I'm quite excited to be here, to be working with all of my colleagues on what is a critically important piece of legislation that constitutes part of a broader package to bring balanced reform back to Canada's asylum system.
These balanced reforms will result in bona fide refugees getting faster protection in Canada, much faster than is currently the case, while those who seek to abuse our country's generosity would also, on the other side, be removed much more quickly. These reforms would also enhance the fairness of our system and would ensure that the asylum system actually exceeds our domestic and international legal obligations.
Chairman, as part of the package, we are also proposing to expand our refugee resettlement programs and increase the number of UN refugees and others, who are often living in camps or urban slums and are victims of conflict and ethnic cleansing...we would increase our welcome to those kinds of individuals by some 20%, or 2,500 individuals. We would also increase support for the refugee assistance program for the successful integration of government-assisted refugees by some 20%, the first time that program has been increased in a decade.
[Translation]
In essence, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act focuses on improving our asylum system. The act would introduce a new information gathering interview at the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, would provide for a hearing within 60 days, as compared to the current 19 months, and would also introduce a new refugee appeal division, something refugee advocates have been requesting for a long time.
I would be remiss at this point not to point out the extraordinary and admirable efforts made by our colleague Mr. St-Cyr. I know he was disappointed about the failure of his bill. However, there is finally an appeal section, which is even better than what was provided by the legislation in 2002.
This new appeal division would provide most claimants with a second chance, an opportunity to introduce new evidence about their claim and to do so in an oral hearing, if necessary. And, significantly, Mr. Chairman, the bill would make it possible to remove those who would abuse our system within a year of their final IRB decision.
Bill would also put in place authority to develop a list of safe countries of origin. Because I recognize that there has been general concern over this issue, I wish to focus my remarks today on the issue of safe countries of origin.
While I referred last week in the House to our current number one country for asylum claims, and the 97% of claimants who withdrew or abandoned their claims, there have been similar spikes in claims from other countries over the past 25 years. I am referring here to Portugal, Chile, Costa Rica, Hungary in 2002, Czechoslovakia in 1997. Each time, the government, be it Conservative or Liberal, imposed visas following spikes in asylum requests from democratic countries, which were almost all denied by the IRB.
[English]
A safe country of origin would be a country that is a principal source of refugee claims, the overwhelming majority of which are unfounded. These two criteria would be the starting point for even considering whether to review a country for possible inclusion on the list. There's nothing arbitrary about the process we propose. Countries on the list would be chosen in a way that is fair, objective, transparent, and reported to Parliament. They would be placed on the list only after a thorough assessment based on objective criteria.
Such countries would have a human rights record whereby individuals would be offered protection against persecution, as the convention says, for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, and whereby persons would not face the risk of torture or death. This assessment would draw on publicly available reporting and analysis from a wide range of independent sources, including NGOs on human rights.
An advisory panel, including representatives from several government departments, would be established to provide advice on designations and advice to the minister. Input and advice would also be sought from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The panel would also provide submissions recommending removal of a country at any time.
The list of countries would be short, with probably no more than a handful of countries on it at any given time. If you look at the current statistics, only a handful of countries that have a significant number of claims, the overwhelming majority of which are unfounded, would even be considered. The independent panel would then apply the qualitative assessment with respect to human rights practices and the protection of individuals. This is very important, because there are some misconceptions about this. All eligible refugee claimants, including those from designated safe countries, would continue to receive a full oral hearing before an independent decision-maker at the IRB, as they do under the current system, and would continue to have access to the Federal Court. We would continue to exceed our charter and international legal obligations with respect to claimants coming from designated safe countries.
While claimants from such countries of origin would still be able to seek judicial review, as I've said, they would of course not have access to the new RAD. This is because, Mr. Chairman, for the handful of typically democratic and rights-respecting countries from which we receive huge waves of unfounded claims, claims that are not happening spontaneously but are very often organized, we need some type of tool to accelerate the process, as most of the western European asylum systems have, short of having to resort to the blunt instrument of visa imposition, which successive governments of different parties have had to do. As I mentioned, most western European asylum systems have for consideration a country designation process to accelerate claims from safe countries. Mr. Guterres, the UN High Commissioner, said here in Ottawa that, “There are indeed safe countries of origin. There are indeed countries in which there is a presumption that refugee claims will probably not be as strong as in other countries.”
I should mention, parenthetically, that for several years he was Prime Minister of Portugal, where they have a very strong SCO system.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that my parliamentary colleagues have also expressed concern about this aspect of my proposals, and that is why I am here today. I want to hear from members of the standing committee on this issue. I am extending a hand of openness toward my colleagues to modify the bill to address concerns. I am prepared to discuss the matter in good faith and transparency.
[English]
Colleagues, the safe country of origin is a critical tool to manage a spike in claims from countries that observe international human rights norms and obligations and that protect their citizens. The option is not to have a SCO process in the reformed asylum system or nothing at all; the option is to have that as a tool to deal with these waves of unfounded claims or to have access to one tool only, which is the imposition of a visa. I think it's important to keep that in mind.
I'm pleased to see how well these reforms have been received.
The Globe and Mail editorialized, and I quote:
Canada has a crying need for a revamped refugee-determination system, and it is to the credit of the...government that in a minority Parliament it has crafted a bold set of proposals that are fair and respect due process, while also seeking to deter those who would play this country for fools.
The Toronto Star endorsed these reforms, saying that this government “...deserves credit for showing the political will to act on an issue ducked” in the past.
The Montreal Gazette wrote that “Bill C-11...is a solid and sensible attempt...to kick-start a system that is wallowing in disarray” and that it “is a reform whose time has come”.
Experts like Peter Showler, former chair of the IRB and head of the refugee policy forum at the U of O, said, “It is even more difficult to design an entire refugee claim that is both fast and fair. The...government has done just that....”
But most importantly, Canadians support these measures by an overwhelming majority. By four to one, Canadians say that “...more needs to be done to quickly remove from Canada people whose refugee claims are unfounded and rejected”. Eighty-four percent of Canadians say that measures should be taken to reform the refugee system. And “81 per cent agreed that 'all refugee claims should be dealt with more quickly so that genuine refugees can settle in Canada faster and bogus claimants be sent home more quickly'”. This is according to a Decima Research poll.
Mr. Chairman, I want to close by emphasizing this.
[Translation]
I must say the amendments I am putting forward would help us maintain Canada's noble humanitarian tradition as it will allow for the protection of those that are persecuted while expediting the removal of individuals who do not need Canada's protection.
[English]
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I need to emphasize that should this bill not succeed in getting parliamentary consensus and being adopted, we will miss, frankly, an historic opportunity. I think everyone involved in this system, all of its observers, has recognized for a long time that there were some serious dysfunctionalities within our asylum system. It's not working well enough for bona fide victims of persecution. It's working too well, one could say, for those who come here who don't need our protection and who are able to stay for several years. It's not working for taxpayers.
It needs to be reformed, and if we want to get a refugee appeal division in place, if we want to be able to allocate more resources to resettle more of those who are in dire straits around the world, through our 20% increase in resettlement under the assistance program, if we want faster protection for bona fide refugees, if we want a tool that can help us to consider avoiding the imposition of visas in the future that are injurious to our diplomatic and commercial relations, if we want all of these things, Mr. Chairman, then I submit that this is a sound and balanced package that can be supported by all of those who believe in Canada's humanitarian tradition as a place of refuge.
I am happy to take your questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be splitting my time with the honourable member from Bourassa.
Minister, as you know, we will be listening to many witnesses in the coming days, and we will do our best to listen to as many groups as possible to get an assessment of what they believe is the right course of action for our country as it relates to the changes you propose.
Minister, during second reading I asked whether you were open to further measures to increase the transparency and the accountability of the designated country of origin process. You responded by saying that you are open to reasonable amendments at the committee stage, and enough factors are still missing from the bill that would make designated country of origin provision transparent and accountable.
First, I would like to suggest that the word “safe” appear in the legislation. Much more detail, of course, is required about what criteria you would use to determine whether to designate a country as safe. An amendment should consider whether a country is a signatory to relevant international human rights instruments and its human rights record with respect to the same. The amendment should also consider the availability in the country for seeking state protection and redress.
You have said that the designated country of origin list should not be an exhaustive one. In that case, you must include criteria that focus on how countries will in fact be considered for designation. In this regard, I would suggest that these criteria should include a combination of the volume of claims from that country and the associated acceptance rate at the IRB for that country.
I also think it would be of great assistance to the committee's deliberations on the safe country issue if the minister, you, were to bring the draft regulations to the committee that describe the designation process in more detail.
Essentially, Minister, will you commit to accepting these factors for an amendment and to bring draft regulations to the committee?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that constructive question from Mr. Bevilacqua.
I did indicate indeed at second reading my openness to an amendment that would incorporate some of these principles. I didn't hear anything to which I would object in the parameters that Mr. Bevilacqua has outlined for a possible amendment to the bill.
I do agree that there should be more detail in the bill than currently is the case with respect to both the criteria for designation of safe countries and clear transparency of the process, which we should also have. The answer is yes, I would be prepared to recommend government support for an amendment that includes those criteria that include reference to “safe” as a principle; to the numeric criteria, such as a country that is a large source of asylum claims, the vast majority of which are unfounded; and the qualitative criteria, including compliance with the various relevant international human rights instruments.
I would also be prepared to table, as I have indicated to a number of members of this committee, by way of a court letter, draft regulations on the process for designation. Now, I have to just put a caveat here. Obviously the cabinet process exists for pre-publication, for pre-gazetting, and public commentary prior to final implementation. I can't completely pre-determine the outcome of the public commentary, but we will endeavour, as a department, to share our draft suggested regulations for comments from this committee.
There is just one fly in the ointment, which is that the draft regulations would be based on the amendment that presumably will be adopted by the committee. I'd like to hear from the committee as to when would be the optimal time to present draft regulations that would define the process for designating safe countries.
But long story short, yes.
:
To be absolutely honest, I was not expecting the kind of positive response we got, because this is such a difficult issue, with strongly held views. But I think there's a pretty broad consensus that something needs to be done.
This is an honest, balanced effort to achieve that, which is why every single newspaper editorial I've seen, with one exception—I think we have 15 or 20 here—from the Toronto Star to the National Post, from the Halifax Chronicle Herald to the Victoria Times -Colonist, have essentially endorsed the package, as have key stakeholders.
I've quoted one, but I see here the coordinator of the Catholic Immigration Society, Madame Godbout, saying, “I am strongly in support of stopping the abuse of the inland refugee determination system.”
I have the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society saying, “The changes to the refugee system proposed by the...government are a big step in the right direction.”
The Chinese Women's Association of Toronto says, “I am writing you to support your announcement of the refugee reform. That is good news for the Chinese community.”
I'd be happy to table the pages and pages of endorsements from settlement organizations, ethnocultural organizations, refugee policy experts, and media commentators. I think this reflects a pretty broad consensus. Now, that's not to dismiss the fact that there are people with legitimate concerns that we will work through here at the committee.
:
I actually think this is an important issue. It came up at almost every opposition speech at second reading, and understandably so.
There is this ridiculous accusation from some people that the government.... I've read these ridiculous articles that say the government planned a crisis in the system by building up this big backlog. Look, the reforms are necessary in large part because large backlogs have been a permanent feature of this asylum system for well over a decade. The average size of the backlog of pending asylum claims before the IRB was 40,000 in the past decade alone. At one point, under the previous Liberal government, it was up to 52,000.
The previous government made some sensible efforts to try to reduce this by injecting short-term resources into the IRB and the CBSA. They didn't work. They worked in the short term to reduce the backlog, for example, down to 20,000. But then it just starts going back up again.
This is the story of our current, frankly broken, refugee system. It is so slow moving and so cumbersome that it creates a vicious cycle. The slower moving it is, the greater the incentive for false claimants to enter the system seeking to immigrate to Canada through the back door of the asylum system. And then the backlogs get bigger.
Now some have said that all we need to do is maintain the current system but spend more and speed things up. Bill Clinton once said that one definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome. I think it would be a disservice to Canadian taxpayers, to refugees, and to the public confidence in our asylum system if we were simply to dump more money--and this is what we've done in the past--without fixing the architecture of the system in a balanced way, which is what we seek to do.
When our government came to office, we inherited a 20,000-person backlog. Then, between 2006 and 2008 we saw a 60% increase in the number of claims. Altogether, since we took office, there have been about 20,000 more claims made than what is the capacity of the fully funded, fully staffed IRB to finalize decisions, which over four years would be 100,000 finalizations, or 25,000 per year.
It is true that part of the current backlog--and I admit this--is attributable to a short-term period of vacancies on the IRB as the government was moving to adopt a new and more rigorous pre-screening process. I'm pleased to say that it's working. Since I became minister, I have done 99 appointments or re-appointments. The RPD and the IRB are at 99% occupancy. And we're now beginning to turn the corner on the backlog, thanks in part to the visa impositions last year. That was a difficult decision, but we now finally have a surplus, if you will, of finalizations over claims made. We're starting to turn the corner, but we won't really be able to turn the corner in a significant way without such reforms.
:
Minister, I think that what you are trying to have passed is something of an omnibus bill.
I am all for changing the process. Besides, that is something we both have already discussed. As for making sure that we do not weigh down the administrative process, while maintaining the right to a hearing, and eventually an appeal, that is something I fully agree with, as I told you at the outset. However, in trying to make such far-reaching changes, you might go from being the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, to being the Minister of Labelling. This all appears to be a labelling exercise.
In trying to manage population movements—speaking in practical terms— we are confronted by a number of facts. You know that all ministers of Immigration have imposed visas, which is quite normal and correct. However, ministers of Immigration should never give up their power to take exceptional measures when need be. The concept of “safe countries”, would create two systems: one intended for people from safe countries and another for people from countries that are not considered as such. That would undermine our distinctively Canadian system, which recognizes that each case is specific and unique.
You currently have regulatory powers that allow you to effectively manage cases of abuse. If this were a bill to improve the process, I would support you. I think that would be a good thing. We indeed have to cut down on as much legal quibbling as possible, while ensuring that people can defend themselves appropriately. I have full confidence in the public servants who support you. We need customs personnel who are adequately trained and who could make the decisions concerning refugee claims, based on specific criteria, as if they had the minister's delegated authority, and all the better if refugee claimants can file appeals with the Immigration and Refugee Board, depending on the merits of their cases.
To echo the question of my colleague, Mr. St-Cyr, I do not understand why this bill removes powers from the minister, depending on whether an individual comes from a safe or unsafe country. Things could be done differently if you retained the power to make exceptions in exceptional situations, a power that has been granted to all ministers of Immigration. Our role is to achieve a balance between the established system and the power of the minister to make decisions in exceptional circumstances. If we do not do that, we might weaken our entire immigration system, which has been built up over the past decades.
You say that you are ready to bring forward amendments. Would it not have been better to retain that exceptional power in the case of safe countries, rather than abandoning those responsibilities, as this leads me to believe? I am concerned that you might decide not to file appeals to the Federal Court in exceptional circumstances involving a safe country and not submit those cases to the normal process, despite the general ability to file an appeal with the Federal Court.
:
Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
I think the minister was correct in saying that the reforms that are being proposed here form part of a very balanced package that looks to ensure that, as Mr. Bevilacqua has said, we don't create new bottlenecks in the system, as has been the case in the last number of years. Ensuring the timeliness of decisions at the front end is critical to ensuring that those people who have a founded basis for protection from Canada are able to make their claim in a timely manner and are able to do that without being delayed unnecessarily.
As the members are probably aware, it now takes approximately 19 months for a hearing to be held at the IRB for a claimant. Under the proposed reforms, that will happen within 60 days of the triage interview, which should happen within eight days of arrival in Canada. Our view is that this should provide sufficient time for individuals to be able to provide information to IRB officials at the first instance within the eight-day triage period, as opposed to the almost 30-day period that is available now for completing the personal information form. Also, within the ensuing 60 days, there should be sufficient opportunity to engage counsel as required or if necessary and to gather additional evidence to present at the initial hearing at the refugee determination division.
With this more consistent and coherent collection of information at the front end now, we think the decision-makers at the first hearing at the refugee determination division will have better information to be able to make decisions more quickly and to speed up the processing of cases.
As the minister also mentioned, with the introduction of these streamlined approaches, there is the flexibility now to introduce a refugee appeal division, which will, within four months of a negative decision at the RPD, allow for a hearing based on the merits of the first decision. It will also allow for the introduction of new evidence, which has not been the case to date. With a negative decision there, it will allow for, with leave, appeal to the Federal Court.
:
Thank you for the question.
What's being proposed is a four-year pilot project aimed at encouraging more voluntary returns. It would essentially provide counselling to claimants throughout the refugee determination process with respect to failed claimants' rights and their obligations. For example, many people just don't realize that if they are removed from Canada, that is, if they are deported, they're banned from ever returning.
The pilot project would be delivered in partnership with an independent service provider. The pilot would be located in the greater Toronto area and would consist of two phases. The first phase would be for failed claimants who are being returned to Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. That would essentially be for the first two years of the project. The second phase—again located in Toronto—would be for failed claimants being returned to all other parts of the world.
In addition to counselling, the pilot project would provide a number of other features. For example, it would provide failed asylum claimants with a plane ticket to return home. It would provide funding up to a maximum of $2,000, to be given to the service providers who will be working to facilitate re-integration in the country of origin. The kind of support that is envisaged is educational assistance, employment assistance, and things of that nature. I want to underline that the funding would be provided to the independent service provider to administer; these funds would not be provided directly to the failed claimants. There would be strict eligibility criteria for this program, in particular, no criminality, complete adherence to reporting to the Canada Border Services Agency, complete compliance in obtaining travel documents, and there would also be a temporary bar from ever returning to Canada.
So those are the features of the program. As my colleague mentioned, other countries have very mature programs, in particular, the European countries. The U.K. has had a program along these lines for the last decade. Australia conducted national trials recently and implemented a national program in 2009.
The benefits that we anticipate from the AVR program include: more removals within the one-year timeframe as a result of the incentives to comply; cost savings, including significant cost savings with respect to enforcement activities; less detention; less complex investigations; and less escorted removals. There would also be less risk of failed claimants not appearing for removal, in view of the educational assistance and counselling that would be provided, as has been witnessed by other countries with such programs. The last feature, and perhaps one of the most important ones of the AVR program, would be the way it would facilitate failed claimants' acquisition of travel documents. Individuals would have to cooperate with the CBSA in obtaining travel documents, which has been one of the key impediments to removal.
Those essentially are the highlights of the proposed AVR program.