Balanced Refugee Reform Act
Presentation by John Butt, Manager, Program Design,
Asylum Policy and Program Development
Refugees Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Purpose
• The purpose of this technical briefing is to provide you with background on
the legislation to improve our asylum system which Minister Jason Kenney
tabled in the House of Commons on March 30, 2010.
Current System
• Canada has two different refugee program streams
• Refugee Resettlement Program
•
Canada is recognized as a world leader in refugee resettlement;
it resettles 10% of the refugees resettled globally
• To bring these refugees here, CIC works closely with the
UNHCR and the private sponsorship community in Canada to
identify refugees overseas in need of protection. Everyone who
arrives in Canada through this program has already been
determined to be a bona fide refugee.
• In-Canada Asylum System
•
In the In-Canada asylum system, people in Canada, including
temporary workers, students and visitors, make a refugee claim
at a port of entry (airport, land border) or at a CIC office within
Canada.
• Unlike the resettlement program, people who make refugee
claims upon arrival in Canada have not yet been determined to
be genuine refugees.
• Unlike the resettlement program, there are no annual targets or
limits; virtually all claims made on Canadian territory are heard
and decided by the independent Immigration and Refugee
Appeal Board.
•
In 2009, Canada resettled over 12,400 refugees from abroad received over
33,200 refugee claims in Canada.
Why do we need to reform the In-Canada asylum system?
•
Our system is slow.
• Claims have grown significantly since 2005, declining somewhat in
2009 as a result of visa impositions on Mexico and the Czech
Republic in July.
• The result of the growing number of claims, and the current inefficient
system, is a significant backlog and long wait times at the IRB; the
number of claims made annually far exceeds the IRB’s current
capacity.
• For those whose claim is unfounded, such a delay may suit them just
fine. They can work, receive health care coverage and even collect
social assistance while they exhaust all processes to extend their stay
and avoid removal.
• So it’s little wonder that people who may not truly need our protection
take their chances and seek asylum.
• But for those who truly need our help, 19 months is too long to wait.
•
Our system is complex and vulnerable to abuse.
• A negative decision from the IRB is often the beginning of a long
series of delays. Claimants have access to multiple recourses under
IRPA and the Federal Court Act that they can - and do - use to delay
their removal from Canada.
• On average it takes 4 ½ years from the time of an initial claim to the
removal of a failed claimant- in some cases, a failed claimant can be
in Canada 10 years or longer. This is particularly the case for
claimants that are difficult to remove because they use any recourse,
legal and judicial, that is available, sometimes multiple times.
• Over the same period that asylum claims were increasing in Canada,
they were declining (or remaining stable) in the United States and the
United Kingdom.
• These lengthy delays actually draw to Canada people who see our
asylum system as a means of staying in Canada for years. Access to a
work permit and to health care and social services – available to
claimants – makes Canada very attractive.
• Canada forced to rely on visas to maintain integrity of immigration
system which can undermine diplomatic and commercial ties.
The reform proposals are guided by a number of key principles:
• All claims will continue to be heard by the independent Immigration and
Refugee Board, and decided on their individual merit regardless of country
of origin.
• Canada will continue to meet its international and domestic obligations by
providing all claimants with an in person hearing on the merits of their claim
before the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. In addition, every
claimant would also have access to at least one recourse mechanism such as
the Refugee Appeal Division or the Federal Court.
• Those involved in serious criminal acts, war crimes or terrorism will not be
eligible to make a refugee claim.
• Canada will continue its commitment to protect refugees both in
Canada and overseas.
Here are some of the major changes we are proposing compared to the current
system:
•
•
•
•
•
•
An initial interview to gather complete information at 8 days after referral,
as opposed to the current 28 days to allow for a scheduling of a first level
hearing
Hearings conducted by public servants.
Hearings generally at 60 days, as opposed the current 19 months it takes, on
average to hear a claim.
The addition of a Refugee Appeal Division, made up of Governor in Council
appointees.
Inclusion of an authority to designate safe countries of origin
One-year limit on accessing post-claim processes, thus allowing for
removals to take place.
• And faster removals – within 1 year of final IRB decision as opposed to 3
years.
Faster Decisions
• I will now go into more detail on the proposed reforms.
• The reforms begin with changes to allow faster processing at the
independent Immigration and Refugee Board.
• We would introduce an initial information-gathering interview at 8
days after the claim has been found eligible for referral. This new step
replaces the current process where claimant completes and returns a
form in 28 days.
• The interview, conducted by an employee of the IRB, is designed to
collect basic information about a claim and to schedule a hearing. No
decision on the claim would be made at this point.
• What is different about this step is that an officer from the
independent IRB actually sits down with the claimant and collects the
personal information, including the reasons for the claim. This
information is the critical basis of the actual hearing at the IRB, and
allows for the earlier screening, streaming, and scheduling of cases.
• In the current process, the time to complete this form is much longer
(28 days), and the forms are often incomplete and late, which can
delay the hearings process. It is only upon receipt of this form that the
IRB is able to categorize cases and identify exclusion cases,
vulnerable claimants, and whether special accommodation is needed.
The information-gathering interview is an essential component of an
efficient system as it would facilitate coordinated information
gathering and the management of claims at the IRB. This would in
turn allow for a hearing to be scheduled.
• The next step is an initial hearing at the Refugee Protection Division.
This would be a different person from the officer who conducted the
information-gathering interview.
• Public servant decision makers would replace the current
Governor in Council appointees.
• These, more permanent, appointments would allow for the
longer retention of expertise; less time will be spent on training
as experienced members will remain. More flexible staffing
actions will address upwards and downwards spikes in
claims; there will be fewer vacancies in the longer term.
• Experience requirement, and training, for decision makers
would remain the same.
• Hearings on claims will occur at 60 days following the
interview, in most cases.
Refugee Appeal Division
•
•
•
•
•
A new Refugee Appeal Division or RAD would also be introduced at the
IRB.
The RAD proposed here is more substantive than the one currently provided
for in IRPA, and proposed for implementation in previous legislation such as
Bill C-280 and C-291. Unlike the current legislation, this RAD could
consider new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the first
hearing and could hold an oral hearing if credibility were at issue.
The RAD would provide claimants with access to a real and robust appeal
mechanism.
Staffed by Governor in Council appointees, decisions will generally be made
within approximately 4 months of the appeal being made.
All failed asylum claimants would still be entitled to ask the Federal Court
for leave to review a negative decision.
Designated Countries of Origin
• Most Canadians recognize that there are places in the world where the
persecution of people is less likely to occur compared to other areas.
• A safe country of origin would not normally produce refugees, would have a
robust human rights record and offer strong state protection. States with
strong democratic, judicial and accountability frameworks are likely to
provide the necessary protection to their citizens.
• The authority to designate safe countries of origin is new. This authority
does not currently exist in IRPA.
• Specific criteria for designation would be outlined in regulations at a later
date. However, the criteria would consider the country’s compliance with
human rights instruments and whether removal to that country would be in
compliance with Canada’s international obligations.
• Advice from the UNHCR would be sought in designating countries.
• It is important to remember that all eligible refugee claimants would have
their case heard by the independent IRB.
• Designating safe countries of origin can reduce abuse of the system by
claimants from countries that do not normally produce refugees.
• A number of countries including the United Kingdom, France and Germany
already designate safe countries of origin.
Faster Removals
• In May 2008, the Auditor General noted that, “The integrity of Canada’s
immigration and refugee program depends on the effective implementation
of its policy to remove individuals … and on the voluntary compliance of
individuals…”
• Removals are a key component of a reformed asylum system which is why
CBSA would hire and train additional Enforcement Officers to remove
failed asylum claimants within one year of final negative decision by the
IRB.
• To help ensure that those timelines are met and that failed claimants do not
avoid removals, officers would also conduct investigations; issue warrants;
and detain individuals where necessary – for example, where there is a flight
risk.
• I should underline that detention is not a new policy and is a key element of
a successful removals strategy as it is often the only means to ensure the
person is available for removal. On average, 20% of failed asylum cases are
detained prior to removal. No legislative or policy changes for detentions are
proposed.
• To minimize the use of enforced removals, an Assisted Voluntary Returns
program would also be introduced on a pilot basis.
Window for Removal
• The proposed reform measures would allow for faster removals.
• As mentioned, each eligible asylum claimant would have had their claim
reviewed by the independent IRB.
• Following a final negative IRB decision, failed asylum claimants would not
be able to apply for:
 pre-removal risk assessments (PRRA),
 humanitarian and compassionate consideration or,
 temporary resident permits.
• The vast majority of failed claimants will have had two timely decisions
related to the risk they would face if returned home; these decisions will
have been made by the independent IRB.
• The one year time period for removal would significantly shorten the overall
amount of time a failed claimant stays in Canada. These proposals are
expected to significantly reduce the incentives for trying to use the asylum
system as a means to immigrate to Canada.
Assisted Voluntary Returns
This will be a pilot project would be a four year project aimed at
encouraging more voluntary returns.
It would provide counselling throughout the asylum determination process
on failed claimants’ rights and obligations. For example, many people do not
realize that if they are removed from Canada that they are banned from
returning to Canada.
• Delivered in partnership with an independent service provider, it would
initially be piloted in the Greater Toronto Area and consist of two phases:
first, for failed claimants being returned to Mexico, the Caribbean, Central
and South America; and, second, for failed claimants being returned to all
other countries.
• In addition to counselling, the pilot project would:
- Provide failed asylum claimants with a return plane ticket
home
- Provide funding up to a maximum of $2,000 to service
providers in the country of origin to facilitate reintegration
through, for example, education or employment assistance. This
funding would be administered by an independent service
provider to help people reintegrate. It would not be given
directly to the failed asylum claimant.
• In order to qualify for this program, there would be strict eligibility
conditions including: no criminality; cooperation in obtaining travel
documents; complete compliance with CBSA reporting requirements, and a
temporary bar on returning to Canada.
• The CBSA would assess applications for inclusion in the AVR pilot
program based on the eligibility criteria. Should the applicant be deemed
eligible, an independent service provider would be responsible for
evaluating each file and tailoring assistance to the particular needs of the
individual. The service provider would also arrange for the individual’s
return, including securing travel documents making travel arrangements, and
working with destination country service providers to arrange for the
delivery of any assistance.
• This amount of funding support is a conservative amount compared to
comparable programs in the UK which provide the equivalent of up to
$7200 per claimant and Australia which does not impose a limit on
assistance.
• An Assisted Voluntary Returns program would achieve the following
results:
• More removals within the one year timeline as failed claimants would
have greater assistance to leave Canada in a timely manner.
• Cost savings through reduced enforcement activities, such as fewer
investigations and detentions. As the program would be delivered by
an independent service provider, the CBSA would also eliminate
certain costs for escorted removals.
• Less of a risk that failed claimants would fail to appear for removal as
a result of increased education of the consequences of not complying
with removal orders as has been witnessed by other countries with
Assisted Voluntary Returns programs.
• Facilitation of securing travel documents which is currently a major
removal impediment. To be eligible for the Assisted Voluntary
Returns program claimants would have to cooperate in the travel
document application process including having completed
applications on file at the beginning of the process.
Enhancing Overseas Protection
• In addition to improving our ability to protect those who arrive in Canada,
we are also taking measures to increase our protection of refugees through
resettlement from abroad.
• As the Minister announced yesterday, we are committed to strengthening
Canada’s role as a global leader in refugee protection by enhancing our
resettlement programs.
• Continuing Canada’s tradition as a leader in international refugee protection,
the Government of Canada plans to increase the number of refugees resettled
from abroad by up to 2,500.
• Government-Assisted Refugees Program would be increased over time by
up to 500, and a further 2,000 resettlement places would be added to the
Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program.
• This would bring the total number of refugees resettled by Canada to as
many as 14,500 a year.
• Increase funding for the Resettlement Assistance Program.
• RAP offers financial support and immediate and essential services to
refugees resettled from overseas, including help with temporary
accommodation.
Backlog Reduction
• A full complement of decision-makers is now in place at the IRB.
• The Government of Canada is committed to clearing the backlog of claims
that currently exists. Initial funding has been set aside.
• In addition, the imposition of visas on Mexico and the Czech Republic (as
well as the tightening of the exceptions under the Safe Third Country
Agreement with the US) has helped slow the growth of the backlog of cases
at the IRB.
• Resources for backlog reduction would ensure that the IRB, Federal Court
and CBSA can render decisions on claims and effect removals.
Investment
Overall, Canada’s new asylum system would receive a net federal
investment of $540.7M over 5 years, and ongoing funding of $85.4M
annually.
• $324M over 5 years for the development and implementation of the new
asylum system
• This investment would put in place an improved asylum system that is
faster.
• Faster decisions also means faster removal of failed asylum claimants which
would also result in reduced social service costs as people would no longer
remain in Canada 4.5 years before being removed.
• In addition,
 $126M has been set aside to specifically address the backlog
 $90.7M over five years for overseas protection and Resettlement
Assistance Program funding.