THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, December 11, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, 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.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar from Ontario.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia and deputy chair of this committee.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
The Chair: Welcome, senators and all those who are following our deliberations. Today, our committee will continue its study of 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 while supporting refugees.
This afternoon, we shall have two panels. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses, and then the senators will have a question and answer session. I also want to take this opportunity to remind our witnesses and the senators that the Senate is sitting this evening at 6 p.m., and the committee will have to deviate slightly from its original schedule. The first panel will now last 45 minutes, and the second one, starting at 4:45 p.m., will last one hour.
I shall now introduce our first panel. Our witnesses have each been asked to make a five-minute opening statement. I wish to welcome our first witnesses via video conference: Janemary Ruhundwa, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Dignity Kwanza; and Muzna Dureid, Advocacy and Partnership Manager of the Nobel Women’s Initiative and Member of the Refugee Advisory Network of Canada.
I will invite Ms. Ruhundwa to make her presentation followed by Ms. Dureid.
Janemary Ruhundwa, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Dignity Kwanza: Thank you so much. Good evening, honourable senators. It is my pleasure to appear before you, and I thank you for this opportunity.
My organization, Dignity Kwanza, is a national NGO working to safeguard and promote the human dignity of displaced people and people at risk of statelessness in Tanzania through advocacy, legal assistance and community empowerment. I will be talking about displacement in Africa and share experiences from my country and my work.
The major migration flows in Africa are within and between countries in the Great Lakes region, the Horn of Africa and west and central Africa. Together, these regions have over 5.2 million refugees and over 18 million internally displaced people. These are due to conflicts in South Sudan, Congo DRC, the Central African Republic, Somalia and other countries, but they are also due to drought and climate-related causes.
About 37% of these refugees are children under 11 years old, while 53% are under 18 years and 82% are women, children and the elderly. It’s also worth noting that 75% of these displaced people live in their countries as internally displaced people with little or no support from the international community.
I would like to share the realities of most refugees in Africa.
The first one is that most refugees in Africa are in protracted situations. For example, my country, Tanzania, has people who have lived as refugees for over 50 years — since 1972. Although they can access basic social services such as health and primary and secondary education, they cannot own land or benefit from other socio-economic empowerment schemes designed to benefit only citizens, such as university student loans or subsidies on fertilizers and seeds. Also, since they live in villages, they do not benefit from any humanitarian assistance offered to refugees in camps.
Another fact about refugees in Africa is that most of them live in refugee camps, which severely limits their ability to be self-reliant. In my country, refugees in camps are not allowed to engage in self-reliant activities, and the government has stated on several occasions that it has made reservations on the second objective of the Global Compact on Refugees related to self-reliance, and these restrictions are based on the assumption that refugees will return home quickly. However, the reality is that they end up living in these conditions for decades. We have refugees who have lived in camps for 57 years in those conditions while humanitarian support keeps on diminishing. Currently, refugees in camps in Tanzania receive only 50% of the food rations they are supposed to receive.
Restrictions on refugees in camps expose them — especially men and youth — to risks such as arrest and detention, human trafficking, exploitation and extortion when circumstances force them to leave camps without permission to try to find work to complement the dwindling humanitarian support. Children sometimes end up in child labour in nearby townships. Women and girls experience gender-based violence and other security risks while searching for firewood, which, due to pressures on the environment, they have to go very far to fetch.
For children in camps, access to quality education is also compromised. For example, in Tanzania, where the country of origin curriculum is being used for refugee children, the children have gone three years without doing final exams due to disagreements between the host country and country of origin — in this case Burundi — on the modality to conduct those exams. Opportunities for higher education are also very limited as the available scholarships are few.
Due to legal and practical restrictions, refugee status has tended to provide less protection, leading to many refugees choosing to live under the radar as undocumented migrants, which creates another layer of risks, including human trafficking and statelessness.
Poverty is a cross-cutting issue in African displacement, and it is also central in finding solutions. Whether people flee political instabilities or climate-induced factors, most people who flee in Africa lived in poverty before fleeing. But they have also lived alongside host communities languishing in poverty as well, which, to a large extent, defines the quality of protection they are able to access.
Having said that, there are positive practices that are also worth sharing. African countries have been at the forefront of trying to find durable solutions for refugees who have lived in their countries for many years. I will share examples from my country again.
On several occasions, Tanzania has granted citizenship to groups of refugees. The largest group was the Burundian refugees who were granted citizenship — over 162,000 Burundian refugees. Citizenship was also granted to Rwandans and Somali Bantus in previous years.
Countries are working toward facilitating returns. That has its challenges as well. The attempts to have refugee inclusion was seen in Ethiopia and Uganda where refugees can work. In my country, however — and this is a fact that is sometimes forgotten — about 40,000 refugees living in villages, which I shared before. Despite the challenges they face, they are still able to benefit from the structures and systems that benefit the host communities as well.
Tanzania has also made a work permit for refugees free, but that has its challenges, especially in accessing it.
African countries have continued to allow people fleeing persecution to access their territories. Despite many challenges that are shared, Tanzania has continued to receive refugees. Just this year, over 12,000 Congolese refugees have been admitted as asylum seekers in Tanzania.
Finally, to achieve solutions to some of the challenges that I have shared, some issues need to be met. I believe that Canada can support in overcoming them. The first is to increase humanitarian support to refugees in Africa. The restrictions upon self-reliance, when met with diminishing humanitarian support, mean more suffering for refugee men, women, girls and boys who have no control over their situation. It is also key to invest in local advocacy with host governments through supporting local actors — including refugees themselves and academia — to work with governments and host populations to understand their deep concerns and work with them toward finding workable solutions. In addition, to promote human rights and people-centred approaches as win-win approaches of dealing with forced displacement, and to reshape the refugee narrative and break existing myths of refugees and migrants.
It is also to support countries of origin, which have made positive progress in attaining peace and security, like Burundi, to be able to restore and rebuild socio-economic and democratic structures and frameworks that will support sustainable return of migrants and refugees. It is also important to increase settlement flows and add complementary pathways for displaced people to have an opportunity to reset their lives in a third country but also to relieve countries of asylum.
It is key to rework the responsibility-sharing model and make it more predictable. That can start by acknowledging the real contributions of host governments in Africa and their real struggles while trying to offer protection and attempt to match it.
The Global North should also stop the double standard regarding their response to migration. Canada is well placed to remind fellow governments of the north of their responsibility to lead by example.
Finally, it is important to continue to invest in promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms in general and addressing poverty in the region in Africa, because those are some of the reasons why people are displaced.
I thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Dureid.
Muzna Dureid, Advocacy and Partnership Manager, Nobel Women’s Initiative and Member, Refugee Advisory Network of Canada, as an individual: Thank you so much, esteemed senators. Thank you for your invitation today.
I want to mention that today is the global strike for Gaza to call for an immediate ceasefire. I’m joining exceptionally since the session was scheduled in November.
I am a former asylum seeker and refugee from Syria.
The Refugee Advisory Network of Canada is an advisory group in Canada on forced displacement. Today, more than one quarter of humanity lives in conflict-affected areas. Forced displacement in the Middle East is a complex issue that has been exacerbated by a combination of factors. The region has experienced a significant number of conflicts and crises, leading to large populations being forcibly displaced from their homes.
Syria was one of the most significant contributors to forced displacement in the Middle East, which began after the social uprising in 2011. As a result of the Syrian regime’s violent response, we have 6.7 million Syrians who have been internally displaced and 5 million have fled the horror of Assad to neighbouring countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.
While international media turned the lights off on Syria, Russia and the Assad regime continue to attack civilians and refugee camps, especially after an earthquake that hit Northwest Syria, which is home to 5 million people who have been displaced multiple times. Thus, Canada’s program to support the victims of the earthquake in Syria represents a glimpse of hope for those who wait for our help but need to target those who are the most in need. The victims of the earthquake have lost their official papers and their passports. They don’t have the papers to apply for a visa to come to Canada and to benefit from the program that the government initiated after the earthquake.
In Sudan, as the conflict enters its ninth month, more than 4 million women and girls are now at risk of sexual violence. Over 9,000 people have been killed, forcing nearly 6 million to become displaced — 4.63 million internally and 1.17 million externally. While the measures taken by Canada to relocate the families of Canadians and Sudanese permanent residents contributed to saving lives, the window of this program is short despite that the fact this conflict knows no deadline. The suffering is continuing. Thus, Canada should provide a longer time for families to be able to apply and to get out of the Sudan to get the visa and benefit from reunification with their families in Canada.
In terms of Palestinian refugees, the Palestinian refugee crisis is a longstanding issue in the Middle East, dating back to the establishment of Israel in 1948, with millions residing in refugee camps in the occupied Palestinian territories, Gaza and neighbouring countries. However, in the last few weeks, refugee camps in Gaza, such as the Jabalia and Maghazi camps, operated by UNRWA, were systematically attacked by the Israeli army. Despite these serious human rights violations and the genocide that is taking place in Gaza, Canada voted to abstain on a humanitarian resolution at the United Nations that called for a ceasefire. If Canada wants to have a diplomatic role in building peace, as it was known, and to contribute to saving lives, then it should revisit its votes and its actions, and call for an immediate ceasefire.
Camps are a refuge for vulnerable people and nothing justifies targeting them.
In Afghanistan, where gender apartheid is imposed upon Afghani women inside Afghanistan by the Taliban and in Pakistan where 1.7 million Afghani refugees are under risk of deportation, more commitments should be taken by Canada to support Afghani refugees at risk.
As for recommendations and what we need from Canada, first, more than ever, there are increased human rights defenders, journalists and activists who are at risk and need to be resettled by different pathways, not only via human rights programs that we have, with a cap of 500 spots, but we need more pathways to support those who are at risk. Canada should treat all refugees with equal footing without any discrimination based on ethnicity, religion or colour. Refugees are contributing to Canadian society, and more measures should be in place to facilitate their integration in Canada by fast-tracking the recognition of their accreditation and eliminating the Canadian experience requirement.
In light of funding shortages, supporting refugee-led organizations in Canada and abroad is essential because they are the experts in addressing the challenges that refugees face. Supporting the peace-building efforts led by refugees resettled in Canada is a win-win process to maximize the benefits of their expertise and to enhance Canada’s global role and diplomacy. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you both for your presentations. Before asking and answers questions, I would like to ask committee members and witnesses in the room for the duration of this meeting to please refrain from leaning in too closely to the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Colleagues, you have four minutes for your question, and that includes the answer.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to both of our witnesses. You have helped to see a window into a region that is under stress.
My first question is for Ms. Ruhundwa. This is not an easy study because it is not full of points of light or good stories; it’s a hard study. Ms. Ruhundwa, I was very pleased to hear you mention the outstanding role that Tanzania played in 2016, when it offered naturalization to over 200,000 Burundian refugees. I hope that we can highlight this in our report, because it is likely the first and only time so far that a country has gone so far. I am curious to know, Ms. Ruhundwa, after the situation in Burundi had somewhat normalized and refugees were able to be repatriated, can you tell me roughly how many Burundian refugees in Tanzania chose the path of repatriation and how many chose the path of staying in Tanzania and gaining citizenship?
Ms. Ruhundwa: Thank you. I should mention that in Tanzania we have different groups of Burundian refugees. I want to be clear if you are asking about the 1972 Burundian refugees, because these are the only ones who were given the opportunity to choose being locally integrated, returning or repatriation. The rest, especially the ones who came in 2015, have not been given that opportunity. For them, the only durable solution is repatriation. Very few were able to be resettled, but there is no option for being granted citizenship for this group. It is the same case with the group that came in the 1990s. They were not given an opportunity to be naturalized. It is only the group that came in 1972 that was given those three choices.
Senator Omidvar: Then my information is likely not accurate. I had a conversation with President Kikwete, who was president of Tanzania, and he talked at length about the opportunities in 2015 that gave a pathway to citizenship for more than 200,000 Burundians. But we can check that out ourselves, Ms. Ruhundwa.
This is the only chance we will get to talk about Africa, and Africa is a large region where we need some insights. Could you comment on the situation in South Sudan, on the one hand, and on the situation in South Africa on the other? In South Sudan, refugee streams are being created on a daily basis with the violence there, and South Africa because it has now become the hub for asylum seekers and has apparently decided to step back from the UN convention and deny access to refugees streaming to it from other parts of the region.
Ms. Ruhundwa: Thank you. I will start with the situation in South Africa. What we are seeing in South Africa is the impact of not having common laws and policies toward refugees. We each make our countries that have progressive laws and policies more attractive to refugees and end up receiving a huge number of refugees. When that happens, we see xenophobic responses from the masses, which somehow impacts the decisions of the government.
In my opinion, this is a call for all countries in Africa, and also the international community at large, to try as much as possible to promote common standards as far as refugee protection is concerned in order to not make some countries more attractive because asylum is provided to people who are in need, and all refugees deserve to get better, worldwide standards of protection. When it feels like you go to certain countries and you are not able to get that kind of protection, then everyone wants to go to just a few countries, those are the results that we are seeing.
Senator Omidvar: Ms. Ruhundwa, I want to be clear that we understand this. You are recommending a regional response with coordination, common standards, monitoring and evaluation so that the African states, possibly through the Organization of American States, or OAS, can take some leadership in their own region. Am I correct in hearing you say that?
Ms. Ruhundwa: Yes, that is what I am proposing because that’s what we are seeing in our work. Many asylum seekers come to Tanzania, but then after spending a number of years there feeling that their life is in limbo, they will progress to other countries, sometimes within the east African region and sometimes toward the southern parts of the continent. It’s because they are trying to seek a place where they have more opportunities to rebuild their lives than in Tanzania, where they are not able to be self-reliant.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. I’ll continue on second round, and I will have a question for the other witness.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Last year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees visited Tanzania. On that occasion, he praised Tanzania’s long tradition of welcoming and protecting refugees. The High Commissioner also praised one measure in particular, that of issuing birth certificates to refugee children, explaining that this gave them important legal protections while reducing the risk of statelessness.
Could you tell us more about this measure, which is specific to the Tanzanian government? Do you think it should be replicated in other contexts in Africa or around the world?
[English]
Ms. Ruhundwa: Thank you, honourable senator, for that question. Yes, I agree that this should be replicated, because refugee children, just like any other child, have the right to get their birth registered and to get birth certificates from the place of their birth. For a long time in Tanzania that was not happening. Lately, the government, in partnership with other national and international actors, has managed to offer their certificates to many refugee children. This is very important because given the nature of displacement, if children of refugees and other displaced people are not able to get birth certificates, it might be difficult for them to prove their place of birth and their nationality. Lack of birth certificates could possibly result in statelessness in the future. So, I believe that other countries that have not started issuing birth certificates to refugee children should replicate that. Thank you. I’m not sure if that was your question.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Yes, do you think that other measures could be taken to strengthen the legal protection of refugees, especially children? Are there other measures you could recommend to protect children from a legal point of view?
[English]
Ms. Ruhundwa: Yes. One is birth certificates, which we already talked about. But I would like to touch on the fact that many displaced people who come to Tanzania — we have refugees who are registered, but we have also undocumented refugees and immigrants, whose children are at high risk of future statelessness, because since their parents are not documented, these children are not able to get birth certificates. But also, their parents enroll them in schools using fake names of either their Tanzanian friends or just made-up names that sound like Tanzanians. This is a challenge that these children face, and they have no recourse because their parents fear disclosing themselves. These children study using names that are not theirs and continue to live as Tanzanians although they are not. Sometimes, when they grow up, they get national IDs, and when it is discovered that they are not nationals, at which time, they will probably have also lost their documents from their countries of origin. There is a huge risk of statelessness in the future.
So, in determining how to protect these children, it is still facilitating their access to civil documents. A birth certificate is one of them.
It is important for the government to look at the interests of the children in this particular situation. And, if possible, to enforce a non-enquiry policy on the side of the parents when they want to register their children. I don’t know if it is possible, but finding a way to ensure that the status of the parents doesn’t deter them from moving forward in registering their children or finding documents for them or enrolling them in school. By not doing so, these children are exposed to all these future risks of statelessness.
Senator Bernard: My questions are also for Ms. Ruhundwa. First, I would like to get clarification on a couple of comments you made in your opening statements. Did I hear you correctly that there are some people in your country who have lived in refugee camps for 50 years? If that is the case, what are the reasons why these folks do not have a pathway out of those camps?
Ms. Ruhundwa: Thank you, honourable senator. By way of clarification, there are refugees who have lived in Tanzania for 50 years. They were living in settlements and in villages. The majority of those in settlements were the ones who were naturalized and are now citizens. Only a few are remaining. But the 40,000 that I mentioned live in villages, not in refugee camps.
Some of the ones in refugee camps have been there for about 27 years, because the oldest camp in the country right now is near Nyarugusu Camp, opened in 1996, and there are refugees who came in 1996, stayed there and are still refugees there to date. To clarify, 50 years refers not to those in the camps, but rather to those in villages and a few in settlements. The difference between settlements, villages and camps is that those in the camps cannot leave the camp without permission, nor can they engage in self-reliance activities. Those in villages and settlements can access land only for use; they cannot own it, but they can access land for use. They have more freedom of movement, and they live alongside the host community and share facilities with the host communities. That’s the main difference between the three.
Senator Bernard: Thank you. The other clarification was with regard to self-reliance activities. You just talked about it again. What kinds of activities would this involve?
Ms. Ruhundwa: By self-reliance activities, we mean livelihood activities that go beyond just helping refugees to acquire the basics like food that would allow them to live without necessarily needing humanitarian assistance.
In the refugee camps, what is currently allowed is kitchen gardening where they grow vegetables to subsidize and diversify the food they get and nothing else. They used to have homegrown markets that would bring together refugees and host communities, but now those markets are closed. Other businesses that were carried out in camps have been prohibited. That’s why we talk about this self-reliance issue so often. Especially now, because even the food assistance that they are getting is not enough; it is less than 50%.
Senator Pate: I have a question for Ms. Dureid. I was in Northeast Syria this past summer and was shocked to see the extent of the displacement of locals, foreign nationals and many others. In a context where the Canadian government and many other international governments went in when the focus was on defeating Isis and Daesh, it seems to me that there has been a virtual abandonment particularly of Northeast Syria since that time. There is a huge need for infrastructure, basic food, water, accommodation and legal structure. I am curious as to whether you have any additional information that you might want to provide to this committee about the extent of that international commitment that was made to fight Isis, but then the abandonment of those very forces. I’m thinking particularly of some of the Kurdish forces who were fighting and are now left with millions of displaced people, both their own and foreign nationals from other countries.
Ms. Dureid: Thank you, senator, for this question. This is a very important point because Canada and all western countries should repatriate their citizens from the Roj camp, not only to support Syria to stabilize, but also because it is the right of their citizens to be repatriated to their countries and to appear before their national courts about what they did in the past.
There are also a few Canadians who are still in the Roj camp. There are women and children who have been repatriated from there already, but this should also be extended to men, not only to women and children, and also to repatriate the rest. I think one woman with six children are still in the camp.
In terms of supporting this pending issue, it’s been almost four years without any solution or commitment from Western countries, including Canada. Regarding the situation in Northeast Syria, it is already a forgotten area of this region, even before the social uprising and the revolution in Syria. It is a weak area with no infrastructure. It is now exposed to bombardment from Turkey and from all the bombardments of the international coalition to defeat ISIS. It is already a weak area which needs the Canadian government, and other governments, to support more initiatives and more infrastructure projects to recover and to support civilians over there. Also, this area has been exposed to earthquakes, but less than Northwest Syria.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I have a brief question for you, Ms. Dureid. In your submission to us, you said that Canada should treat all refugees on an equal footing, without any discrimination, based on ethnicity, religion or colour. Do you feel Canada does not treat all its refugees the same?
Ms. Dureid: Thank you for raising this question. Honestly, no. It’s Canada’s response to all conflicts, starting from the Syrian displacement, the resettlement of Syrian refugees has become part of the Canadian election, namely, part of the promises of different parties to resettle Syrian refugees. When it comes to the Sudanese crisis and displacement, however, we have less commitment from Canada. And when it comes to the Ukrainian refugee displacement, we have unlimited numbers of Ukrainians hosted by Canada. No cap has been announced for that. When it comes to Afghan refugees, we have only 40,000. There is no equal footing.
As refugees, we feel there is discrimination based on the background of refugees, from where they are coming, if they are white passive and if they are coming from a country that is allied to Canada or not. At the end of the day, we have more than 100 million refugees around the world. As I mentioned, one quarter of the global population lives in the conflict countries, and we need to have an equal footing. For the Gazan refugees, and for refugees from other countries, there is no response from Canada similar to what we have seen when it comes to Ukrainian refugees.
The Chair: Senators, we don’t have time left for questions on a second round. I will get senators to ask their questions and then maybe the witnesses can give us written responses.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for that opportunity. This has been a useful panel, but we need more wisdom. Ms. Ruhundwa, can you confirm that my information around the Tanzanian situation is correct? That’s important for our records.
Ms. Dureid, do you think the motivation that Canada has for settling certain types of refugees over others is primarily political? What do you think we should do about that? Has the Government of Canada consulted with you and your refugee advisory network in a proactive way in the development of its policies? Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Ms. Dureid, you are the founder and coordinator of the Women Refugees, Not Captives campaign. What recommendations can you make to the Canadian government about forced marriages in refugee camps? What role could Canada play in putting an end to these practices?
[English]
Ms. Dureid: Thank you for those important questions.
The Chair: Ms. Dureid, you will have to give us written responses because we are out of time and we still have one other senator. We have decided that the senators will ask their questions, and then you can provide us with written responses. These are important questions, but we have to move on because the Senate is sitting at six o’clock and we can’t be late. We still have another panel. Thank you for your understanding.
Senator Bernard: My question is around climate change. Either of the witnesses can send responses to this. I would be interested in knowing how recent climate change-related disasters, such as drought and flooding, have affected the displaced populations that you have been working with. Thank you.
The Chair: My question is: Do you see any hope for the women of Afghanistan? Because they are totally forgotten. Thank you.
I want to take this opportunity to thank both our witnesses for agreeing to participate in this important study. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
We will turn now to our second panel.
Each of the witnesses has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators. With us at the table, please welcome Kathy Sherrell, Director, Settlement Services, Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia; Ms. Dana Wagner, Co-Founder and Managing Director of TalentLift; and Abdulla Daoud, Executive Director of the Refugee Centre.
Kathy Sherrell, Director, Settlement Services, Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia: Honourable senators, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the standing committee. Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia, also known as ISSofBC, is one of Canada’s largest immigrant- and refugee-serving agencies, providing a range of settlement, employment, language and resettlement supports for over 50 years. For context, we are B.C.’s largest provider of the Resettlement Assistance Program for Government-Assisted Refugees, a sponsorship agreement holder for privately sponsored refugees and the largest provider of B.C.-funded targeted services for refugee claimants. My comments are anchored in our work supporting Canada’s humanitarian immigration objectives and also informed by two key reports.
The first, Sustaining Welcome, draws upon B.C. findings from SyRIA.lth, which is a four-year longitude study of long-term health outcomes of Syrian refugees settled in B.C., Ontario and Quebec. The second is Journeys to Integration, which looks at the social and economic outcomes of government-assisted refugees in B.C. over a 10-year period.
My comments today focus on the post-arrival phase in Canada, specifically, access to appropriate, timely and consistent supports to facilitate the settlement and integration among humanitarian streams. Unlike other immigrant categories, refugees are not barred from entrance to Canada on medical grounds.
While not seeking to pathologize refugees, we do have to recognize refugees arriving in Canada may arrive with physical and mental health needs that differ from other Canadians. This includes individuals for whom long-term lack of access to medical attention for seemingly normal conditions has serious and long-lasting complex health outcomes; interrupted access to chronic medications and therapies; end-stage chronic illnesses; and, mental health clinical support needs.
Refugees in Canada do have access to the Interim Federal Health Program, or IFHP, which offers limited, temporary basic health coverage until provincial eligibility sets in, as well as supplemental and prescription coverage for one year. Although this is a national program, access to specific treatments or medications may vary significantly beyond and within provinces. Life-saving medication eligible in one province may be denied to refugees in another province. Advocacy for the coverage is often left to immigrant- and refugee-serving agencies or private sponsors who may lack medical knowledge and connections to advocate successfully.
We know from cultural integration models that there is a honeymoon period following arrival in year one followed by the reality and challenges with the settlement and integration in subsequent years. The SyRIA.lth research demonstrates this clearly with higher rates of depression in year two than in year one, yet the access to those clinical supports ceases at the end of the first year.
We need to ensure access to appropriate health care for refugees regardless of where they are in Canada. Doing this requires national consistency for what is eligible under the IFHP and reconsideration of eligibility periods for some of the supplemental activities.
A second group of refugee claimants are not currently eligible to access nationally funded settlement programming, and yet provision of the provincially or territorially funded services again varies significantly across provinces. Yet, over 75% of inland claimants will eventually have the ability to stay in Canada. Given long-term economic and social scarring that can result from delayed access to those critical services, national service support standards and eligibility should be expanded to include this group.
Canada is proud that we have a stated two-way model of integration through which Canadian society and newcomers have a mutual responsibility for integration. Our ongoing commitment to humanitarian immigration through overseas resettlement and inland protection requires that we have a national program and adequate supports in place. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that individuals coming to Canada under Canada’s humanitarian immigration stream have the opportunity to use their skills and assets to fully contribute and succeed in this country as future Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Sherrell. I turn to Ms. Wagner.
Dana Wagner, Co-Founder and Managing Director, TalentLift: Thank you very much for having me here today, honourable senators. My name is Dana Wagner and I am the Co-Founder and Managing Director with TalentLift.
We support employers to recruit internationally from within refugee populations, using skilled visas, as a solution to skill shortages in Canada and displacement worldwide. The Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot, or the EMPP, is the policy framework that makes this work possible. My remarks are about how to improve it.
I will, though, preface and echo my colleague, Muzna Dureid, from the first panel, by pointing to the dissonance created by Canada’s will to lead on solutions to global displacement, and unwillingness to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. We have now lost more than 7,000 Palestinian children and more [Technical difficulty]. We have 80% of Gaza displaced and we need an immediate ceasefire.
Now, the EMPP is unlocking really remarkable opportunities: A manufacturer recently set a hiring target of 100 skilled workers for a facility in Guelph. In October, the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services hired 49 nurses living in Ethiopia as refugees. These are nurses who don’t have full rights, including work rights, or a pathway to permanence where they’re currently living.
Recent innovations, including a new federal EMPP pathway that launched in June, hold a lot of promise to scale this impact. But, as always, in Canada, we can do better.
Issue number one I would like to speak to you about is that the EMPP is still too narrow. And how do we measure whether it’s too narrow or just right or beyond? The best reference point is the whole economic stream of permanent and temporary pathways. Until the EMPP framework and flexibility encompass the whole economic stream that’s available to everyone else, we don’t have full access or equity for displaced talent.
There were more than 604,000 people who arrived on work permits last year, in 2022, but the EMPP flexibility doesn’t apply to those programs. Also, it doesn’t apply to the Express Entry programs and others like the Self-employed Persons Program.
Our recommendation to close this gap is to mainstream access across the economic stream, including all permanent and temporary pathways. One way to begin this work is something like a gender-based analysis, which our team has referred to as a displacement-based analysis.
Issue number two is that language levels and testing are too inflexible. The new federal EMPP pathway that has done a lot of good things does have language levels that are proving prohibitive to many otherwise qualified candidates. We know this because we often have employers that require lower language to safely perform the work than the visa pathway requirements.
Now, on language testing. Currently, if you apply for a skilled visa with an English-language requirement outside Canada, you must take the British Council IELTS test, and you must write the exam in person. That means that right now, candidates from Afghanistan who are living in Pakistan are risking deportation to leave their homes to take their IELTS exam.
Other barriers encountered by our candidates are testing site availability because there are no testing sites in some countries or they may be outside major cities; there is inconsistent access for candidates with non-traditional documents like an expired passport; high cost; restrictive payment methods; and, last but definitely not least, it’s a difficult test that doesn’t accurately reflect a working knowledge of English.
To address the too-high language level, we recommend removing the minimum English or French level in higher-skilled jobs, so that is TEER 3-0. There are precedents for this in some provincial nominee programs, including Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and potentially replacing these minimums with an affidavit from the employer that the candidate has the language needed to safely perform the job.
To address too-restrictive English testing, we recommend accepting an online version of the British Council IELTS test; and also accepting a test by a second provider, such as Duolingo.
Issue number three is a risk of uneven access across diversity dimensions. I noted that Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services hired 49 nurses living as refugees in Ethiopia, and some are living in the capital, in Addis Ababa, and others are living in camps spread out around the country.
Currently, a medical exam is required during EMPP visa processing before approval. Those in Addis can take one nearby. But those in most camps in Ethiopia need to take a flight to get to the nearest medical exam facility.
Friction like this means it takes more time and it costs more money for camp-based candidates to access the same Canadian job opportunity and, ultimately, that could prove to be a competitive disadvantage.
We recommend investing in equitable access within talent pools, with a focus on improving access by women, those living in refugee camps or other remote areas, and those who are LGBTQ.
This investment can include funding and targeted policy solutions.
In closing, underlying these recommendations is the idea that people with talent and potential who live in refugee situations should have the same access to opportunities as talented people from any other background. If we build that world, then many more of the 35 million-plus people living as refugees can use their skills to leave situations of limbo and reduced rights, and use regular routes to reach safe, new homes.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Abdulla Daoud, Executive Director, The Refugee Centre: Hello everyone. My name is Abdulla Daoud and I’m the executive director of the Refugee Centre in Montreal.
[English]
Our organization is rooted in the refugee community, providing a variety of services, including the only full service, free refugee legal clinic in Montréal.
So far this year, we have assisted over 9,000 refugees and refugee claimants. We would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to address the issue at hand. I hope to provide you all with a deep understanding of the complex factors driving global forced migration in Canada, in a Canadian context.
Today, we are witnessing an unprecedented increase in people moving across borders, a situation caused by a mix of issues like worldwide turmoil, armed conflicts, climate change and gender-based violence, to name a few.
This multifaceted issue is transforming societies and creating new policy challenges and, most importantly, affecting the lives of people attempting to seek safety here in Canada today. I hope to approach this issue from both a domestic and international lens.
As Canadians, we stake our reputation as being a welcoming country to those escaping persecution, and we are confronting these global patterns head-on. Despite, out of character deterrent measures such as the renegotiation of the Safe Third Country Agreement and the closure of Roxham Road, this year has marked the highest influx of refugee claimants to date. This surge serves as a stark reminder that policies aimed at deterring migration often fail to surmount the inherent human drive for safety and security.
Additionally, it’s important to recognize the long-term effects of strict internal migration policies, like the situation in Europe, serves as a relevant example. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, or UNODC, there’s been a rise in human trafficking instances which can be directly connected to these strict migration policies. These policies, while intended to control migration, have inadvertently facilitated activities of bad faith actors leading to increased human smuggling and trafficking.
For example, the Mediterranean route, infamously labelled as the deadliest migration path, exemplifies these dire consequences of such policies. Data from the International Organization for Migration reveal the tragic loss of thousands of lives, many succumbing to exploitation and maltreatment in their quest for refuge. This grim reality demonstrates that rather than deterring migration, restrictive policies often compel individuals to undertake even more hazardous journeys, endangering them to more vulnerable situations.
Externally, Canada’s migration policies require a thorough and proactive examination. Our foreign policy decisions, including sanctions and arms trade, necessitate careful consideration of their impacts on civilian populations.
For instance, the situation in Yemen was worsened by global arms sales, including those from Canada, which clearly shows how these policies contribute to more people being displaced.
This underscores the imperative need for a nuanced and foresighted approach in our foreign policy. It is crucial that our international strategies aim to prevent displacement at its source, through diplomatic endeavours that emphasize peace and stability, ensuring that economic sanctions avoid any unnecessary harm to vulnerable populations and regulating arms sales to avert expanding humanitarian crises.
Such actions are essential not only from a moral standpoint but also from a strategic one, as they address one of the most underlying causes of forced migration and contribute to global stability.
Domestically, however, we are seeing an increase in the number of refugee claimants which calls for a comprehensive and compassionate response.
Our present systems and policies are under significant strain due to this influx. Prior to 2017, Canada saw anywhere between 10,000 and 24,000 refugee claimants per year. Now, however, we are seeing upwards of 16,000 refugee claimants per month.
The Refugee Centre’s restricted funding severely limits our capacity to provide effective assistance to these individuals. We are pushed to mainly seek private funding due to a government policy that restricts any resettlement funding that goes directly to resettlement and settlement organizations to be used on refugee claimants.
Additionally, refugee claimants face many prolonged periods of poverty, often waiting up to two years for their asylum claims to be processed, and several months to receive a work permit, while having very limited rights within Canada. This not only compromises their dignity but also risks politicizing what is fundamentally a humanitarian cause.
Therefore, the urgency for policy reform aligns with the evolving landscape of global migration. We must reassess our internal infrastructure to ensure that refugee claimants receive adequate support. In doing so, we reaffirm our national values and contribute to a global movement toward a society where safety, dignity and universal rights are not mere privileges.
In conclusion, we put forth two recommendations: One, modify the funding policies of the Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC and Infrastructure Canada to enable organizations with experience in handling refugee claimants to apply directly for these funds; this change will help these organizations grow Canada’s internal infrastructure to better manage the rising number of refugee claimants in Canada.
Number two is to leverage our global influence to encourage responsibility sharing when it comes to global forced migration, by ensuring all countries focus on welcoming refugees and claimants.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for your presentations.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witnesses for your very, very interesting presentations and for being here.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees cites the Private Sponsorship of Refugees program, or PSRP, as an example to be followed, in particular because of the improved prospects for integrating refugees.
However, other experts are critical of this program as they feel, for example, that it relieves the government of its responsibilities and that there is a major imbalance between the power of a sponsor and a refugee family.
What are your views on the PSRP? Are there improvements to be made to this program?
My question is for all three of you.
[English]
Mr. Daoud: Yes. It is a double-edged sword. The private program definitely has a number of benefits. It is often used to say we are taking X amount or a number of individuals from the private program, thus, we are going to reduce our commitments from the public program, which is what we do with the UNHCR.
If both exist in a universe in which they are parallel, and they don’t impact each other, they are both beneficial. The private program has shown that, for family reunification purposes, for integration purposes, for all these qualitative reasons, it works well.
However, Canada needs to continue to show its international commitment to refugees, because it needs to show that there is responsibility sharing going on and encourage others to do so as well. As long as it is not being used to reduce the numbers from the public program as a policy decision or as a political front, then 100% I think both programs can coexist and work very well.
Ms. Sherrell: When we look at the Private Sponsorship of Refugees program, about 90% are family reunification. When we look at this from the perspective of nation building, reunification of the family, we know the impact on mental health through family separation when families are still at risk. There are a lot of benefits.
One of the contributing support systems that is most evident in the Private Sponsorship of Refugees program is the access to early networks, both social and economic. We know again the importance of that during resettlement, but it can’t come at the expense of government-assisted refugees and inland protection. We need to know that we still, as a country, are not selecting individuals based on their family, not based on connections in Canada, but based on the need for protection.
There are a lot of individuals who may get involved in private sponsorship for all of the right reasons but lack the knowledge of the realities of what private sponsorship looks like, over the longer term. That disconnect between what I assume people coming to Canada may need and what people coming to Canada may actually desire for themselves is something that does require support to private sponsors to ensure they can continue to keep sponsoring others and continue the program.
Ms. Wagner: Thank you very much for the question. This is outside the area that I focus on, but I do see a link. Canada’s selection on vulnerability-based criteria and the Government-Assisted Refugees program and others is just vital to the integrity of many other types of programs, including the one we support, the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot. This is a program that is based foremost on skills-based selection.
That makes sense to do because it is ensuring that opportunities available to other international talents are also equitably available to this talent pool without at all carving away from the space reserved for folks who don’t have that skill set, are not job-ready and need vulnerability-based protection. That link is important and it impacts the integrity of many other innovations that Canada is pursuing.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: This is an excellent panel, giving us insights into the many layers, from Ms. Sherrell, who talked about resettling, to Mr. Daoud, who talked about refugee claimants — we haven’t heard too much about them — to Ms. Wagner who talked about a brave, new world of skills-based, employer-sponsored model. Congratulations.
This is a brave, new world that you are opening up and language is a powerful tool. For the EMPP are there shifts in language that you would recommend as we go deeper down into this? I’m not going to call it a promising practice because it is a sliver of a tiny program with tiny numbers. Help us out here.
Ms. Wagner: Thank you very much for the question.
I completely agree, language is very powerful. It really informs policy choices. We hear a lot from our candidates, actually. One of the common threads is the appreciation for when our team is meeting or interacting and asking about their skills, we’re asking about their skills, helping to build their resumé, asking detailed questions about their work experience and aspirations.
It was surprising to me, initially, how many people said this is the first time they’ve been asked about their skills, and some people have been displaced for years. We don’t have many programs that enable people to shine and to want to speak about those things and think that will present an opportunity for them.
How that translates into the language that we’re using here in Canada, I do think when we’re speaking in a policy sense about this program in particular, a focus on talent, some of the language shifts we’ve tried to make are talking about our candidates or job seekers. We talk about displaced talent.
We also try our best, wherever possible, if we are talking about an individual, to say for example, Fatima, a nurse who was also living in Ethiopia as a refugee. We don’t lead by someone’s vulnerability, we lead by someone’s talent.
Senator Omidvar: I’m curious about a number of questions that your presentation raised. It was excellent. You said we have the highest number of refugee claimants over the last five years, this after we closed the loophole of the Safe Third Country Agreement. I visited Roxham Road, and I was taken aback by the numbers who were coming over that route. Now that route is no longer available. If we’ve closed off that route, and we don’t have boats arriving on our shores, how are they coming?
Mr. Daoud: That’s a good question. What we’re seeing is an increased number of individuals coming through the airport, so by plane. Unfortunately, the government doesn’t record this adequately yet, but from our own centres’ data, we are seeing an increase in the number of people who cross the border and wait 14 days. There is another exception to the Safe Third Country Agreement stipulating if you cross the border irregularly and are here for 14 days, the Safe Third Country Agreement no longer applies to you.
Unfortunately, this puts them in more vulnerable situations. Those numbers aren’t anywhere near the numbers we’re seeing from the airport. The majority of the numbers are coming from the airport. If you want me to break that down for you.
Senator Omidvar: I need to understand. If they are coming to the airport, they have tickets, which means someone has checked their visa, so they are coming as tourists and claiming —
Mr. Daoud: Some countries, for example, have visa travel to Canada, so Mexicans can show up without pre-applying. Some countries qualify for the eTA program which is a visa program that transits through Canada. There are different countries that qualify for different things, and that’s being used for individuals from certain countries who are facing a large number of prosecutions to claim here.
Senator Omidvar: It would help us if you got us a breakdown of those countries.
Mr. Daoud: That’s also available from the IRCC website.
Senator Omidvar: You said in your comments that you would recommend that Canada modify funding practices so that organizations such as yours can apply directly. What does that mean? You’re not able to apply directly?
Mr. Daoud: No. If you look at the refugee assistance program, or the Resettlement Assistance Program, or even Interim Housing Assistance Program, all stipulate that you cannot use the money you applied for as an organization, for resettlement purposes on refugee claimants. They are yet to be permanent residents, or PRs or have yet to become practical persons.
Typically, if I was to get a government grant from the IRCC or ESDC, it stipulates on my grants and contributions agreement that I’m not allowed to use funding for the programming on refugee claimants.
Senator Omidvar: Tell us about the housing situation in Montréal.
Mr. Daoud: It’s not great.
Senator Omidvar: In response to asylum seekers?
The Chair: Senator Omidvar, I can put you on second round, but Mr. Daoud, please answer the question.
Mr. Daoud: Right now, there is a provincial arm called PRAIDA that helps with refugee claimants. They have between 500 and 600 beds, and they are full. It’s about four weeks of placement there.
In addition, there are about 10 to 12 hotels which the IRCC leverages to house claimants who come directly from the airport. If they come by any other method, they cannot access the IRCC hotels. We are seeing a surge. When we say 5,500 or so come to Quebec per month, it’s 5,500 who come to Montréal per month. They are not exploring the rest of Quebec. They are not going to Val-d’Or or Trois-Rivières.
In reality, housing is strained. That’s mostly due to the funding restrictions. Housing organizations are restricted and their hands are tied. They can only help a particular subset of individuals, and that is extended throughout all the funding streams that we’re seeing.
Senator Arnot: This first question is for Mr. Daoud. Sir, following up on some of the things you have said, you made two strong recommendations modifying funding policies, leveraging Canadian influence to get better results. How do you see a way to implement those two ideas in an effective way?
The other thing I’d like to know: Are there additional measures that could be implemented to enhance support for displaced persons once they are in Canada?
Mr. Daoud: Definitely, for sure. To answer the first part of your question, from my first recommendation of policy change, it’s very easy. You can introduce a bill tomorrow, and the policy can be changed. It’s a policy that is within all federal funding bodies. It exists whether it’s in Infrastructure Canada, ESDC, that’s there. The only thing stopping that from changing is political will.
Aside from that, for the second recommendation, Canada does have a lot of soft power in the world, but it rarely leverages it for this. We seem to be vocal on what we do when it comes to refugees, and this is not taking anything away from Canada. Canada does do a lot. However, we should be able to push the idea of global responsibility sharing when it comes to refugees. For example, with the Syrian crisis, we saw countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey take in millions of refugees, and we took in a lot as well. However, it’s not a particularly fair array of responsibilities in which only the neighbouring countries have to take such a high substantial amount.
As far as what we can do for supports within Canada, I think expanding both our programs would be great. Even pushing for more innovative programs, like my colleague is pushing, is very important. We have to be creative and think outside the box when tackling these tough issues because the numbers of global migration we are facing today are historical. That’s why I’m also suggesting proactive measures.
We have to see how our foreign policies influence these countries and what we do in Latin America and the Middle East influences displacement, so we have to ensure we are not partaking in the displacement of individuals who are showing up on our borders.
Senator Arnot: Ms. Sherrell, how do you assess the impact of forced global displacement on the integration process of refugees and migrants in British Columbia? Can you give us some examples of that? Are you seeing any patterns arising that influence the way you want to do your work?
Ms. Sherrell: Thank you for the questions. One of the things from both a research and a service perspective in terms of outcomes in Canada are silos and the impact of silos and the need to take an asset-based approach to services. People are refugees until they get to Canada. Resettled refugees have the right to permanent residence when they get to Canadian soil, and yet there is still an assumption of a need that’s deficit-based.
When we look at some of the needs that people have, there are spaces that are grey areas. We know in Canada that immigration is federal and health is provincial. Yet, as I talked about the Interim Federal Health Program, one of the biggest challenges we face is that intersectional approach is not just at the program level and looking at the myriad needs of someone but it’s actually having spaces of dialogue between federal and provincial and territorial governments to address some of the issues.
When you are choosing people and selecting based on vulnerability, we need to make sure supports are able to be in place for those who need them, and health is an area where we’re seeing the most impact right now when provinces may or may not have that impact on being able to ensure that supports are in place through what is a national program.
Senator Arnot: I have a question on second round for Ms. Wagner.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much to each of you and your organizations for all the work you do.
I recently was having discussions with folks about a number of issues around the supports that are put in place for refugees. It strikes me that there is an awful lot of what I would describe as xenophobic and racist rhetoric, and I think your evidence has underscored that by saying the attempts to supposedly closed the loops have actually resulted in more people coming in.
Can you elaborate on what funding streams are available right now to support people coming in as refugees? What income supports, housing supports, and who provides those supports, how they are provided; and if it is organizations like yours doing so in the face of funding revisions, is there anything you are comfortable sharing — obviously this is a public forum — about how you bridge what seems to be fairly obvious gaps in terms of available assistance funding?
Ms. Sherrell: Thank you for the question. Part of it depends on how you arrive in Canada. When we look at resettled refugees, individuals who come through private sponsorship receive financial support roughly equivalent to provincial income assistance for 12 months from their sponsors as social supports. When they are provided housing, either staying with family or provided housing by the sponsors for a period of one year, blended Visa Office Referred or identified by the UNHCR, a private sponsor provides 12 months of social support, six months of financial and the Government of Canada through the Resettlement Assistance Program provides six months of financial support.
The Resettlement Assistance Program is for government-assisted refugees selected on vulnerability criteria. They receive 12 months of financial support through the federal IRCC, the resettlement assistance income support. They receive temporary accommodations for anywhere, depending on the numbers, from three weeks to it could be six weeks during times of high arrivals, complex cases longer, through organizations like ours. They are met at the airport. They come to temporary accommodations, and while they are in temporary accommodations they are provided supports to meet their basic needs; so that’s identifying the needs helping them to apply for everything from social insurance numbers, health care in the province, to child tax benefits. They are provided orientations, and we help them find housing, again based on income support, which is approximately equal to provincial social assistance.
Then we have refugee claimants. While the attention is often on Quebec and Roxham Road, the numbers going to Ontario and B.C. continue to rise as well. They are ineligible for all federal government funded programming, so when they come, they are on their own to find any sort of accommodations, temporary or permanent. I’m talking at the highest level they are ineligible for federal language employment or settlement programming and it’s left to the provinces to be able to fund. So in British Columbia, we have been fortunate that from the repatriation of services in 2014 the province of B.C. has continued to provide services and fund services for refugee claimants. They’re on a far smaller scale, but they do include mental health supports.
In many other provinces, there may be no or almost no assistance, or targeted supports provided for refugee claimants. Yet, it’s one of the critical streams in Canada’s stated humanitarian programming.
Mr. Daoud: The main difference I would say is refugees have been recognized either by the UNHCR or through private sponsorship and refugee claimants as availability of funding. Refugee claimants have no stream. Organizations cannot apply to any governmental stream that specifically targets refugee claimants. The provinces might be able to get some federal funding to do that; however, only the provinces can use that money. For example, at the Ministry of Immigration, Francisation and Integration, or MIFI, our version of the IRCC in Quebec, they also have a similar rule wherein you cannot use this money to provide services for refugee claimants. More or less for refugee claimants, it is non-existent. You have to depend primarily on private funding.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for being here and for your testimony today. I’d like to start with a question for you, Mr. Daoud, and my colleague here asked about this as well — responsibility sharing. You mentioned it in your evidence, and it also came up in a recent response to a question.
I’m wondering if you have some specific examples of what countries can take on with this model of aid. Could you go a bit more in depth in telling us about responsibility sharing?
Mr. Daoud: I think responsibility sharing has a lot to do with our participation in international programming and our foreign policy decisions. I cut it down to two components. First, something I think we can immediately do is adapt our foreign policy decisions to ensure that displacement doesn’t happen. That’s a form of responsibility sharing. That’s a form of ensuring and echoing to the global community that we cannot continue making decisions that force displacement.
There is, for example, like I mentioned in my evidence, direct evidence of our contribution to the Yemeni crisis. That is undeniable at this point. Yemen has produced a high number of displaced individuals throughout the past three years. That’s step one.
Step two is to try to push our successful models in an international forum for other countries to adopt. There are a lot of rich countries out there that are growing and need people. Our private sponsorship program is a model, something that’s good and needs to be championed in other parts of the world as well. That’s a very good way of showing responsibility sharing.
The way we even pick our immigration numbers or how we hope to bring people here also has to change. If you want, I can sit with you for a half-hour after and go through a bunch of ideas, but off the top of my head, I think those are concrete examples of how we can make quick change. Hopefully, that addresses your concerns.
Senator Bernard: That’s very helpful. Thank you. My second question is for you, Ms. Sherrell.
You talked about mental health and highlighted the gaps in services. I’m hearing there is a cost when we don’t provide mental health services. Can you talk a bit about that? Also, can you talk a bit about whether or not there are mental health services, and if yes, are they culturally responsive? Are they really targeting?
Ms. Sherrell: Thank you. Definitely this is a passion area for me. Is there a cost to not providing services? Absolutely.
As a researcher — and I came into the sector through research — I will never forget interviewing somebody in their home, a single mother with three young children who had a two-bedroom basement suite. By Canadian standards, this would be overcrowded. But the reality is, she didn’t use one of the bedrooms because it had a bit of a mildew smell and the light was one of those unprotected light bulbs, and it reminded her of having been held in a room and tortured. She couldn’t go into that room, so it was actually a family of four in one bedroom.
When you have been tortured, you dissociate. Imagine dissociating when something reminds you of trauma. This can be as simple as a light flickering when you’re walking down the road. Think of dissociating in a classroom, on a job interview or on the job. When we don’t address mental health — and this is not to pathologize or say that every refugee requires clinical supports, but when they are needed, we need to make sure that they are provided.
In terms of being culturally competent, this is one area where we see that intersectional need when it comes to levels of government. From a provincial perspective, refugees are eligible for health services as are any other, for example, British Columbian. Yet we know the wait lists are long. We know how difficult it is to access mental health supports, even when you are English- or French-speaking from childhood. We have been very fortunate, through provincial support in British Columbia, to champion a model that has culturally sensitive first-language clinical counsellors or counsellors who are using trained interpreters to be able to provide culturally sensitive trauma therapies ranging from group therapies that are psycho-socially based on clinical counselling.
I would respectfully recommend you take a look at the work of the Vancouver Association for Survivors of Torture. They have an excellent track record of having been able to provide to survivors of torture and to refugees coming into British Columbia.
The Chair: Senators, we have a little bit of time for the second round. However, it’s going to be two minutes only, with questions and answers limited to two minutes. We are under a bit of a time crunch.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you once again for your testimonies.
We haven’t talked much about unaccompanied children arriving in Canada. You know that, for many years, experts and humanitarian organizations have been concerned about the state of care for these children when they arrive here unaccompanied.
Could you tell us more about this? Are you aware of the situation of unaccompanied children arriving in Canada, and are there any specific recommendations you could make?
[English]
Ms. Sherrell: Thank you. Our organization has a very close relationship with our Ministry of Children and Family Development. While we don’t see as high numbers of unaccompanied minors in B.C. as in other provinces, there is that connection and working closely with the province to ensure there is a responsible adult, because that’s a liability that organizations can’t take on, knowing that we need that support for those children not just in the short term but over the longer term.
In British Columbia, they are supported through aging into adulthood, but I think one of the recommendations that bears investigation is when you have traumatized children or children who have been forced to flee who have come on their own, the support they need may be longer than the aging out in Canadian standards. Making sure the appropriate and culturally sensitive supports are available is key.
Senator Omidvar: I will pose my questions and ask the witnesses to kindly get back to us in writing. I’m not sure I can ask them in two minutes, and these are important questions.
My first question is to Mr. Daoud. I am really taken by your recommending to us on the intersection between foreign policy and forced global displacement. We haven’t heard that before. I will ask you to dig a little deeper and think about a recommendation to us around regional responsibility sharing, let’s say in the Middle East, the African states, Colombia and Ecuador, where there are some interesting things happening in terms of responding to the flow of refugees from Venezuela.
Ms. Wagner, I have a quick yes-or-no question for you. Am I correct in stating that the IELTS exam has a fee attached to it? How much is that fee?
Ms. Wagner: Yes. It differs by country. Generally, it is around US$200, but we’ve seen it as high as US$500.
Senator Omidvar: This is for refugees? I would like to see a recommendation from you in writing as to that.
Also to you, Ms. Wagner, your program that you are working on — and congratulations on it. It is really innovative. It is a teeny, tiny program. We can’t really talk about it, but in five years, I hope we will.
What is your vision for the program five years out? We would love to see something around that. Thank you both.
Senator Arnot: This question is for Ms. Wagner. As has been noted, TalentLift Canada is very innovative and very successful, and it is a very promising model. You are integrating people right into the economy. You have, as I understand it, an inventory of people with skills, and you match it to partners, whether it is corporate or government.
What are the impediments to the sustained success of your program? What needs to be addressed to ensure that it is sustained?
Ms. Wagner: That’s an excellent question. Thank you for that.
You have captured it perfectly. We have a database where people can register their skills directly, and we are working with partners to tap into a larger talent pool as well.
I would say one impediment or area that I think is very important is to embed the framework and the flexibility of the EMPP. Right now we have this program available to us through a public policy. I believe that it should be embedded in our laws and our regulations, and I do think that the risk of having a program be cut or axed by a future government of any stripe is stronger if it is a standalone program. If it is actually embedded across the economic stream, I think that provides resilience. It makes it a lot harder to cut and change. That would be one area of recommendations.
I would also say, linking to what the first panel dove into a little bit more, which I really appreciated, was speaking about building skills pipelines in countries of origin. Some of the policy frameworks around work rights, around training rights and all of that significantly impacts someone’s competitiveness for a Canadian job and skilled visa opportunity. The more open work permit systems are, especially, where people are currently living, that’s going to really impact how much we can scale.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
To the witnesses, if you feel there is anything that we missed, or if you would like to make a written submission to us, you can. We have an hour, but even an hour wasn’t enough. Thank you very much for being here.
Senator Gerba, did you have a question?
Senator Gerba: Yes.
The Chair: Please ask your question very quickly, and they can give us a written answer.
Senator Gerba: Thank you. Yes, I have a question for Mr. Daoud.
[Translation]
You said that you help refugees with legal issues. The Auditor General recently said that the time taken to process legal documents for refugees was very worrying.
Do you have any recommendations for reducing these times, which are currently around 26 months?
[English]
The Chair: We are out of time. I want to thank all our witnesses for agreeing to participate in this important study. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
Colleagues and guests, the public portion of our meeting is now over. We will suspend the meeting for a few seconds and then continue in camera to discuss a draft agenda.
(The committee continued in camera.)