:
We will basing ourselves on the brief that you received. We will be providing you with only the main excerpts from it.
Thank you for receiving us here, this evening. I would simply point out that the Centre justice et foi is a social analysis centre that is part of the Society of Jesus, better known as the Jesuit religious community. The centre's objective is to participate in building a society based on justice by promoting active citizenship for all, and particularly we encourage the establishment of a welcoming society for newcomers.
Since 1985, through the Vivre ensemble sector under the responsibility of Louise Dionne, we have been working on issues pertaining to immigration, refugee protection and the reception and integration of newcomers.
Before discussing the details of Bill , which my colleague will be dealing with, I would simply like to point out some general aspects pertaining to the context of this bill. First of all, over the past few decades, we have seen awareness and respect for rights and democracy gain significant ground, making it increasingly more intolerable to accept situations in the world where these conditions do not exist.
Hence we have seen the types of persecution defined by the Geneva Convention applying to more and more individuals, groups and regions throughout the world and an increasing number of individuals are forced to apply for asylum. This situation will not change in the years to come. Regardless of how we try to restrict, monitor or turn away people requiring protection, they will find other ways of coming. It is absolutely essential that we have a bill, a reform, an immigration act, and in particular, refugee protection, that are able to meet our challenges.
I would like to point out that this trend that we see in the bill is a repetition of many aspects and realities that we see in other North American and European countries, at least in the northern hemisphere. Well ahead of us, these countries implemented certain measures such as their visa policies, accelerated asylum review procedures, sanctions against carriers and other measures.
Now that these measures have been introduced, particularly the measure pertaining to the accelerated asylum application review procedure, which this bill deals with specifically, it seems to me that we have to look at the experience in other countries. We are already able to see that the measures covered by the bill are not effective, that illegal migration is increasing and has not been decreased by such measures. We have especially noticed that these measures have been particularly negative for human rights. The fact that Canada has based itself on these models, which have not proven to be effective, is extremely worrisome and questionable.
In the few minutes remaining, I would like to allow my colleague to present the more specific aspects of the bill.
We have proposed six recommendations that pertain to four areas of concern in the bill. Our concerns pertain to the following areas: unequal treatment based on origin, access to fair and equitable procedures that take into account the difficulties encountered by refugee claimants, and access to humanitarian and compassionate applications.
The bill provides for the creation of a list of “safe countries of origin”. Nationals of these countries will have no right to appeal a negative decision by the Refugee Protection Division.
Implementation of this policy is particularly problematic, as the concept of “safe third country” leads to different treatment of the refugee protection claim based on the claimant's geographic origin. That is contrary to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which requires that states parties not discriminate on the basis of race, religion or country of origin.
In fact, the British courts have condemned decisions made by the government because of violations of the principle of non-refoulement, the right to family life or privacy. They have further stated that the Home Secretary could not rely on the mere fact that the third party has signed the Geneva Convention as a basis for finding it safe: he must make sure that the country is acting in good faith and compliance with its international obligations.
Given the time, I will cut my presentation short. My first recommendation is that clause 109.1, which pertains to designated countries of origin, be removed from the bill.
I wish to raise another point. The bill provides that the first interview is to be conducted by public servants. Under subclause 169.1(2) in the bill, the members of the Refugee Protection Division are appointed under the Public Service Employment Act. Again, this is an amendment modelled on the British system, where immigration officers conduct the initial interview, which is a crucial stage at which claims are screened. These officials do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality, and this is a source of concern in view of the government's political objectives. In the United Kingdom, some observers have expressed their concerns regarding the qualifications and training of these officers and the broad powers they are given.
This is why we are recommending that subclause 169.1(2) in the bill be replaced with a new subclause that will provide that the members of the Refugee Protection Division are appointed by the chair of the IRB from a pool of highly-qualified candidates, based on the recommendations of a selection committee and in accordance with the criteria provided in the act. We are recommending that it also be specified that the members may be public servants.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, committee members, ladies and gentlemen. We have a submission that is on the way and I'll be reading excerpts from that submission.
CAPIC welcomes the opportunity to appear before this committee. We'd like to offer you some different perspectives and workable ideas. Our submission is based on recent interviews with refugee claimants, both current claimants and successful claimants. The existing refugee system is in need of fixing, and Bill contains both administrative and program fixes. It is to be praised for some new thinking.
We'd like to extend that new thinking. We will focus on three key elements. First, what factors influence an applicant's decision to make a refugee claim in Canada? Second, how can the new process be improved to better protect those who need sanctuary? Third, what elements must be retained to better program integrity?
First, many claimants learn about the refugee option from friends and relatives who are already here or from their communities outside their home country, most commonly in the United States. For example, there is a Creole radio station in Florida that refers individuals to an 800 number where they get such advice.
Second, many claimants come to the border after believing stories they hear from unscrupulous immigration facilitators. For example, we've included in our brief copies of ads run in Mexico by a ghost agent working out of Montreal, who offers to tell applicants exactly how to claim refugee status in Canada for $150, so they can then work here for several years.
Third, some refugees pay human traffickers for false documents and transportation assistance to avoid legal detection until they reach the Canadian border. We know of a consultant who sells maps to the Colombian community in the United States, showing them how best to avoid border inspections.
However, no matter how refugee claimants may choose to come to Canada, one thing is common to them all: rarely are intended claimants given a full and complete picture of the refugee process or other options to enter Canada legally. They are making risky, sometimes life-changing decisions based on incomplete, if not utterly false, information.
The government's initiative to offer failed claimants resettlement assistance abroad is a good one. This is an example of new thinking, but we believe it could also be improved. It's our members' experience that many who claim refugee status would not do so if they had a full explanation of what the process entails or if they found they could qualify to work and live in Canada under another immigration program.
To help refugee claimants make an informed choice, we recommend that they be given the opportunity to have all their options explained to them very early in the process. We believe the eight-day interview mechanism should be changed to thirty days to allow time for individuals, after entering at a port of entry or after indicating once in Canada that they want to file a claim, to consult an authorized third party who would help them understand other immigration options, including applying outside Canada in some other category, and fully understand the quality of their refugee claim.
When it comes to unscrupulous agents, this committee recommended changes two years ago to the regulations, which would have closed loopholes that permit said agents to operate. This committee also recommended that the body charged with regulating immigration consultants be wound down, reconstituted, and given more powers to prosecute those who would pervert the system, which would include the so-called bottom feeders who induce people to take enormous risks in travelling to Canada, often illegally, and in making false refugee claims. This committee repeated those recommendations last year.
We have heard that the government is moving at last to implement the recommendations of this committee, and we support that initiative wholeheartedly. This would help reduce the number of false claims. But we would like the committee to note that it is not a problem restricted to immigration consultants, regulated or unregulated. In fact, we believe that many more refugee cases are filed by lawyers than by consultants.
With regard to filing false claims, in some cases claimants cooperate willingly with unethical agents, paying for false documents and for preparation of claims that are without merit. The biggest deterrent to doing this would be a fast and efficient process that would return them to their home country before they had a chance to recoup their expenses. This then would send a message to that community that any money spent would be wasted, and they would move on to easier pickings.
For those who set out to break the law in Canada, mechanisms already exist to bring these individuals to justice. However, when it comes to immigration it's often unclear to the general public who they should call. Is it the RCMP, the local police, CBSA? What we need is a single hotline where individuals can anonymously report cases of immigration fraud or related criminal activity.
Many of our members report having received such calls from individuals who come from countries where the rule of law is compromised or even non-existent. It is heartening to see that they have already learned the value of participatory justice in Canada, but even more heartbreaking to see that little or nothing is done with their information.
With respect to the safe country of origin, designating certain countries as safe can reduce the number of false claims. However, our suggestion is that you incorporate into the concept that there are populations within any country, no matter how free or democratic, who are at risk of persecution. This list of populations at risk could be worked out with stakeholders and updated frequently.
I recognize the extreme time limits. I will be brief.
I would like to address two aspects of the proposed legislation. Specifically, I'll make a general comment on how Canada's vulnerability to illegitimate refugee claims undermines the purposes of the 1951 convention. Secondly, I will make a short comparison of some of the primary proposals in the bill versus the practice in comparable western democracies.
I'd actually like to start with a short parable, if you'll indulge me. Some years ago, when I lived in New York City, I met a young Canadian woman who'd just moved to New York. One day we were walking down the street in Greenwich Village and she was approached by a man who proceeded to spin a long tale of woe. It was something about needing money for a cab to go somewhere to meet somebody. Anyway, the bottom line was he wanted $20. When he finished, I told my Canadian friend not to give him anything, because it was a scam. She gave him $20 anyway.
A few days later, we found ourselves at the same corner and, sure enough, the same man approached us and told exactly the same story. This time she refused to give him the money. After I gently teased her about her earlier gullibility, she became indignant and defensive. She said she'd rather be a sucker than become cynical.
I've thought of this story frequently as I've reviewed the state of Canadian refugee policy. I've concluded that if Canada wants a motto for its current system, I would humbly suggest the motto “we'd rather be suckers”.
By almost any measure, Canada's refugee system compares unfavourably to other western systems. Some Canadians may take misguided pride in being so indulgent to so many claimants, whether they're legitimate or not. Given the much higher acceptance rate in Canada, I would submit that most of them are not legitimate. These Canadians may console themselves that at least they're not cynical. With due respect, I think it is a self-indulgent and dangerous way of thinking; and worse, it actually hurts those the 1951 convention was intended to help.
The refugees who make it to Canada and apply for refugee status in Canada are disproportionately among the most fortunate, sophisticated, and wealthy of all claimants, legitimate or illegitimate. By contrast, most genuine refugees do not make it much farther than across the border of the country they're fleeing to the first safe haven they can find, where they're often housed in UN refugee camps.
To its credit, Canada has a great program by which it resettles a select number of these overseas refugees. One of the best features of the proposed reforms, and one the government should be congratulated on, is the increase in the number of these clearly legitimate and deserved resettlements.
Canada spends much more money on inland refugee applications than it does on supporting overseas refugees, and that does not include health care and other state benefits, which can be as much as $1 billion or more a year. Ironically, and sadly, every dollar spent in Canada on refugee processing could be more effectively and profitably spent on overseas refugees. The amount spent to process a single refugee claim in Canada could sustain scores of refugees in UN camps every year.
A truly humane refugee system, one designed to benefit the most refugees and the most needy refugees, would focus on refugees in overseas camps rather than accepting virtually unquestioningly anyone savvy enough to target Canada or anyone wealthy enough to get here.
Because my time is limited, I will be very brief in addressing two aspects of the new bill: the timelines for processing claims and the safe country or designated country provision. My focus here will be on a comparison to other international countries, which is my area of expertise.
The proposed time periods of eight days and 60 days bring Canada in line with other western democracies. Actually, eight days and 60 days are still more generous than many other western democracies.
For example, the time limit for making a refugee determination in Australia is 90 days. In Finland, under their accelerated procedure, the average time is 57 days. In Ireland priority applications are decided within 20 days. In France the initial decision must be made within 21 days. Under the priority process, it's 15 days, and as few as five days if the applicant is in detention. In the Netherlands, decisions in the accelerated stream are made within 48 hours and an appeal must be lodged within 24 hours after that decision is made.
Canada's proposal of an initial information meeting within eight days and a hearing within 60 days is well within the international norm for the processing of claims. Likewise, the designated country provision finally brings Canada in line with best practices in refugee law.
The other option is to use what is called a “manifestly unfounded” or “clearly unfounded” standard for identifying frivolous claims right at the outset of the process, and then those claims can be expedited for removal either without appeal or with an appeal that occurs after the claimant has already left the country.
Virtually every western democracy uses one or both of these methods in streamlining the process, and it's really not too much to say that without one method or the other, reform is futile. Both of those are welcome additions to Canadian refugee law.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for coming here today.
It is true that this bill is extremely important because, first of all, we are talking about individuals and, secondly, the decisions we make today will have an impact on the next five to six years, even though the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has regulatory power to do things.
I would like to thank the Centre justice et foi for its wonderful proposals.
I would like to put things into perspective. I am in favour of setting up an appeal process. I have no objection to public servants being on the frontline, providing they are well trained and claimants are entitled to make a solid appeal if they are turned down.
What is problematic is this list of designated countries. This is not the Agreement on Safe Third Countries. I have already negotiated such an agreement, that is an entirely different matter. That pertains to geographic location, and it is tied to the American reality post-September 11.
You have met many victims and refugees, and therefore I would like you to talk about how these people feel. For example, how would people feel if they were singled out because they came from one country rather than another?
We hear that in Mexico the situation is good because this should be a safe country given that 90% of the claims are turned down. And yet, this country has problems with narcotraffickers, violence against women, same-sex couples, homosexuals, who are persecuted.
I would like you to tell us briefly how these people would feel, and what their frame of mind would be like. Would they feel that they were refugees or second-class refugee claimants?
Go ahead, Ms. Garant or Ms. Dionne.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have read all of the witness statements as part of this review.
Let me begin by thanking all members of the committee for their diligent efforts over the past month. While not all members may agree on all details of the bill and the broader package of reforms, there is no doubt that all members have discharged their duties as legislators with evident concern for this very serious issue in all of its complexity.
And you are right to have done so because, at the end of the day, this reform is not about words on a piece of paper. It is about people. It is about justice, fairness and about redeeming Canada's refugee system from years of dysfunctionality, so that we might better protect those in need of our help, while discouraging those who would abuse our generosity.
[English]
Let's remember why we're here. For too many years governments of different stripes, including of my party, have looked the other way rather than address serious problems that have burdened—many would say have broken—our asylum system. With an average long-term backlog of 40,000 cases, we have a system that forces victims of torture to wait for more than a year and a half for the certainty of Canada's protection, while allowing manifestly false claimants to game our system and our taxpayers for years.
Mexican President Calderon reminded us of the consequences of our broken asylum system just last week, when he said,
I...know that there have been some who, abusing the generosity of the Canadian people, have perverted the noble aims of the asylum system to their own ends, which led the Canadian government to require visas for those travelling between our countries.
He went on to say, “We sincerely hope that the solution that this Parliament is studying through comprehensive amendments to the refugee law will also serve as a bridge that will allow us to renew our exchanges”.
Band-aid solutions have been tried in the past, Mr. Chairman, but they have failed, like injections of more taxpayers' money to fuel the broken status quo, but which left us no further ahead in dealing with a cumbersome system that is, quite frankly, too easily abused.
[Translation]
And so we must act. Bill represents an historic opportunity to do so. I do not pretend that the bill as presented by the government is perfect. But it is the result of years of study and consultation by my ministry, and experts, to design an asylum system that, in the words of former IRB Chair Peter Showler, is both “fast and fair.”
I believe that this bill strikes the right balance. But as I have said from the beginning of the process, the government is open to thoughtful improvements that achieve what I believe is our common goal: a fair and fast asylum system.
[English]
That this is the common goal came clearly to light in March of last year when the official opposition immigration critic, the member for Vaughan, demonstrated leadership by standing in the House of Commons and asking me, “Why has the Conservative government failed to provide a timely and efficient refugee determination system to people who desperately need one?”
His question, to be fair, reflected the policy of his party, which in its 2008 platform said, “A Liberal government will respect Canada's international commitments to refugees while providing a timelier and efficient refugee determination system”.
I replied to his question that I was delighted to hear the interest of the member in hopefully working together to create a more efficient refugee system. We have indeed, all of us, worked together to that end.
As members of the committee will know, I consulted with many of you prior to the introduction of Bill , inviting ideas for sensible asylum reform. Following introduction of the bill, I went across the country to listen to stakeholders and others.
I'm very pleased to report that following that tour, virtually every newspaper editorial board in the country endorsed our reform package, as did dozens of stakeholders. But I took note of concerns expressed by some groups; for example, Christine Morrissey, the founder of the Rainbow Refugee Committee in Vancouver, and Heather Mantle of the Matthew House Refugee Centre in Windsor.
When Bill C-11 came before the House at second reading, I listened to every speech. I can assure you that I've read all the transcripts of this committee's hearings. During all of these debates and consultations, the government has taken note of constructive criticism and we recognize that we must work together with the opposition to craft a bill that will reflect a parliamentary consensus. But let me be clear, we cannot and will not do so at any expense.
As you proceed to clause-by-clause, we are open to sensible amendments that would render a fair and fast refugee determination process. However, if amendments are made to the bill that for example would significantly slow the process or would undermine our efforts to disincentivise waves of false claims from safe democratic countries, then the government will elect not to proceed with the bill and its associated reforms.
So the stakes are high. If members choose to play politics with this real opportunity for balanced reform, then let's be clear as to what we will all be losing. We will lose a new refugee appeal division for the vast majority of claimants, an appeal division that's better than what was contemplated in IRPA in 2002. That means that if the bill fails as a result of unreasonable amendments, no claimants from any country of origin will have access to a refugee appeal division. That will be a choice if people make such amendments.
Protection for bona fide refugees in a few weeks will be lost, rather than 19 months, which is the status quo. Removal of false claimants in about a year, rather than about five years, will be lost, as will some $1.8 billion in savings for taxpayers.
A program of assisted voluntary removal for failed claimants will be lost. Also, $540 million in new resources for the refugee system, including a 20% increase in resettled refugees and a 20% increase in the refugee assistance program for government-assisted refugees, would be lost. Finally, fully independent decision-makers--rather than political appointees--at the refugee protection division of the IRB would be lost.
Colleagues, I sincerely hope that we will not lose these progressive reforms. We can work together to put the interests of Canada, of taxpayers, of victims of persecution ahead of any of our own political interests. We will do so thanks in part, I believe, to the leadership of the official opposition. Their immigration critic has approached the government with determination and with a series of compelling and we believe workable amendments to the bill, as well as related regulations and IRB procedures. Allow me to detail these changes.
In response in particular to Mr. Bevilacqua's request to increase clarity, we propose to include the term “safe” in the legislation in relation to the designation of countries, and to provide greater transparency around the criteria that will have to be met to designate a safe country of origin.
We also propose to clearly limit the powers of the minister in the designation process. The accompanying regulations, which I am pleased to table today in draft form, further outline the criteria that will need to be met for a country to be designated as safe. You will note that these draft regulations further limit the minister's powers and require that a safe designation can only be made if an advisory panel, including at least two independent external human rights experts, recommends it. Of course, as we've said from the beginning, we anticipate the involvement in the UNHCR in that process.
These amendments go a long way toward depoliticizing the designation process.
A second amendment addresses concerns regarding access to the humanitarian and compassionate process. We've tabled an amendment that would allow people who withdraw their refugee claim prior to a hearing before the RPD to make an application for humanitarian and compassionate consideration. So that concurrent bar would be lifted at the front end of the process to allow people to redirect their claim into the appropriate stream.
A third legislative amendment we have proposed is to transfer the pre-removal risk assessment function from my ministry to the IRB. As the IRB presently delivers the majority of risk assessment decision-making, we agree with many experts that it is a more logical place in which to centralize the risk assessment function.
The official opposition immigration critic strongly advocated the views of many that the proposed timelines for the interview and initial hearing are too short. I do not share that concern. I believe, in fact, that the proposed timelines are longer than in all, or virtually all, of the comparable systems--for example, in western Europe--and those are benchmarks against which we must assess ourselves. But in order to get consensus on these reforms, I made the difficult decision to accept Mr. Bevilacqua's recommendations and to write to the IRB to suggest the timeframes for the triage interview or the information-gathering interview be moved from eight days to 15 days, and that the RPD hearing be moved from 60 days to 90 days. We've written to the IRB chairman recommending that and expressing our policy preference, and you will see in the letter tabled before you that he has written back positively.
I'll close now, Mr. Chairman.
Let me be clear, these changes together represent very significant changes to the bill, to procedures, and to regulations, and address most of the principal concerns that have been expressed by opposition members and interest groups. While I frankly have concerns that some of these measures may go too far in the other direction, not maintaining the kind of balance we hoped for, I know that the government must compromise in order to move the Balanced Refugee Reform Act forward, so we will compromise. For the greater good, we will accept these changes.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to once again thank all of you for your hard work. And in particular, I would like to recognize the member for , who has been a tenacious advocate for his party's tradition of fairness and justice, while demonstrating the kind of leadership that we need to make this minority Parliament work for all Canadians.
I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Minister, in your answer to Mr. Coderre, you talked about the need for a mechanism, a tool to speed up the processing of applications and to prevent potential cases of fraud organized by people who want to abuse the generosity of our system.
During our hearings, a variety of witnesses, lawyers, all kinds of representatives, mentioned and put forward another tool. This tool, which is not a list of designated countries, would rather allow the Canada Border Services Agency to isolate cases to be processed by the IRB as a priority. These cases could concern an individual or groups determined on the basis of national criteria. These people would have the same rights, but their files would truly be dealt with quickly. In that way, if it was a case of a situation of abuse, as may have been suspected from the outset, they would be returned to their country of origin quickly.
According to most people, and I also agree, this system would allow us to be fairer, and to not shoulder the blame of having to grant different rights according to the country of origin. Moreover, we would avoid cases being brought before the Federal Court of Canada by people who want to challenge the decision or file a second appeal, as is currently the case, because they feel that they have not had the opportunity to assert their rights.
As you have carefully read all of our interventions, would you be prepared to consider this expedited method of processing individual claims, if the committee judged it to be appropriate, in place of the mechanism based on a list and on the denial of the right of appeal for certain individuals as a result of their country of origin?
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for inviting me to come today to speak with you. My name is Simon Coakeley. I was appointed to the position of Executive Director at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the IRB, in September 2008. As executive director, I am the most senior public servant at the IRB.
The board's adjudicative support and corporate services staff report directly to me, and I report directly to the chairperson. As mentioned, I am accompanied by François Guilbault, who is here today in his capacity as a senior legal advisor to the IRB. Mr. Guilbault has extensive experience with the Board and is very familiar with the legal aspects underpinning the IRB's operations. He would be pleased to answer legal questions related to Bill .
I trust you have received the submissions from the IRB following Mr. Goodman's appearance before this committee on May 6, 2010. As requested, we provided statistics on refugee decisions, our GIC member complement as well as information on the salary ranges for governor in council appointees and the rates of pay for the current public servant decision-makers in the Immigration Division. And finally we provided a link to the Public Service Commission's report on its audit of the IRB, which includes its recommendations and the board's response.
You have expressed a strong interest in the IRB's approach to the staffing of public servant positions in the new Refugee Protection Division, the RPD. To assist in your deliberations, we have also provided the committee with a copy of a letter the chairperson, Mr. Goodman, recently sent to Maria Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission (PSC) regarding staffing plans and priorities in preparation for the implementation of Bill .
In his letter, Mr. Goodman emphasizes that, while the timing of the coming into force of the new legislation is not yet certain and the IRB has not yet developed detailed staffing strategies, it is clear that passage of the bill will require a major realignment in our personnel over the next couple of years. In addition to the establishment of a new RPD and Refugee Appeal Division, this realignment will necessitate significant changes to some existing IRB roles.
The chairperson advised the PSC that, in implementing these changes within the proposed timeframes, the IRB will need to use the full range of available human resources actions, including internal and external competitive processes, assignments and secondments, deployments and appropriately justified non-advertised processes. In doing so, the board will respect all of its obligations under the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, applicable collective agreements, as well as the PSC core and guiding values of merit and non-partisanship, fairness, access, representativeness and transparency.
Over the past few weeks, the IRB has watched with interest witnesses who have appeared before this committee, and we have noted the comments that have been raised regarding the hiring of public servant decision-makers in the new RPD and whether or not they will be independent.
I feel it is important for me to reiterate the commitments made by the IRB chairperson before this committee, i.e., to ensure that the public servant decision-makers of the new RPD will be just as competent and independent as our GIC members are today.
The board will continue to employ a rigorous merit-based screening process, in which all candidates will be evaluated on their skills and abilities against various competencies such as: written communication, conceptual thinking, decision-making, judgment, analytical thinking, oral communication, information seeking, organizational skills, orientation, self-control and cultural sensitivity. This highly comprehensive staffing approach will ensure that only suitable and qualified candidates will be hired.
Current IRB decision-makers come from all segments of Canadian society. They include adjudicators or mediators at other tribunals, teachers, community leaders, lawyers, as well as other federal public servants and people with experience working in international humanitarian organizations. This type of diversity ensures that all members bring unique perspectives to their role as decision-makers, and this makes our adjudicative system stronger.
In order to ensure that we continue to benefit from such diversity within our group of decision-makers, we will proceed with simultaneous recruitment drives both inside and outside the public service, as Mr. Goodman indicated two weeks ago.
Once hired, all decision-makers, whether GIC appointees or public servants, will be provided with an extensive, world-renowned training program. The IRB training program is recognized internationally, as well as by the Federal Court of Canada and the Auditor General, for its thoroughness and professionalism. In addition, new members' performance during the orientation and training period will be assessed before they are permitted to preside over hearings on their own, with additional customized training provided where necessary.
The public servant decision-makers of the new RPD will be subject to the same code of conduct that applies to GIC and Immigration Division public servant decision-makers currently. The code establishes the standards of conduct that govern the professional and ethical responsibilities of members of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, as decision-makers of a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal. New RPD decision-makers will be bound by this same code of conduct.
The fact is that we already have an Immigration Division that is staffed by independent public servant decision-makers, and we have every confidence that we have the tools, practices, mechanisms and training in place to ensure that this adjudicative independence will continue as we transition to the new system.
[English]
As you heard from Mr. Goodman, when he was here on May 6, the IRB began preliminary implementation planning immediately following the tabling of Bill C-11 at the end of March.
To briefly bring you up to date, the week before last, a group of IRB personnel met in Toronto to start mapping out the new process that would need to be put in place from the referral of a claim to the RPD decision, with a particular focus on how the interview function would work. A similar group met in Ottawa last week to do the same thing for the new RAD processes. A lot of good ideas were generated, but it's still too early for us to make final decisions on which ones we will actually implement, because we are fully aware that the details of the legislation may be amended.
For us, the real work to prepare for implementation can only get under way once Bill C-11 receives royal assent in Parliament and transition funding is released. At that point, we will develop rules, finalize work descriptions and accountability profiles for all of the new positions to be created, launch staffing processes, secure office space, and so forth.
I'd like to take a minute to touch briefly on the rule-making process. Rules are one type of policy articulated by the board. Rules, like regulations, are binding. The rules will establish the procedures that must be followed in the refugee protection division, including the timelines for the information-gathering interview and the first-level hearing.
For example, the rules will establish such details as how and when documents are to be provided by the claimant to the RPD and vice versa and the roles and responsibilities of IRB personnel supporting the adjudicative functions. They will also set out the factors that decision-makers will have to take into account when deciding whether to adjourn interviews or hearings at the RPD. Another set of rules will obviously have to be developed for the refugee appeal division.
The process for developing rules includes meaningful consultation with stakeholders and parties appearing before the IRB. In practice, we conduct both internal and external consultations before draft rules reach the stage of pre-publication in part I of the Canada Gazette for formal public comment. After that, the rules are submitted through the minister for cabinet approval and final publication in part II of the Canada Gazette. Once the new rules are in place, they will become the framework on which we will build the structure for the new divisions at the board.
Very important for us in this process is the ongoing relationship we have with our stakeholders, many of whose members have appeared before you in the last few weeks. We will be calling on our stakeholders and asking them to reach out to their membership to help us effectively structure our new processes.
In fact, we already have a meeting scheduled with our national stakeholders group, which includes the CCR, CBA, AQAADI, UNHCR, and others. I can assure you that Bill C-11 will be on the agenda.
There are a couple of points that were raised in committee last Thursday that I would like to briefly address.
Mr. Goodman stated publicly that we will provide a digital record of the interview to the claimant. At this point, it's too soon for us to indicate whether it will be a CD, a USB, a flashcard, or some other format.
The other point is that the IRB would have discretion to adjourn a proceeding for a vulnerable person or for operational or other valid reasons, such as fairness. In fact, one of the benefits we've identified for an early interview is the possibility of identifying vulnerable persons earlier in the process so that they can be appropriately accommodated.
In closing, I'd like to touch briefly on the minister's statement earlier this evening that amendments would be introduced that would see the PRAA function moved from CIC to the IRB. We believe that RPD decision-makers will be well placed to carry out this function, given their access to a world-renowned training program, legal support, and a high-calibre research capacity. But of course we await Parliament's direction in that regard.
As the minister has also indicated, letters have been exchanged between CIC and the IRB with regard to the suggested changes to the timelines for the information-gathering interview and the initial RPD hearing. Mr. Goodman indicated that we will give serious consideration to the proposal of 15 and 90 days, along with other proposals that may arise during our stakeholder consultations as part of the rule-writing process.
Finally, I'd like to quote Mr. Goodman's commitment, and this is what he said to you when he appeared last time:
The IRB will deliver, to the best of its ability, on the requirements of the legislation as determined by Parliament, and we will do so within the timeframes given and within the budget allotted, fulfilling our mandate to resolve cases efficiently, fairly, and in accordance with the law.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.
I'd first like to talk about the challenges that are currently faced by the CBSA in conducting removals, and then I'd like to describe how the proposed reforms and funding would provide some needed solutions.
In the current system, when a person makes a refugee claim in Canada a removal order is issued against that individual. The removal order is unenforceable until after the determination of their refugee claim. After a negative refugee determination decision, the removal order becomes enforceable and the person is required to leave Canada.
Prior to removal, individuals may seek judicial review of their negative refugee determination. An application for leave to the Federal Court for judicial review of a negative refugee determination decision results in an automatic stay of removal until a decision is rendered. So for failed refugee claimants who apply to the Federal Court within prescribed timelines, the CBSA cannot enforce the removal order until the court has had an opportunity to consider the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board on their claim for protection.
Failed claimants are also entitled to a pre-removal risk assessment; humanitarian and compassionate consideration; and, potentially, temporary resident permits. Pre-removal risk assessment applications and applications for humanitarian and compassionate considerations are administered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada staff, and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism also has the authority to examine humanitarian and compassionate considerations on his or her own initiative. Each of these recourse mechanisms represents a decision point that could be judicially reviewed, and in turn delay removal.
Once a removal order becomes enforceable, the CBSA has a statutory obligation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to remove that person from Canada as soon as reasonably practicable. It is often challenging to execute removal orders, since people facing removal may have no desire to comply.
The decision to remove someone from Canada is not taken lightly. The CBSA ensures that the right to due process is respected in each removal case before proceeding. Once individuals have exhausted all avenues of recourse, they are expected to respect our immigration laws and leave Canada on their own accord, or face removal by the agency.
In an effort to avoid removal, failed refugee claimants will often go underground to evade detection by the agency. The CBSA works with law enforcement partners at all levels of government to locate absconders, but the strong desire of many failed refugee claimants to remain in Canada means that ensuring that these individuals appear for removal is often challenging. The agency currently has an inventory of over 40,000 immigration warrants, 38,000 of which are for failed refugee claimants.
One of the greatest challenges to removals is the failure of claimants to provide a travel document. Because lack of travel documentation can defer removal indefinitely, the individual may have little incentive to provide existing travel documents or assist the agency in securing new travel documents. Consequently, the agency faces challenges in meeting the requirements of consular officials for granting new travel documents. Even when the individual's identity is not in doubt, some countries are not cooperative in issuing travel documents.
Where all administrative and judicial recourses, such as the pre-removal risk assessment and an application to the Federal Court, have been exhausted and a travel document is available, the subject may still request that the CBSA enforcement officers defer their removal date on an administrative basis. A common reason for CBSA enforcement officers to defer removal is that a medical reason precludes that person from travelling. Officers are obligated to consider every request, and where an officer refuses a deferral request, the applicant must be provided with the decision and the supporting rationale in writing. This decision may also be judicially reviewed by the Federal Court.
The cumulative result of these processes is a refugee system that allows failed claimants to avoid removal for years. The situation appears to be a draw factor for individuals not in need of protection, and it is also apparent that the longer an individual stays in Canada, the more difficult it may be to remove him or her, because they become established here.
Currently, there are more cases entering the enforcement stream than the CBSA is able to remove. The agency must prioritize removal cases based on risk. As the protection and safety of Canadians is a top priority for the CBSA and the Government of Canada, the cases involving individuals who are determined to be inadmissible on the grounds of security, organized crime, crimes against humanity, and serious criminality are handled first. Next in terms of priority are removal cases involving criminality, failed refugee claimants, and others who do not comply with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Consequently, although failed refugee claimants represent the largest volume of cases in removal inventories, the need to remove priority cases means that the agency is unable to address all cases in the inventory. Despite removing an average of over 9,000 failed refugee claimants a year over each of the last five years, the removals inventory remains quite large, a fact that the Auditor General has noted with concern. The agency shares the concern of the Auditor General, and the proposed new system would allow the CBSA to effectively and efficiently address this issue.
Under the proposed new system, the objective would be to remove failed asylum claimants within 12 months of the final decision of the immigration and refugee appeal division. The role of detentions and removals under the proposed measures would continue to be vital. Timely removal following a final negative decision on a refugee claim is crucial to the success of a reformed asylum system.
The introduction of a one-year bar on post-claim recourses would provide the CBSA a new policy and legal framework that would allow the agency to remove more failed claimants, and remove them in a shorter timeframe. By temporarily barring these mechanisms, duplication and redundancy of the current system and the resulting vulnerability to abuse would be significantly mitigated. As a result of faster decisions and limits on post-claim recourses, the agency expects greater success in the removal of failed claimants. Over the longer term, faster decisions and timelier removals are also expected to deter claims from individuals not in need of protection, resulting in a reduction and removal of pressures.
An assisted voluntary returns pilot program, which would be delivered exclusively in the greater Toronto area, is a key component of the reform package. The pilot would run for four years. It 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. And the second phase, again delivered through the GTA, would be for failed claimants who are being returned to all other parts of the world. The objective of this proposed program is to fundamentally change the behaviour of failed claimants. The aim is to encourage greater compliance and make the alternative of going underground less attractive.
Too many failed claimants do not respect their obligation to leave voluntarily, and as a result face enforcement action and a permanent bar on returning to Canada. Many are unaware of the consequences of not leaving Canada because they lack information. Others simply don't have the means to effect their own return or to support themselves upon return.
An AVR pilot program would respond to these issues by providing increased education, counselling, and limited financial assistance to support reintegration in their home country. This program is key to the removal strategy. It would achieve both humanitarian and enforcement objectives by encouraging timely voluntary removals. From a humanitarian perspective, voluntary removals would allow failed claimants to return with dignity and anonymity to their home countries.
AVR programs are being successfully employed by our international partners, for example the United Kingdom and Australia. In recent years, for example, in the United Kingdom, approximately 20% to 30% of all of their returns had been through their assisted voluntary returns program. The CBSA anticipates that the proposed AVR program would relieve pressure on our warrant and removal inventories, and reduce the need for extensive, time-consuming, and costly immigration investigations.
There would be strict eligibility criteria for this program, in particular no criminality, adherence to reporting to the CBSA, compliance in obtaining travel documents, and a temporary ban on returning to Canada. The expectation is that this program would significantly expedite the process of securing travel documents required for removal. This program would be delivered in partnership with an independent service provider who would undertake the responsibility for making travel arrangements, including securing documents, which are functions currently performed by the CBSA.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, in addition to the cost saving for the CBSA removal program, the Government of Canada, provincial and territorial governments, and taxpayers are expected to benefit from cost savings, as timely voluntary removals reduce pressures on social assistance and health care programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to trying to answer your questions.