.
Today, we are conducting a public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. I will now invite my honourable colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with my deputy chair on the right.
Senator Bernard: I am Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia and deputy chair of this committee.
Senator Jaffer: I am Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia. Welcome.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar from Ontario.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot from Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Welcome to all those who are following our deliberations.
Today, our committee will continue its study on forced global displacement under its general order of reference. We intend to hear from experts and stakeholders on a wide range of issues relating to human rights impacts around the world. Topics may include the effects of displacement on children, the efficacy of the Global Compact on Refugees, new and emerging mechanisms for financial support, the role of private sponsorship, the impacts of climate change, and Canada’s international role in curbing forced displacement by supporting refugees.
This afternoon, we shall have three panels. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses and then the senators will have a question-and-answer session. I will now introduce our first panel. Our witnesses have each been asked to make a five-minute opening statement.
I wish to welcome our first set of witnesses via video conference. We have Jessie Thomson, Head of Delegation for Türkiye, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. We have Melissa Siegel, Professor and Head of Migration Studies, United Nations University, MERIT and Maastricht University; and Naika Foroutan, Director, German Center for Integration and Migration Research and Professor, Integration Research and Social Policy, Humboldt University.
I will now invite Ms. Thomson to make her presentation, followed by Professor Siegel and Professor Foroutan.
Jessie Thomson, Head of Delegation for Türkiye, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies: Thank you, distinguished members of the Standing Senate Committee. It’s really an honour to be with you here today. Thank you for inviting me, with gratitude.
I’m going to speak about the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies perspective on this important question and focus in on the situation of migration in Europe as we see it right now. This is a multi-faceted challenge that demands our collective attention and compassion.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, or IFRC, is a membership organization made up of 191 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, and our members provide essential services and assistance to people on the move throughout their migratory journey, as they leave their countries of origin, en route and in their countries of final destination. The Canadian Red Cross, for example, plays a key role in our global network and continues to advocate for comprehensive and holistic solutions for refugees.
Today, I’m going to talk about five key concerns that we’re seeing in the context of Europe, but they’re not unique to Europe, and they are certainly concerns that are global in nature.
The first is related to the perilous journey that migrants face, particularly in crossing the Mediterranean, which continues to be one of the most dangerous routes in the world. It’s not the only dangerous route in the world. We’ve seen countless other examples in Africa, the Americas and Asia, with too many lives lost as people search for safety. The lack of safe pathways not only places individuals at risk of losing their lives, but it also results in many people being separated from their families. We know that the lack of a coordinated international search and rescue mechanism is also perpetuating this crisis.
The second key concern that we want to draw attention to is that people on the move are facing more and more barriers to accessing protection in Europe. We’re seeing the erection of walls and fences at borders, reflecting a troubling trend of heightened security measures along migratory routes. It not only impedes the progress of those seeking safety, but it also raises important questions about the humanity of these solutions.
Adding to these difficulties, we see challenges for people on the move in accessing information and essential services, particularly when on the move, and putting people at distinct risk of abuse and exploitation, particularly those without documentation and those moving irregularly.
In destination countries, migrants and refugees are encountering numerous barriers not unique to Europe, and many of those are well known and understood in the Canadian multicultural context, including language difficulties, insufficient knowledge of rights, legal and administrative challenges, and limited access to essential services like health, education and jobs.
Perhaps equally or most distressing is the stigmatizing rhetoric surrounding migrants in Europe. This negative framing fails to recognize the capacity, skills and assets that migrants bring to communities and is further dividing communities in a world where we need to be more connected and more together.
We, as the IFRC, collectively ensure the provision of essential services along migratory routes through our national societies using a route-based approach and offering humanitarian service points that are neutral, safe and welcoming spaces managed by national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. These are located strategically on migratory routes, from the Balkans to Greece, Slovakia, even on the rescue ship Ocean Viking in the central Mediterranean Sea. We meet people where they are, regardless of legal status.
In the face of these challenges, though, we know that we can’t do it alone and that global cooperation and solidarity are essential. It’s not just a choice, it’s imperative. We’re seeing far too many places where global solidarity falls short.
In my previous post in Greece, Greece was largely left to manage new arrivals on their own, despite commitments and statements about responsibility sharing. Here in Turkey, in a country hosting the largest refugee population in the world as the refugee situation drags on, international solidarity is falling short.
We do see hope, and we saw in the world’s response to the refugee crisis resulting from the conflict in Ukraine that there is hope for what is possible when there is political will and global cooperation and solidarity. We saw decisive action taken as nations opened their borders, providing people status quickly and providing humanitarian assistance to those in need.
As a continent, Europe stood together, exemplifying the possibility when solidarity and compassion dominate.
As we look toward the Global Refugee Forum in two weeks, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is looking to Canada to continue to play a leadership role in advocating for comprehensive solutions to protracted displacement, to continuing to innovate in third country solutions as a critical safe pathway for people seeking protection and to continue groundbreaking work in advancing and advocating for refugee participation and leadership.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Now we will hear from Melissa Siegel.
Melissa Siegel, Professor and Head of Migration Studies, United Nations University, MERIT and Maastricht University, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me to speak on this important issue. The issues of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants became more salient issues in the EU around 2015-16, when large numbers of Syrians and others entered the EU seeking asylum. At the time, many countries and citizens debated over how welcoming countries should be to refugees. This was an especially contentious issue in Eastern European countries, where countries outright refused to take in refugees, especially with regard to resettlement from countries within the EU, with countries such as Greece and Italy being overburdened. This is in stark contrast to the situation in early 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, spurring an exodus of Ukrainians from the country. For the first time in history, the EU triggered the Temporary Protection Directive, allowing for direct entry and easy access to government services and the labour market in EU countries. Within a matter of months, the EU absorbed millions of Ukrainians.
It is important to note, though, that temporary protection via the EU Temporary Protection Directive is not the same as refugee status. As the term indicates, it is only temporary but can be renewed.
It was in the early 1990s, that the concept of temporary protection emerged as an innovative approach in balancing state interests with international obligations. This innovation was a response to the challenges posed by mass inflows of displaced persons during the events like the breakup of Yugoslavia.
In 2001, the EU passed the Temporary Protection Directive to coordinate the EU’s response to situations involving mass influx of displaced persons, but it had never actually been triggered or used until 2022, when there was political will to do so.
There are currently almost 5 million Ukrainians being hosted in the EU under this directive. Now, at the same time, the EU received last year over 800,000 new asylum requests, not counting Ukrainians. It’s similar this year.
Recognition rates vary across EU member states, but in 2022, around 44% of the claims that came in actually received refugee status; another 31% received subsidiary protection; and, 25% received some kind of humanitarian protection. We saw countries like Germany and France leading the way in recognition rates.
Now, of course, the EU experiences and continues to experience key challenges. One is the distribution of refugees. These challenges come from unequal burden sharing, a lack of solidarity among member states and different capacities and resources. There have been disagreements over quotas, varying national policies, and political and public opposition have hindered the establishment of a fair and unified approach. Of course, geographical factors and the concentration of refugee flows have further complicated these distribution efforts.
Another major issue has been overcrowding of refugee camps and reception centres, and this has led to inadequate living conditions, a lack of basic services as well as violence and safety concerns.
Housing has also been an issue more generally in the EU with a number of key refugee-hosting countries having major housing shortages just more generally, which have also been exacerbated by current influxes.
There are also a number of legal and administrative barriers as well as barriers to labour market integration.
To round it all out, there are also issues of social exclusion that show themselves in issues with regard to access to education and health care, discrimination, xenophobia and poverty risks to refugees.
While the EU still has a number of challenges ahead, it’s helpful to see that positive change can be achieved by the first-time triggering of the Temporary Protection Directive. Whenever there’s a will, there’s a way. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Professor Foroutan, please go ahead.
Naika Foroutan, Director, German Center for Integration and Migration Research and Professor, Integration Research and Social Policy, Humboldt University, as an individual: Thank you very much to the standing committee for your important work. I wanted to talk about Germany, how policies are changing here, how people are watching as the Middle East conflict is somehow turning a little, the talk about asylum seeking, people seeking refuge in this country and how this country is very afraid of a large number of Palestinians being the next refugees to come to the European Union, maybe especially to Germany.
I’m going to start with the overall numbers. We all know that in 2022, some 109 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced. We already heard that the treatment of Ukrainian refugees was different compared to those coming in 2015 and 2016. In total, around 6 million Ukrainian refugees were registered across Europe, and 6.2 million worldwide as of September 2023. Most of them, as we know, fled the country by crossing the border with Poland. Approximately 970,000 decided to stay in Poland as of September 2023.
We also know that nearly 1.1 million Ukrainian refugees actually live in Germany, which is the highest number right after Russia, where many Ukrainian refugees also went.
This turns Germany into the third-highest refugee-hosting country in the world, right after Iran and Turkey, with 3.4 million refugees each. Within the past 10 years, Germany has turned into one of the most dynamic migration actors in the world. I think it might be quite interesting for Canada to compare how this country is coping with that.
In total, more than 3 million people seeking protection live in Germany today. Of these, almost 1.6 million have been granted protection or asylum. There are still 280,000 asylum seekers with an open protection status, and these people are now right in the middle of a debate and discursive storm as the policy acts are somehow becoming much harsher toward the understanding of whether these people should stay here or not.
My colleagues have already mentioned the temporary protection act and how this brought a positive and optimistic way into the debate, because this was a moment to understand how people would integrate better if they had better public and political rights from the beginning. This includes the rights of residency, access to the labour market, housing, medical assistance, social welfare assistance and access to education for children without having to pass the very bureaucratic ways of asking for asylum.
Eight weeks ago, in order to provide certainty for those 6 million Ukrainian refugees currently living in the European Union — the numbers change between 4 million and 6 million, actually — the European Council agreed to extend the temporary protection act for people fleeing from Russia’s war of aggression. They extended it from March 4, 2024, to March 4, 2025. There are quite a few years to go for the temporary protection act.
What’s very important to note or to understand is the German policy and how negative the policy and the discursive debates around asylum are at the moment. I think it’s important to know that Germany not only accepted a high number of refugees, but within the past year, it actually had a net influx of immigration of nearly 1.5 million people. This migration surplus was the highest within a reporting year since the start of the time series in 1950.
Adding to the 1.1 million refugees who only came last year, there was a recorded significant increase in net immigration from Syria, with an addition of 70,000, and also from Afghanistan. Interestingly — and I think it might be interesting for all of us to discuss — the third-highest group to immigrate to Germany is from Turkey. We have to watch out for that and understand why so many people from Turkey are asking for asylum in Germany.
Coming to an end, according to Chancellor Scholz, the number of refugees seeking to enter Germany is currently too high. The German government has therefore launched a repatriation package, which was approved on October 25, a couple of weeks ago. There are actually calls for faster deportation of those obliged to leave the country, but these are quite symbolic and populous as they account barely more than 5% of all those seeking protection.
I would really like to draw your attention to how different, in terms of racial hierarchies, the treatment was for those who came from Syria and other Islamic countries in 2015 and 2016 and those who came from Ukraine. I have to say, debates concerning Ukrainian refugees here in Germany are also turning harsher because, right now, only 18% of those who came as refugees are working, even though the temporary protection act should have made it easier for them to enter the labour market and become integrated more easily than the Syrians. Compared to the Syrians, who were mainly men, we also have to take the gendered aspect of refuge into account.
I’ll leave it at that, and I’m happy to discuss it further.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. I will now turn to senators for questions. Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask the committee members and witnesses in the room for the duration of this meeting to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
I would like to remind each senator that we have four minutes for questions and answers. I will start with Senator Omidvar, followed by Senator Arnot.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to our guests. We know that for those of you who are in Europe it is very late, so we doubly appreciate your presence here.
I have a couple of questions for each one of you. I’m not sure if I’ll get to my four minutes, but there is a second round.
Ms. Thomson, you are Canadian and serving the interests of, putting it broadly, our country’s interest, in a way, through the Red Cross and Turkey. You said at the end of your presentation that Canada can be innovative in the global space. Our report will make recommendations. How do you think Canada can be innovative on the global stage? Let’s leave out our domestic issues at this point.
Ms. Thomson: Thank you, Senator Omidvar. It’s really nice to see and hear you.
It’s a really important question. There are a lot of ways that Canada is already innovating in terms of our community sponsorship model, the pathways to education and pathways for resettlement that combine resettlement-durable solutions with job opportunities. While we play that leadership role in innovating in the resettlement and managed migration space, we have to be humble, recognizing our geographic privilege in the world. It allows us to somehow, as a country, offshore our processing in a way that Europe does not have the privilege of doing. It doesn’t mean that community resettlement programs or innovative programs that create safe pathways for people on the move to get from one place to another don’t help, because they absolutely do, but I think we always have to do that with humility, recognizing our very different geographic contexts.
I will share one story, because it will stay with me until the day I die. I was in Greece until the end of August, and I received a call following the Pylos shipwreck from a friend in Canada, a Syrian refugee who was settled as part of a community-based sponsorship that I was part of years ago. He called in desperation because five of his cousins were on that boat, in a desperate search for help, trying to find someone from the Red Cross who may be able to access them and find out if they were alive; only one of his five family members survived that shipwreck.
I reflect on the fact that he would have just as easily been on that boat had he not had a safe pathway to Canada. The only reason he was not is because he had a safe pathway to Canada. There are far too many people who are forced to take a very dangerous journey in search of a solution. We have to find better ways of supporting people to move through regular legal pathways. Canada has done amazing work in this space in the economic immigration program, as well as our resettlement program, and there’s much more that can be done.
Senator Omidvar: The numbers, however, are really small. Canada is a big country, but the numbers of resettlement pale in comparison to the number of displaced people.
Dr. Foroutan, it’s lovely to see you again. I’m curious about the narrative post-2015 and 2016, when Germany accepted more than a million Syrian refugees. That was the story; that was the headline. I believe Canada has followed your lead by expanding our welcome to Syrian refugees. How have they done, eight years since? Are they part of the German fabric?
Ms. Foroutan: Thank you very much, Senator Omidvar. It’s very nice to see you again. They have done quite well in terms of labour market integration. What we have in total numbers is that nearly 80% of the men who came in 2015 are working in the regular job market, and around 60% of the women. It was mainly men who came.
In terms of job market integration, they are doing well, but you asked me whether they entered the fabric of society. If you are going to listen to the debates we have in Germany right now, you would clearly say no, because in any parameter that we are serving, they did quite well. As I already said, they entered the labour market, they speak German, they have decades in school, they have been successful, they have their own start-ups. We even have Syrian politicians who came as refugees.
Somehow, it seems that people are afraid of targeting the Ukrainian refugees. Instead of targeting those who are now here but have difficulties to enter the job market, because it is mainly women who stay with their kids — as I said already, only 18% are working — but in terms of moral issues, they are more comparable. They are said to have the same religion and culture. People don’t want to offend them, so they direct their anger and mistrust toward asylum seekers against the other group whom they say don’t have the same rights to stay here in their country.
So we are facing a poor situation at the moment with the right-wing Alternative for Germany party, also known as AfD, climbing up to 25%. Next year, we have elections, and all political parties are somehow trying to be hard and harsh, especially against that group that you asked about: the Syrian and Muslim refugees who came in 2015-16.
Senator Omidvar: Do I have one minute more?
The Chair: No. Can I put you on a second round?
Senator Omidvar: Absolutely.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses, for coming today. We have a wealth of knowledge on this panel, and it will be hard to get to all the issues. I want to drill down on a couple of issues that I think will show up in our report. I have one question for each panellist.
Ms. Thomson, based upon your experiences with the Red Cross and Care Canada, how have patterns of forced global displacement evolved over the course of the last decade or so? Could you elaborate upon the unique challenges faced by women and girls in situations of forced displacement?
Dr. Siegel, in your working paper, Migration, entrepreneurship and development: critical questions, what linkages did you find among these areas, and how do they inform policy-making in immigration and economic development? Similarly, what insights did your research provide on the gender-based effects of displacement, for example, in the context of Congolese refugees in Rwanda?
Dr. Foroutan, regarding radicalization, racism and Islamism, this committee has explored the existence and impact of Islamophobia in Canada and recently created a report upon it. Considering your interest in Islam and minority policies, how do you perceive the interplay between radicalization, racism and Islamism in the context of immigration and integration? What policy responses do you recommend?
Thank you.
Ms. Thomson: Thank you, senator. I will go first, I think, since the question came first to me.
In terms of how the immigration dilemma has evolved, one of the key trends that we see now that is not a new trend but a really critical one is the protracted nature of displacement. We see more and more conflicts developing but also not ending, so there are no solutions in sight. Far too many years go by where people are left in limbo without durable solutions in sight.
We have seen some great work happening, particularly following the Global Compact on Refugees, around addressing displacement differently, thinking about protracted displacement as the norm and trying to serve people not just with humanitarian aid but with programming and assistance that support self-reliance and livelihoods. It’s moving away from camp-based solutions.
All of that is really positive, and we’ve seen some great work happening, but I have to say I was shocked when I arrived at my duty station two years ago in Greece to find that we have perfected the container camp in the European Union. There are far too many examples of container camps with barbed wire around them, controlled access, and limited ins and outs that now represent the housing solution for people seeking asylum in Europe.
While we know there is a housing challenge — it’s not unique to Europe; it is a challenge in Canada as well — it is certainly not a path to social or economic inclusion. It is really troubling, from my perspective, particularly when much of the rest of the world is trying to move away from camp-based solutions.
On the question of women and girls, we have always emphasized, in my time with Care and now with IFRC, that our programs need to take into consideration the unique needs of men, women, boys and girls. Women and girls have specific needs, be that the hygiene items they need in their hygiene kits when they arrive to making sure that there are lights and locks on bathrooms so they can be safe when they use communal toilets at night. Those things are critical.
We also have to think about the specific needs of men and boys. I saw too many rub halls — big long tents — filled with young men, we have young men who are not getting any specialized services and who, I would argue, also have unique and specific needs. They are different from women’s and girls’ but still really important and deserving of our humanity as well.
It is about making sure we look at people and their unique and specific needs, and design our programs to support them in a holistic way.
Ms. Siegel: Thank you for those questions.
We have to look at migration, entrepreneurship and development in two key regards. One is looking at the entrepreneurship of the refugees or migrants themselves, but also how hosting refugees affects the host population and their labour market prospects. We definitely see that some groups are more inclined to entrepreneurship — different countries of origin — also depending upon what opportunities avail themselves in countries of destination.
There are two key ways people enter entrepreneurship. They can enter entrepreneurship because of necessity; basically, they have a hard time getting a wage job. There might be discrimination or other issues in the labour market, and they enter entrepreneurship as a last-resort situation. Then you have entrepreneurship of opportunity. That is when immigrants or refugees are uniquely placed in certain niches where they see opportunities to enter into a field.
I’ve made these two things quite distinctive, but in reality, let’s be honest, there is some overlap there. We see refugees and migrants are often more represented in entrepreneurship than the local population. That depends from country to country.
If we look specifically at the —
The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt, it has been five and a half minutes, and we have other senators who have questions. Can you please be really brief with your answer?
Ms. Siegel: Sure.
We have seen that, generally, when regions are hosting refugees, we see entrepreneurship also going up among the local population out of opportunity. They have new markets and people who have money and resources to whom they are selling goods. We often see this increase in a very positive way for the local community.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today. I will try to be brief with my question, and I hope I will get to all of them.
My first question is for Ms. Thomson and Professor Siegel. You both made reference to political will or a lack of political will. Can you tell us a bit more about what you believe is driving this lack of political will? What do we need to do to make it better?
Ms. Siegel: Sure. That’s a great question — political will.
Sometimes, we are too reductive about this. When we talk, for example, about the situation in Europe with regard to Ukrainians versus Syrians, it is often reduced to xenophobia, discrimination and anti-Islam rhetoric. That’s definitely part of it, but I think there is a lot more than that, also. Other things come into play as to whom the aggressor is seen as — if that is a common enemy or not.
For a lot of Eastern European countries and Europe more generally, let’s say, Russia is seen as a common enemy, whereas the Syrian regime was not necessarily seen as a common enemy. A lot of European states that have been very against taking in refugees from other countries felt as if they have gone through similar things with Russian aggression in the past, so they feel as if these are their brothers, sisters, neighbours.
Additionally, Poland, which is hosting the largest number of Ukrainians right now, already had a large number of Ukrainians in the country as labour migrants previously. They already had quite a close relationship there.
Then, of course, there come the other issues of gender, which is very important. Women are generally seen as less problematic, less of a security threat, less threatening more generally. Women and children usually appeal to people’s humanitarian concern on another side. Really, the demographic characteristics of the population group, where they are coming from, yes, how close they are seen to the local population, but also the greater context around what the conflict is, and if people feel as if they have a shared experience, all those things matter a lot. We should be careful not to be too reductive in this.
Ms. Thomson: I am echoing everything Ms. Siegel said. The only addition I have is it is also context specific.
In Greece, we saw that a lot of Greek people were really actively involved in the early days of the large flows of people through Greece. As a transit country, the fact that people moved on was hard on communities that had offered welcome. That started to feed into a negative rhetoric within the political space, and the politicians picked up on that. Then it becomes self-reinforcing that people want to move, and then people feel as if they have to move. That is a unique part of being a transit country.
Now I am in Turkey, and there is a large population that in and of itself, just by sheer numbers, was always going to put a lot of pressure on political will. I think that’s human nature. On top of that, there is an inflation situation that has been very challenging for the average Turkish national, as well as an earthquake in the area that was hosting refugees, and COVID-19 during this period, and the overall ability for the host community to continue to offer welcome as the years drag on, becomes harder and harder.
I think it is context specific, and we need to be careful not to be too reductionist and look at those specifics and the policy tools we have in our toolbox to respond to those specific contexts.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to all of you for the great work you do. I am limited in time, and I can only ask a few questions.
I want to first thank you, Ms. Thomson, for the great work that the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies do. When I was an immigration lawyer, I remember all the help that the Red Crescent and Red Cross societies gave, so I am very appreciative of the tremendous work you do. At the moment, we are seeing the Red Cross flag everywhere in Palestine, in the exchange. Thank you. Please convey to everyone that we appreciate the great work you do.
When you talk about Ukraine, for me, especially in Canada, Ukraine is an exception. When you said everyone came together for Ukraine, I doubt if that will happen, say, to another country that’s not so close to Europe. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Thomson: As a humanitarian, you have to be optimistic and hopeful. I choose to have hope that since we’ve done it once, it means we can learn from that and do it again. As advocates, we can also remind our political leaders of the tools they have and the actions they have taken for other populations in need. But I appreciate your skepticism, and I think it’s fair enough.
I am thankful as well for your words of gratitude, because as a colleague said the other day, it’s not easy to be neutral in a world that’s not very comfortable with neutrality right now. That’s a key part of our humanitarian principles that allow us to do the work we do, but is very challenging in this moment. Thank you for your kind words of support for our colleagues within the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Ms. Thomson.
I have a question for you, Professor Foroutan. I’ve looked with interest at your research, especially including the study of radicalization and racism. As you know, refugees often find themselves excluded, isolated and discriminated against, and this often leads to sentiment of alienation, which can translate into radicalization and extremism.
Would speak to how we can prevent the isolation of asylum seekers and, more important for me, the acceptance of asylum seekers?
Ms. Foroutan: Thank you for your question, senator. You already pointed out the fact that discrimination and experiences of racism might lead to radicalization. We are doing the reporting for the German government, and my institute is commissioned to prepare the National Discrimination and Racism Monitor each year. We just presented the data two weeks ago showing that especially discrimination against Black people and Muslim people is highest in Germany.
We have a group that is observing TikTok radicalization right now, especially since October 7. As you might be aware, 7% of the population here in Germany is of Muslim background. Especially since the war with Israel and Palestine, debates about expatriation of this group are in the media, and they are tied to the aspects that somehow anti-Semitism in Germany is externalized toward that group of Muslims, as if Germany wouldn’t have a problem with anti-Semitism by its own. We are constantly talking about imported anti-Semitism and Muslim anti-Semitism in this country, while at the very same time, we are truly observing a higher amount of anti-Semitism between young Muslim kids getting radicalized on TikTok. We are keen on understanding whether there is a correlation between the subversive act of constantly externalizing the children of immigrants for years, and there being, somehow, a distinctive embracing of radical groups that somehow tend to give them more appreciation at the moment.
The Chair: I will ask witnesses to be brief with your answers, and senators with the questions. We have literally under 10 minutes left.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: All three of you cited the EU Temporary Protection Directive as a measure that has helped Europe respond to the influx of refugees, mainly from Ukraine, even though we know the conditions aren’t entirely the same.
What lessons have you learned from implementing the measure? Can you give us a few details on the potential impact of extending the measure to all refugees?
The question is for all three witnesses. Ms. Siegel can go first, since she worked for the European Commission. I imagine she can go first.
[English]
Ms. Siegel: This is a big question, and I’m not sure I understood it fully, but if we think about the implementation of the Temporary Protection Directive opened up to other groups or even just the idea of it, I think key important points are just doing away with the waiting times.
One of the big issues in asylum seeking is — I am currently based in the Netherlands — even if countries have rapid assessment procedures, what happens is when you have large influxes of people, that rapid procedure doesn’t start for six months, until someone gets to them. What we need to seriously think about — and lessons that we can learn, especially for groups who are very likely to receive refugee status or some kind of other status, like Syrians, for example — it would make sense to allow them immediately to register children in school, give them normal health care access and access to the labour market, immediately on day one. All of the same rights and privileges that the Ukrainians received with the triggering of the Temporary Protection Directive would make a lot of sense to do that with other groups when you have larger influxes. When you know the group is already very likely to get protection, there is no reason to have people sitting in a queue, which is exactly the reason for the Temporary Protection Directive from the beginning. That’s the reason it was thought of. Opening it up to other groups would make sense and be a huge step in the right direction.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you. That can contribute—
Ms. Thomson: I completely agree. I also want to say that even with the Temporary Protection Directive, although people were able to obtain a work permit quickly, they still faced barriers to economic integration. That applied mainly to Ukrainians, in terms of accessing child care and language classes in the host country.
We learned that it’s really important that the process to obtain status be direct and quick and that the opportunity to work be available right away. We also learned that the story doesn’t end there. Immigration programs, language programs and programming for people with specific needs, such as women with children, are still necessary to ensure that people can succeed when they start over in a new country.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I wasn’t going to ask a question, but, very briefly, the prevailing current political atmosphere in Europe, does that worry you, where Europe is going?
Ms. Siegel: Maybe I can jump in quickly because I am based in the Netherlands. The elections just happened, and a very right-wing populist government won decisively and surprisingly to the general public. So, yes, it is very concerning. We see what just happened in the Netherlands has emboldened right-wing populists in other countries, and that’s very concerning for what we’re going to see in the future with regard to the reception of asylum seekers and refugees, but also migrants more generally, and the integration and welcoming environments that we have seen in some countries in the past are under threat.
Ms. Foroutan: Right now, we only have Ireland, Spain and Portugal without high amounts of right-wing populist parties. Only those three. The other European countries are heading toward right-wing — not majorities, but big representations in Parliament, and what worries most of us at this very moment is that Germany has this right-wing party that is climbing up to 23% right now. They are missing 7% in order to get the highest number and become the majority. What we can observe — and this is really counterintuitive — is that there are a lot of immigrants now deciding to vote for the right-wing parties, and this is somehow interconnected to the experience of discrimination. We can hear the Syrians saying, “Where was Europe when Russia was hitting Syria with the bombs? And now we are in a war when it attacked Ukraine.” This is quite a big narrative, and the narrative of racial hierarchies is somehow turning the immigrants who live here into proponents for voting for right-wing parties in order to destroy Europe, which our interviews somehow find out.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I will pose the question and hope to get answers from you in writing because there is no time. This study will make recommendations to the Government of Canada and to the people of Canada. Ministers will read it. We hope the Prime Minister will read it. From your European point of view, what should be in this report that Canada can take, with humility, to the global stage?
The Chair: Thank you. I want to express gratitude to all the witnesses. Excellent testimony. We should reserve the right to call you back.
Senator Arnot: I have a concern. I would like the witnesses, particularly Dr. Foroutan, who didn’t get a chance to answer my questions — I am hoping she can do that in writing. Similarly, Dr. Siegel didn’t get a chance to answer the second component of my question. I would like responses in writing as well.
This process is flawed. Four minutes for three panellists makes no sense to me whatsoever. The agenda is overbooked, and it does a disservice to these issues. I am very concerned about this.
The Chair: Senator Arnot, I tend to agree with you. I, myself, had that question. Sometimes what happens is that we try to get two panellists, but sometimes we have approached and if a third panellist agrees, then we let them appear too. That’s why I said we reserve the right to call this panel back, because there are so many questions that we still want to ask.
If any other senator who has a question that has not been answered, if you give it to the clerk, he can forward it to them, and they can answer it in writing.
Senator Omidvar: If they are able to appear. Impinging on their time again, I find —
The Chair: Yes. The best thing would be, looking at this interest, is that maybe we have this panel back again. I think we will do that. There is so much to ask you. I, myself, snuck in one question. I had so many questions to ask, but as chair I generally don’t get to ask questions. Thank you for your time, and maybe in the New Year — and the winter of discontent will pass, too, and we will see what happens in Europe. Thank you so much.
Honourable senators, I shall now introduce our second panel. With regret, we can’t have Janemary Ruhundwa, the co-founder and Executive Director of DIGNITY Kwanza, but we will hopefully be able to hear from her sometime in December.
We do have online Bahati Maganjo, Economic Mobility Pathway Pilot Consultant and Member, Refugee Advisory Network of Canada. I will now invite you to make your presentation.
Bahati Maganjo, Economic Mobility Pathway Pilot Consultant and Member, Refugee Advisory Network of Canada, as an individual:
Thank you for having me here today and for the opportunity to offer insight into this study. To share a brief background about myself, I am originally from Rwanda, displaced to Kenya for 25 years as a refugee after the 1994 genocide. While in Kenya, I was able to train as a nurse before migrating to Canada in 2021.
Because of my personal experience, I became actively involved in social action and advocacy in areas of peace, education, refugee policy, research and labour mobility for refugees.
While Canada defines human rights as the rights to which persons are inherently entitled to because they are human beings, the reality is that for many refugees, these rights are not recognized. This is why the first words I uttered after getting to Canada were, “I stand here, as a person with legal status, and with rights.”
It is unfortunate that Africa as a continent has been plagued by conflict after conflict. According to The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, also known as UNHCR, there are about 30 million displaced persons in the region, representing almost one third of the world’s refugee population. New cases of displacements continue to be triggered by conflict, climate-related events and political violence.
I do not think that I am expert enough to speak on the root causes of displacement; however, in my 25 years that I was a refugee, I was able to benefit from programming and witness positive practices that, if developed and made more efficient, could eventually lead to durable solutions for more refugees.
I will refer to my immigration to Canada and expound that it was through the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot, or EMPP. A simple description of this program is that it is building a bridge between Canadian labour shortages and refugees abroad who have the necessary skills, education and work experience to fill those jobs.
Canada was and remains a leader in the space of refugees labour mobility, the first of its kind to be implemented in Africa, offering an economic solution to a humanitarian crisis. While still a refugee with limited access to work opportunities in the countries of asylum, I was presented with the opportunity to apply for a job in Canada, hence obtaining my durable solution. I am the product of many years in the making, but I believe that with the right support and investments, refugees could access opportunities much faster and more efficiently, with dignity.
Canada has been a leader, in many regards, in its response to humanitarian crises. This has been through the funding and support of various refugee programs, but which have not yet been aligned to labour opportunities. An opportunity that I see here is the intentional support and investment in refugee-hosting countries to build skills and expertise that will meet the needs and demands in safe third countries but also allow them to contribute to their communities and to benefit the host country. It can also be considered that along with supporting four-year degree courses, there may be value in supporting short, hands-on training programs that can be made accessible even to the marginalized. For example, did you know that the entry-level health care training delivered in Canada for personal support workers or continuing care assistants in senior care homes is typically less than one year in length? How many refugees would jump at the chance to receive such training if it resulted in an employment opportunity in Canada?
Another area of consideration is on the matter of refugee women and girls who are vulnerable and exposed to many challenges while not being able to access opportunities in the same way as men. The percentage margin between refugee males and females who have access to education opportunities is very wide due to socio-economic reasons. In labour mobility, according to RefugePoint’s statistics, about 75% of the applicants are male. While efforts are being made to reach out to women, there could be an opportunity to level the playing field by supporting training efforts aligned to labour opportunities, encouraging more female applicants.
Canada’s EMPP labour mobility program is an example to other countries. By the first quarter of this year, over 140 job offers had been made to qualified refugees. Now, with the new federal program launched in June this year, it will prove even more efficient with numerous policy changes being implemented that will potentially lead to scaling up of labour mobility. Just this past month, we have started to see the wheels turn more smoothly with 14 landings. This is not only supporting host countries, but it is also changing how refugees are perceived.
I would like to conclude by saying that Canada is well positioned as a leader in this space to ensure that the human rights and dignity of refugees around the world are respected; that refugees are given the opportunity to be recognized not only for their tragic histories but also for their skills and experiences they carry. What’s more, recognizing that in doing so, it is a win-win-win — a win for the individuals, the employers who hire them and the communities that welcome them.
Therefore, I call upon each of you to learn more about how Canada can not only remain a participant in this space but also scale up the opportunities by aligning Canadian investments that are already underway.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
One of the other witnesses couldn’t join us, but we have five minutes for questions and answers.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. Ms. Maganjo, it’s a real honour to have you here. I also come from that part of the world. It was interesting to hear from you, as a member of the Refugee Advisory Network. You spoke about a lot of things, and I want to focus on what happens to African refugees when they arrive here. They arrive in many different ways, especially women. Can you expand upon that?
Ms. Maganjo: When they land in Canada, I suppose?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Maganjo: It is the same case as others. You would get to your community. You would be connected with settlement workers to help you settle in. There’s potential for getting a job — looking for work to be able to be self-sufficient.
However, one challenge that can be observed is that, sometimes, getting work can be difficult because of a lack of experience or maybe opportunities for training in the host countries. That is why one of the focuses that I mentioned is about host-country investments. It also transitions into settlement and how well people settle in. It is also about looking at support systems that are in place for the vulnerable in society, especially women. It is about thinking of mental health supports and social supports, if they are not with extended family or do not have their own families.
Senator Jaffer: In Canada, as well as other countries, thousands of asylum seekers are detained each year. Their detention has certainly raised many concerns.
Would you discuss what you believe is the best way to manage incoming asylum seekers and illegal immigrants while staying true to international law and being respectful of human rights?
Ms. Maganjo: That’s a challenging question. I’m biased in my answer, because I understand what it’s like to be an asylum seeker and not have many options to go back to the country you are coming from.
On the issue of being detained —
Senator Jaffer: You are allowed to be biased, so please be biased.
Ms. Maganjo: Thank you.
Having access to things like qualified legal supports — someone who has time to go through your case — and also not being put into situations that affect your mental health in terms of where you’re being detained, whether you’re being threatened with being sent back to where you came from and not being given enough time to state your case. Looking at all of those things, I would choose to see that person, regardless of the politics behind everything. I tend to find that refugees and asylum seekers, especially, are caught between political fights. Most of the time, policy-makers will forget the person. You have families being separated because of the issue of seeking asylum and parents being detained separately from their children or their spouses, which is taking away from their human rights.
I think we must remind ourselves that these are actual people and give them access to the right legal resources that they will need to state their case.
Senator Jaffer: I’ve run out of time, but may I ask you —
The Chair: You may have some more time, Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: Great. One of the things this committee is looking for is recommendations on the different experiences you’ve had. If you can’t think of any recommendations now, please send them to the clerk later. Regardless, I was wondering if you had specific recommendations for the committee.
Ms. Maganjo: I would like to encourage the consideration of how Canada can invest more in host countries because of the burden they carry, especially when we look at the context of Africa. Most countries hosting refugees are not rich countries; they don’t have a lot of resources. I myself had to compete for very few scholarship opportunities, and I was lucky to get into nursing.
If there was a responsibility of investing more into that, so that even as people are waiting in these protracted refugee situations, they have a way to gain an income and are able to be self-reliant. Whatever durable solution they end up getting, whether it’s a third-country solution, integration or repatriation, at least they have the tools to settle back into whatever community they will be getting back into.
On other issues, I think Canada is being a leader in many ways in how they’re handling refugees. You brought up the issue of asylum seekers, which is very sensitive and politicized in the world in which we are living. I would encourage us to remember that these are people, not just numbers, and that whatever you would need to state your legal case should be made available to them. Of course, we must ensure the environment they are in is dignified and does not take away from their rights.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you so much, Ms. Maganjo, for being with us today. You make the case in your own person as to why Canada should continue to support refugees and provide resettlement to them.
When you came to Canada as part of the very innovative EMPP program, were you able to bring your family members or was it just you?
Ms. Maganjo: With the program, I was able to bring my immediate family members. They were attached to my application. That remains the case; the program allows immediate family, which would be spouse and children up to a certain number.
Senator Omidvar: Since Canada now has about four years of experience, I believe, in this pilot of bringing refugees, not as refugees but as individuals who meet the labour market needs of Canada, would you recommend that Canada become an ambassador for this program, not just in Canada but in other parts of the world?
Ms. Maganjo: I think Canada is already an ambassador. I am privileged to sit on the Global Task Force on Refugee Labour Mobility, where Canada has been chair for the past two years. Some of the things we are trying to show is the example of Canada and me, of course, having integrated into the Canadian community. It is also looking at what Canada has been doing moving from the pilot now into this new federal program that is addressing some of the policy challenges that we had seen in the pilot during my time when I was coming to Canada.
So Canada is already an ambassador. What is left to do is to get buy-in from more countries, more employers and even the Canadian people, because that’s where we get employers and communities to welcome these new migrants who are also refugees.
Senator Omidvar: You believe that Canada is already an ambassador. I’m happy to hear that. Do you believe, from your spot as a member of the global advisory network that you’re on, that other countries are likely to follow suit? Can you name a few of those countries?
Ms. Maganjo: Oh, yes. The winds are truly turning when it comes to labour mobility for refugees. I believe that is one of the potential things we’re anticipating at the Global Refugee Forum this coming month. We have countries like the U.K., which has been doing labour mobility. I think their numbers are higher than Canada, but Canada is different, because where the U.K. offers temporary residence, Canada offers permanent residence. That’s the difference.
We are seeing interest in Europe as well. Countries are starting to get interested. Even those that are not giving high numbers for resettlement are starting to look at the benefits of labour mobility and how it could work for them.
The winds are turning, and we’re hoping that as Canada continues to grow its EMPP program that other countries will be able to see it is possible and pick it up too.
Senator Omidvar: Would you agree that the beauty of this program is that it doesn’t excavate the refugee numbers? Everything in Canada works around the immigration numbers plan. We can only take in so many thousand refugees per year. But the EMPP is a separate stream. Am I correct in my understanding?
Ms. Maganjo: Yes, you are very correct, and that’s actually the value of labour mobility, because we are all about additionality. Canada will take on economic migrants whether they are refugees or not. So having refugees fit into that, if they meet the qualifications that the other immigrants do, then why not?
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, ma’am.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Ms. Maganjo for coming today. As has been noted, you are very successful in your work and one of the first nurses to arrive in Canada. I’d like you to elaborate on a statement that you made at the Global Refugee Labour Mobility Summit regarding the central importance of work for refugees and its impact on their lives when they come to a new country. If you get a chance, I would like you to tell us what advice you have for other refugee professionals seeking to rebuild their careers in a new country, and outline the primary challenges and opportunities for skilled refugees seeking employment in another country and the recognition of their credentials in that country.
Ms. Maganjo: Thank you, senator. Those are very loaded questions, and I will try to answer them in the few minutes I have. Work is central to who we are as human beings. As you are in that room, you are at work. It is something that we do for eight hours a day, five days a week, so to have to separate that from who you are, is heavy on people’s minds. It is something that refugees have not been allowed to do — to work, earn a living and just have that pride in making their own money. Refugees have been denied that for a very long time. So, to me, being able to come to Canada in the way that I did, felt more dignified.
It is not that resettlement doesn’t have its place, but I had been 25 years waiting for resettlement. But I worked hard through university and I earned the place that I have in Canada. I work at the hospital here, and I feel very respected for what I bring to the table. I feel very dignified. I feel like I am more than what happened to my parents, what happened in that genocide. So labour opportunities for refugees are a way to restore refugees’ dignity while also giving them human rights to earn their basic needs. Give them control and a say.
When you are given aid you are provided two kilos of grain to last you a month, you cannot question it because you are not paying for it. It is being given to you for free. But to have the power to say where you want to live and in which community you want to settle — that’s power being given back to someone.
For refugees coming as labour migrants, some of the challenges that you asked about, are when people come without their families. Sometimes there have been challenges where, because of how things have been in refugee situations and how they are being treated, people don’t feel confident to disclose some family members, and that’s unfortunate because of how the system is. People feel that if they disclose, maybe they won’t get this opportunity. So you find people migrating without the supports they had back home. When I came here, I didn’t have my mom and my extended family. The supports I had back there even as a refugee, I had to rebuild in the community that I am in now.
I am fortunate that I came to a small, rural place that forces people to be very interactive. So I have, in time, been able to rebuild that social support structure. It took time and a lot of struggles, but it is doable.
After that, we have been very intentional, and part of my work as a consultant is setting up structures to support economic migrants who are coming as refugees, to inform that, yes, they are economic immigrants, but they have needs because of their refugee backgrounds, and that this should be taken into consideration. I hope I have answered your questions.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. If you have any additional ideas regarding your answers, you can follow up in writing. Thank you for your testimony here today. It is excellent. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Arnot, you still have some time if you have another question.
Senator Arnot: Okay, I will take the opportunity to ask this question. As someone who has highlighted the importance and value of the skills of refugees, what advocacy work do you think is necessary to improve the recognition and integration of refugee professionals in their host country — in Canada, in effect?
Ms. Maganjo: In Canada, in the countries that they come to work. You mean in terms of credentialing, right?
Senator Arnot: Correct. As much as you can give on that issue. It is interrelated, clearly.
Ms. Maganjo: Yes, I think that’s very, very important. I trained as a nurse. I could have worked as a nurse in Kenya had I been allowed to. So when I came to Canada, I could not work as a nurse because I was not licensed to work in Canada. So I got a job as a personal care worker. When I came to Nova Scotia, the pathway was not clear on how I could get re-credentialed as a nurse. I would have had to join a bridging program and pay a lot of money that I didn’t have at that time. Eventually, the province of Nova Scotia started a sponsorship, a bridging program for internationally educated nurses. They hire you into the hospital, you train and eventually get your credentials.
This has been amazing. I passed my nursing exam just last month. I am officially a registered nurse, or RN. Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Congratulations.
Ms. Maganjo: Thank you. But why was it important? It was important because as an individual, regardless of my refugee status, I wanted to advance my career. I wanted to be able to practise the nursing for which I had trained. There was a reason why I joined the trade, right? I wanted to do it. I was caring for people as a personal care worker but not giving the most I had learned to do.
Like anyone else who wants to advance their career, I think refugees should be given the same opportunity to do so. There are challenges, such as that they may not have the finances like other immigrants to go through it themselves, so advocating programs that support re-credentialing is very important. Some of these things can be done even in the countries of asylum before the refugees arrive, so that some of the work is cut in half. I passed my RNs last month, two years after I came to Canada. I am very grateful because I feel that it has taken a short time. It could have taken longer if I had been doing it on my own because I didn’t have the money. Already, Nova Scotia is doing great. I would love to see other provinces follow suit. It would help so many people, and the systems in Canada would benefit from having qualified nurses in their hospitals, rather than people working below their levels.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for that fulsome explanation.
Ms. Maganjo: You are welcome.
Senator Bernard: It is wonderful to have you with us this evening. I want to start by saying, thank you. I also want to let you know that I am a senator from Nova Scotia. I’ve heard a lot of positive things about Nova Scotia. So I look forward to meeting you in person and learning a bit more.
I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. First of all, in your opening remarks you talked a bit about the need for refugee women and girls to have access to educational opportunities. Are there specific recommendations that you would make regarding how we could help to facilitate that from this country?
Ms. Maganjo: Yes. Thank you for bringing that up. A bit of background about myself: When I was in university, I studied a project where I would take people from my college of health sciences to go to the refugee camps to get them exposure. One of the things that we did was go to high schools to give talks. One of the research that we did was looking at the numbers — how many refugee girls were in school versus refugee boys? And the numbers were horrible. About 15%, maximum 20%, were girls. And we asked, why? It’s issues of cultural views. There are no resources to take children to school, so if you had to choose, take the boys. Sometimes they are facing security challenges; they have to walk so long to go to school, and so it’s not safe. It’s just too much work, so they decide not to go to school.
Another opportunity that I saw was for me to access this labour mobility pathway. I heard about it in 2018, when I was still a student. I saw the requirements, and I did not meet them, so I was intentional about making sure that ticked all of those requirements. It needed work experience; I wasn’t able to get that as a refugee, but I placed myself strategically to get something acceptable. It needed language skills, so I made sure I trained myself to be able to qualify. I worked up to that opportunity. I see the potential to work backwards and say, if we want people in this field, can we train them young? Maybe straight from high school. What are we looking for? Maybe give girls opportunities to train for specific trades.
When we look at self-reliance programs in countries of asylum, my mom was trained as a seamstress. That’s how she supported us through school. Programs like that, which are targeted and have the foresight, they are being trained for this opportunity. It may not necessarily be to go to Canada. That may not necessarily be the end goal, but a small skill like that can enable someone to be self-reliant where they are, or in whatever durable solution that they end up getting at the end.
Senator Bernard: I’d like to ask a follow-up question to the last question that Senator Arnot asked you, about re‑credentialing. You said it is important to support re‑credentialing. One of the concerns I have, actually, is how systemic racism impacts the recognition or the lack of recognition of foreign credentials from some countries. Certainly on the continent of Africa, we see the reality of systemic anti‑Black racism and those credentials not being recognized from those universities in those countries, whereas, in some countries, they are recognized.
What would you say with regard to that? Should we be challenging the systemic racism that’s embedded in those kinds of decisions, or should we be supporting people to have their credentials recognized in this country?
Ms. Maganjo: Definitely challenge this systemic racism. That’s not something that should be there, ideally, so challenging it should be something that we are doing, while also doing other things in the background, in the meantime.
In the example of Nova Scotia, currently, for internationally educated nurses, we have only Nigeria as one of the countries that is recognized and fast-tracked. In a way, that makes sense because we have more Nigerians here, but we do have other countries. What I would advocate for is the credentialing bodies to be proactive in looking at the curricula. We may not have a big demographic of people from Kenya, for example, but if the opportunity presents itself and you have a few people from there, why not look into the curriculum there and see if partnerships can be built to make these systems and processes faster?
We also have systemic challenges of timelines taking forever in these credentialing processes. It is because we’ve not been intentional about creating these partnerships to make communication between licensing bodies in different countries, especially Africa, more similar. I don’t know why it is easier to talk between Canada and the U.S. or Canada and Europe but not Canada and Africa. It is something we should look into. I believe we have really qualified professionals in Africa, even in the refugee demographic, that Canada is losing out on. Challenging the processes that we think can be more efficient should be the way to go.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much to the witness. I’m really struck by your story and what you’ve been able to accomplish through sheer determination. You were in a refugee camp, and here you are today.
As you said, a third of the world’s refugee population is in Africa, and many of them have been displaced for a protracted period of time, without access to adequate resources. According to the UN, 33 of the 46 least developed countries in the world are in Africa, and yet, it has to manage a disproportionate number of refugees given its capacity.
How did you access information given where you were? How did you go about participating in the program and integrating? What’s your take on the refugee situation in Africa overall? What role can Canada play? You would make a great ambassador for most of those programs for refugees in Africa.
I’d like to hear what you have to say and what you have to recommend based on your experience, what you went through. What worked? What could have been done in Africa and when you arrived in Canada?
Ms. Maganjo: Thank you, senator. I have to tell you, it wasn’t easy. I had a very tough time.
[English]
My journey was 25 years, and my parents and extended family are still refugees there, for years and counting now. How I got the information was — when we first got to Kenya as refugees, my parents did not buy furniture because they said they would be out of there in one year, tops. One year became five years, then it became ten years, and so what my parents decided to do was become intentional in investing in education for us. They were able to benefit from self-reliance programs. As I mentioned, my mother learned how to sew and that is how she was able to put us through school and provide food for us. My father, of course, not being able to work formally, was able to get informal employment here and there to be able to support us as a family.
I became aware of the refugee situation and how imprisoning it can be. I think, with time, I decided to be an advocate for myself and for the people around me because the solutions that are available to refugees are very few and far between. I felt the need for us as refugees to be our own voices and actually create these solutions for ourselves. For me, my escape was in education and hoping that something will come out of it.
While I was doing advocacy for education, one of the things we asked was, “what’s next?” We are getting scholarships for education, we are fighting them, but there are no prospects or job offers after that. After I got my nursing degree, I heard that Canada is looking for people through an organization called RefugePoint. At the time it was like a dream, because it was not something that we had heard of being done before and there was a lot of skepticism. But not having any options and being willing to give it a go, was how I ended up applying for that job. That’s something we are trying to work on as the task force on labour mobility, making sure the word is going out to refugees and the youth who are feeling hopeless in the prolonged refugee situation, to tell them that you can make your own durable solution if you are intentional about how you are preparing for these opportunities. It is not easy but, of course, investments need to be made to facilitate these processes. It gives hope if someone knows that if they have the opportunity to improve their language skills. They then may be able to access the opportunity.
Also, remove the potential for human trafficking, for example, by ensuring that credible information is being shared, that this pathway is secure, that these are the partners that are working on it, and just making it accessible to people.
This is just one of the very few options that are available for refugees, but this one has the potential of scaling up.
I think labour mobility, if done right, can really provide many durable solutions for refugees. In Africa, things are not good. I will be honest with you, things are not good. We have refugees who are born as refugees, and they grow up and die as refugees and never see a durable solution for themselves. We’re definitely in need of these solutions.
I would encourage Canada to really look at what investments we are making in our response to humanitarian crises, especially when it comes to Canada and see how these can be aligned to opportunities, to durable solutions, not necessarily being closed-minded about it being through resettlement or thinking about just education and not having a “what next,” a pathway that comes after that, but being very intentional about tying the things that we are investing into. If we have to fund self-reliance programs, can they look five years or 10 years into the future, and what opportunities can be created there?
Also, I would love to be an ambassador for refugees and for possible solutions that we can obtain for refugees. I am very passionate about this, because it is my story. It’s the story of my family. Thank you for the question.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: The Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot combines refugee resettlement and economic immigration. We know that refugees sometimes face prejudice, but we also know that half of the refugees are working in highly skilled occupations. You are proof of that. They are doctors, dentists and architects.
What role does this pilot play in tackling the prejudice refugees experience? Are we doing enough? If not, what do you recommend?
[English]
Ms. Maganjo: Labour mobility is a big tool to knock down prejudices that we have against refugees, especially about the stereotypes that we have when we think of a refugee.
The narrative that goes out to the world is that a refugee is someone who is needy, who just needs to be held, who cannot do anything for themselves, and we fail to see that the reason refugees can’t do anything for themselves is because they are not given the opportunity to do so. We are not facilitating them enough. We have architects and doctors, and we don’t have ways for them to get their credentials to practise here. What will they do? They will drive Ubers and taxis, and we will never, as a country, benefit from them.
The effect of labour mobility, the change in the mindset will even affect the asylum countries. We hear the narrative that refugees are burdens to countries. You see refugees being hosted in poor countries where there are not enough resources to support all of these people. Being able to empower or allow these people to contribute to society where they are, even as they look on greener pastures like everyone else and contribute elsewhere, it will change the narrative that refugees are burdens and actually focus on what they bring to the table, not just what happened to them.
That’s the value that we see in labour mobility. As we are pushing for it something we should remember is that these people are more than their circumstances. They are professionals, and they are bringing something to the table. They only lack facilitation measures. They only lack the systems in place to allow them to contribute what they have, too.
Senator Omidvar: Ms. Maganjo, you really are a torchlight of hope, because this is a difficult study. There is not much optimism we can inject in it, but you have certainly done that.
I’m thinking of your experience. When you said we have to be intentional, should we be intentional enough for Canada, let’s say, in partnership with a province — let’s say Nova Scotia — to create a new program whereby licensing bodies, such as the nurses, go into a place like Kenya, recruit women and train them there so that when they come to Canada, they are ready and able to start through the EMPP pathway without having to go through the years of getting credentials here? Do you think that would be possible?
Ms. Maganjo: That is the dream. I benefited from a DAFI scholarship. When I was applying to university, there wasn’t a lot of guidance to show me what courses to take. I went into nursing because I love taking care of people, but if someone told me that going into nursing would equip you to train in Canada, oh, my gosh, I would go for it.
It would be easy to train personal care workers in the camps in Kenya. That’s the advocacy work that we’ve been trying to do. We’ve been trying to push the province here in Nova Scotia, telling them that there are people there who are willing to learn, who are building their experience but may not necessarily meet the credentials to work in Canada. Get them the same training you’re offering there and start the work over there. By the time they go through the immigration processes, half of the work, if not all of it, is done. Then you don’t need to go through the endless years and finances of getting credentials on the other end.
That is actually the dream that we want to see, yes, and it is possible.
Senator Bernard: I have one final question I would like to ask you. You’ve mentioned several times that you were in the refugee camp for 25 years, and you’ve said some people are born there and die there. What comes to my mind is the trauma of being a refugee; the trauma of being displaced; and the trauma of moving, if you have the opportunity, to a new country.
What kind of supports are available to help newcomers who have been refugees deal with the trauma?
Ms. Maganjo: There is a lot that is associated with having lived in a refugee context for very long. There is a lot of mind shifting that has to happen, even once you have your durable solution. Definitely, a lot of supports to settle are needed.
In my case, I have seen settlement workers, whom I believe are funded, sometimes, by the government, IRCC, or different organizations that work with refugees and immigrants. They help you walk through the daily things, how to get used to life, but also, I have found that there is a huge role that the community itself plays. That’s something that has been underscored and something that we have been trying to encourage and something that I would recommend, honestly, because when someone migrates here, they interact more with the people and neighbours than they do with the people in the different offices.
You can take me to the bank to open a bank account, but if my smoke detector rings in the middle of the night and I have no idea what that is or it takes me to a bad place, the first person I would go to is my neighbour. So ensuring that we have communities that are welcoming, educated and willing to work with us to welcome newcomers and make them feel at home as they are rebuilding their homes. We always say that refugees are very resilient, which is something that is true. But it’s not something that should be used for not putting measures in place to ensure that they are supported.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Maganjo. Congratulations. Your story is truly inspiring. Canada is lucky to have you.
Honourable senators, I shall now introduce our third panel. We’ve asked the witness to make an opening statement of five minutes. We will hear from the witness and then turn to the questions.
Unfortunately, I think Ms. Dureid’s headphones are not working, so we will hear from her at a later date. However, we are lucky to have Alissa Pavia, Associate Director of the Atlantic Council’s North Africa Program with us. Ms. Pavia, you have the floor.
Alissa Pavia, Associate Director, Atlantic Council’s North Africa Program: Thank you.
By way of introduction, my name is Alissa Pavia, and I am Associate Director at the Atlantic Council’s North Africa Program based in Washington, D.C.
It is an honour to convene with you today to deliberate upon the pressing issue of the major refugee and migration flow affecting the Middle East. I will pay particular attention to North Africa and the Mediterranean, as this region is a world hotspot for migration and is often overlooked.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, thank you for inviting me and drawing attention to a region that is often overlooked by the international community.
[English]
While the world’s attention understandably gravitates toward the conflict between Israel and Hamas and the resultant humanitarian crisis displacing over 1.7 million Gazans, we must not overlook the broader issue of significant refugee and migration movements elsewhere.
There exist numerous other vulnerable populations forced to migrate due to dire circumstances in their homelands — groups all too frequently overlooked by the international community. I speak of those migrants and refugees who cross the Mediterranean annually, seeking refuge and a better future elsewhere, enduring perilous sea voyages that endanger their lives and those of their loved ones.
Since 2014, over 22,000 individuals have been reported dead or missing at sea, rendering the Mediterranean route the most treacherous for global migrants.
Esteemed senators, migration is an ancient facet of human history, with people perpetually seeking better conditions beyond their homeland’s borders. Yet, certain compelling factors, the so‑called push factors, drive mass migration, such as war, famine, poverty, climate change, and political persecution. African and North African nations grapple with these challenges, fostering conditions driving vulnerable individuals to embark on perilous Mediterranean journeys. The last decade has witnessed recurring surges in migration from North Africa to Europe, each cycle presenting distinct challenges and varied causes behind these forced displacements. The year 2023, in particular, marked another of these cyclical uptakes. Migration from North Africa to Europe surged threefold since 2022, leaving southern European nations scrambling for effective solutions to the migration quandary.
Efforts to comprehend the sudden uptick reveal a new migration origin in North Africa: Tunisia. While Libya traditionally held this mantle, Tunisia, the port city of Sfax, has assumed particular prominence as a significant transit hub for vulnerable individuals from sub-Saharan Africa. According to the International Organization for Migration, this year, Tunisia witnessed a staggering 260% increase of departures compared with the previous year. Concurrently, the number of Tunisians seeking migration has similarly risen, signifying a renewed willingness among local Tunisians to leave their homeland.
While the reasons compelling migration deserves scrutiny, today, I seek not to dwell solely on these push factors. Instead, I implore your attention toward the dire conditions migrants face in North Africa, with a particular focus on Tunisia, given its current role as a migration hotspot. Moreover, I aim to propose recommendations on how Canada can provide assistance.
Approximately 21,000 sub-Saharan individuals, including migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees are estimated to reside in Tunisia.
However, since Tunisian President Kais Saied assumed office in 2019, the plight of these migrants has markedly worsened. A turning point for the worse, occurred in February 2023 when President Saied made public remarks, echoing elements of Camus’ racist “great replacement theory,” accusing Black African migrants of intending to alter the country’s demographic composition. Subsequently, migrants faced persecution, with many forcibly evicted from their residences and dismissed from their jobs.
Tensions between locals and migrants escalated further. Regrettably, the situation took a dire turn in July when Tunisian authorities rounded up Black African migrants from Sfax and forcibly expelled them, leaving them stranded for weeks in the deserts bordering Libya and Algeria. Having personally communicated with some of these affected individuals after my visit to Tunisia, I received distressing videos, audio recordings, and voice notes pleading for aid, documenting an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe. The stranded migrants endured scarcity of food and water, with only the Tunisian Red Crescent permitted access. While approximately 600 migrants have been readmitted to Tunisia of the 1,200 that were expelled from one day to another since then, the whereabouts of the remainder remain uncertain, with an estimated two dozen fatalities.
During this crisis, European leaders convened with President Kais Saied to discuss curbing the influx of migrants reaching Europe’s southern shores. Shockingly, no mention was made of the stranded migrants, and an agreement was struck to financially support Tunisia’s coast guard in intercepting migrants. Once again, the international system witnessed a failure as “Team Europe” inadvertently empowered Tunisia’s authoritarian leader, signalling that racism and human rights violations would not impede financial aid.
Senators, I recognize the considerable challenges each nation confronts in managing surges of irregular migration. However, your influence lies in ensuring that global lives receive humanity and dignity, safeguarding migrants and vulnerable communities through mechanisms supported and financed by many among us: multilateral institutions like the United Nations, bilateral agreements and diplomatic and trade relations.
Although Tunisia might appear distant from Canada, concerns about migrant treatment in Tunisia and the Mediterranean significantly impact the international community. Mass displacements wreak havoc across nations, disrupting stability and fostering tensions among countries. The rise of far-right populism often correlates with growing xenophobia toward migrants and refugees.
Europe, a close ally of Canada, has faced significant challenges due to mass displacement, weakening its unity in the face of global issues. It’s in Canada’s best interest to prevent Europe from encountering such challenges as it would inevitably strain Canada-European relations. Moreover, Canada has crucial ties with Tunisia, funding pivotal development and counterterrorism projects.
It’s imperative that Canadian taxpayer money does not support criminal acts by Tunisia’s national guard.
Firstly, Canada should ensure that institutions operating in Tunisia work diligently to locate and repatriate stranded migrants.
Both the International Organization for Migration, or IOM, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees bears responsibility for their welfare and repatriation.
Secondly, during bilateral discussions with Tunisia’s ministry of the interior and ministry of defence, Canada must stipulate that assistance won’t be provided if it contributes to human rights abuses, such as forced expulsions of migrants.
Lastly, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights should conduct a comprehensive study on humanitarian aid to Tunisia, reassessing whether the current president, Kais Saied, meets the criteria for state assistance. Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you. We have a list of senators wanting to ask questions. As is our practice, I would like to remind senators they have five minutes for the questions and answers.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to the witness. You spoke of the specific example of Tunisia. I’m really glad you brought that to our notice, because I thought all along that Tunisia was more forward-looking but obviously not with African refugees.
You made some recommendations. Do you have any specific, immediate recommendations — because you made many — about which the committee should write to the Minister of Foreign Affairs based upon what we’ve heard from you? You might want to think about that and submit it to the clerk later, but more immediately, what do you think this committee should do? This is a very serious matter.
Ms. Pavia: Thank you for the question, senator.
My understanding is that the committee is working on a report that you intend to make public. I suggest and I recommend that, in that report, you mention the issues I brought up with regard to Tunisia, the forced displacement of migrants and the worsening of the conditions of refugees and migrants in Tunisia.
I bring up Tunisia because it is a hotspot right now. It’s the main departure point for migrants from North Africa to Europe.
I also want to stress that, after 10 years of democratic transition, Tunisia is facing a dire democratic backsliding with the current president, Kais Saied. I’m happy to go into more detail later if that interests you, but I do not believe there can be recommendations toward ensuring a better livelihood of refugees and migrants in Tunisia without addressing the political situation and without asking that President Kais Saied backtrack on the democratic backsliding that he has so far embraced.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Pavia, you have spoken so passionately. You get to me, and I would really like to do something, but Tunisia is not the only country; we have many countries that are doing terrible things. The challenge is that we can’t, in our report — or maybe the committee might decide to do that — just pick on Tunisia. I was asking you to make general recommendations as to what we can do. What kinds of recommendations should we have for refugees, generally?
Ms. Pavia: That’s an excellent question, senator.
I understand where you’re coming from. That has been an issue, as well, in my day-to-day endeavour when I focus on one country only. As I mentioned, however, there are about 21,000 sub-Saharan Africans in Tunisia. In July, Tunisia expelled 1,200 migrants to Libya and Algeria.
One recommendation that could be made in the report that is, perhaps, not solely focusing on Tunisia but North Africa as a region. This region and different leaders in the region should look at diverse ways to ensure the better livelihood of migrants and refugees in their countries.
I would also suggest that, as an ally to Europe and the European Union, Canada can urge allies to foster better relationships with countries in North Africa.
Such relationships also entail safeguarding the lives of migrants. Europe has often been accused of and criticized for not taking into account the livelihood of migrants coming from North Africa and investing in what’s called the externalization of its borders. That means delegating to third countries that don’t necessarily have the same standards when it comes to human rights that Europe and Canada have.
Perhaps with the externalization of the borders, there’s delegation to other countries of even accounting for the well-being of migrants.
The European Union has often been criticized for this. One way you can reverse this path is to ensure that, for example, the mechanisms by which refugees are assessed upon entry happen within countries in the European Union and not in third countries.
Senator Jaffer: That’s very useful. Thank you so much.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: You spoke a lot about Tunisia. The situation there has really gotten worse with the current political landscape. I’ve seen videos showing how horribly some people in Tunisia are treated, students and established workers in the country alike. They aren’t refugees. It’s really awful.
We know that Libya is the main country of departure for most migrants heading to Europe. Hundreds of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers, including children, make their way to Libya to set out for Europe. Libya is home to more than 200,000 displaced persons, it seems. Can you talk about the situation refugees in Libya face? What can be done right now to better address the needs of the large displaced population in Libya?
[English]
Ms. Pavia: Thank you, senator. I’m glad you brought up the issue of Libya. As you rightly mentioned, the situation in Tunisia is dire, but there are other countries in North Africa that also face dire conditions. One of them is Libya. We know, for example, that Libya was recently struck by a terrible natural catastrophe — the floods in Derna — which has left 8,000 and 10,000 displaced, and there are an estimated 4,000 people who are missing or reported dead.
The situation in Libya is fraught, because there is a political quagmire that impedes the immediate solution to any refugee crisis. Libya is currently divided into two, and the two factions have an inability to find common ground when it comes to important solutions such as for those of refugees and migrants. It also becomes difficult for other countries like Canada or countries in the European Union to engage with Libya because there is not a unitary government. Many European countries that do want to engage with Libya find themselves unable to find a point of contact as a reference for these issues.
Going back to what I was saying earlier about the externalization of the borders, because the situation is dire in these countries, Europe has a tendency — and it did the same thing it is doing in Tunisia and the same thing it did in Libya in 2017, specifically, the European Union funded the coast guard to attempt to halt the migrant flows. What this led to was the Libyan coast guard creating detention camps for refugees and migrants and leaving them there. There are reports of terrible humanitarian conditions that these people are facing right now in these camps in Libya.
Another thing that happens is that they find other ways to reach Europe, so this solution doesn’t work. What many have advocated is for Europe to stop externalizing its borders funding the coast guards in countries such as Libya and Tunisia, where the leaders are not trustworthy and instead take it upon themselves to find durable solutions to the migration issue. One way is ensuring that the livelihood of people in North Africa improves. For improvement to happen, for example, Western countries believe that democracy should flourish. So fostering and ensuring that democracy continues to flourish in North Africa will ultimately improve the livelihoods of many people in North Africa. That’s one way that countries in the European Union, and other countries such as Canada, can hope to affect the people in North Africa.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: While we wait for democracy to flourish, 200,000 people in Libya are displaced, and you said that 21,000 people in Tunisia were displaced. Can Canada provide any support, in terms of the sites where these displaced people currently are, where they are waiting? I’m not sure whether there are actual camps. What can we do at the source? Democracy isn’t going to come about in these countries overnight.
[English]
Ms. Pavia: That’s true, senator. It is also true that we need to make sure that we have not overlooked the issue of democracy. We want to make sure that, in the long term, democracy is still something that we want to foster in North Africa. However, you are right; there are things that need to be done in the short term.
As I mentioned in my remarks with regard to the recommendations, there are organizations that are working in North Africa. These include the United Nations and the International Organization for Migration. Given that Tunisia is, unfortunately, not on the list of priorities for many countries in the world, the best way that your committee and Canada can help migrants in these countries is to go through multilateral fora, through the United Nations and the IOM, and perhaps even local civil society organizations. In the meantime, they should try to push North Africa and the issue of migration in the Mediterranean high up on the priority list of global issues that, for example, Canada and Europe can work together to solve.
Just this past week, Canada and Europe had a summit. They came up with a list of priorities and global issues. Nowhere on that list did they mention the Mediterranean or migrants in North Africa. One way that you can help secure that the livelihoods of these people are improved is ensuring that the Mediterranean, which is the most treacherous route for immigrants around the world, becomes a global priority and issue. In the meantime, push for more subtle solutions, just like you are doing with this committee by issuing a report. Write about it in the report and make sure that you provide assistance, either financial or technical, to those organizations that are operating in North Africa.
I will also say this: There are still 600 migrants expelled from Tunisia who are unaccounted for. One thing that Canada can do is be in touch with their representative at the International Organization for Migration and ask them about what is happening to the 600 immigrants whom Tunisia expelled. They are unaccounted for. They lost service through their phones when they were expelled, I know that 600 were readmitted through Tunisia, but the others are unaccounted for. Canada is a major donor to the UN and the International Organization for Migration, so you have a right to know what happened to these people.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Professor Pavia, and thank you for your focus on a particular region. That helps us a great deal.
You likely know a great deal about new thinking on the migration front. I am wondering if you have a response to Hein de Haas’s new book, How Migration Really Works, and his hypothesis, which is proven by research, that the more countries — like Tunisia, Libya, Europe — that close off legal pathways, the more illegal migration you will get. Could you comment on that?
Ms. Pavia: Yes. I will admit that I have more of a focus on regional dynamics when it comes to North Africa, but when it comes to the comment that you just made, there is a weight of evidence that demonstrates that is correct. I can give you a very concrete example. Again, I apologize for focusing on the country of Tunisia, but, sadly Tunisia is a country that is now — how can I put this — a case study for many other countries because we know that Tunisia was on the path of democratization. With the recent upheavals we’ve seen, there’s a worsening of the conditions for migrants.
Going back to the comments that you mentioned, when the Tunisian coast guard was promised financial assistance by the European Union, one way that they hedged their bets was by evaluating who will provide the highest incentives, whether it is the European Union, for example, or whether it is the migrants who will want to leave to go to the European Union. This goes to show how this way of engaging with certain authoritarian rulers in authoritarian states can actually drive the illegal smuggling of people. It creates a financial incentive as opposed to improving the rule of law in that country and the sense of allegiance that a body like the coast guard can have to a specific leader.
Senator Omidvar: Chair, Professor Pavia reminds us that we should absolutely try and get the IOM again to this committee. Thank you very much, Professor Pavia.
My next question is a follow-up. Members of the EU themselves have entered into agreements with Libya and Tunisia to block safe passage, which has resulted in what we have seen as a spike in unsafe Mediterranean crossings, accompanied by a fair amount of tragedy. Would you confirm that for us?
Ms. Pavia: Do you mind repeating the question for me?
Senator Omidvar: Do you have a comment on the arrangements that members of the EU, such as Italy, have made with Tunisia and Libya to prevent the safe, orderly migration of refugees from one part of the world to another?
Ms. Pavia: Thank you. Again, engaging in these deals with leaders who are untrustworthy, as we have seen from the current leader in Tunisia and the leaders in Libya, is not conducive to safe passage and to solving and finding a durable solution to the migration issue. Just as we saw with the 2016-17 deals with Libya, the migration issue was solved for two or three years, potentially, but then immigrants found another route through Tunisia to come to Europe. Ultimately, it is imperative that the European Union find a way to deal with the migration issue without externalizing its borders to other countries.
We saw this with Turkey when, in 2016, the European Union entered an agreement with President Erdoğan, whereby Erdoğan would ensure that immigrants would not reach Europe. At the same time, what happens is this fosters a situation where Europe can be blackmailed by some of these countries by using the migration issue as a means to blackmail Europe into allowing some of these countries for some deals that they may want in return, if that makes sense.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
The Chair: A few years ago, we were looking at a private member’s bill on organ harvesting. We heard that some migrants were becoming victims of organ harvesting during their journey to North Africa. Do you know if that’s still continuing, or is it not happening anymore?
Ms. Pavia: I’m sorry, but I am not aware of organ harvesting right now in North Africa and issues related to that.
The Chair: Thank you. Seeing no more questions, I want to take this opportunity to thank you. Your testimony will help us a great deal when we are ready to write our report.
(The committee adjourned.)