Bill C-11 (Historical)

Balanced Refugee Reform Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, primarily in respect of the processing of refugee claims referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. In particular, the enactment
(a) provides for the referral of a refugee claimant to an interview with an Immigration and Refugee Board official, who is to collect information and schedule a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division;
(b) provides that the members of the Refugee Protection Division are appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act;
(c) provides for the coming into force, no more than two years after the day on which the enactment receives royal assent, of the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that permit a claimant to appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division to the Refugee Appeal Division;
(d) authorizes the Minister to designate, in accordance with the process and criteria established by the regulations certain countries, parts of countries or classes of nationals;
(e) provides clarification with respect to the type of evidence that may be put before the Refugee Appeal Division and the circumstances in which that Division may hold a hearing;
(f) prohibits a person whose claim for refugee protection has been rejected from applying for a temporary resident permit or applying to the Minister for protection if less than 12 months have passed since their claim was rejected;
(g) authorizes the Minister, in respect of applications for protection, to exempt nationals, or classes of nationals, of a country or part of a country from the 12-month prohibition;
(h) provides clarification with respect to the Minister’s authority to grant permanent resident status or an exemption from any obligations of the Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or on public policy grounds;
(i) limits the circumstances in which the Minister may examine requests for permanent resident status or for an exemption from any obligations of the Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds; and
(j) enacts transitional provisions respecting the processing of pending claims by the Minister or the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The enactment also amends the Federal Courts Act to increase the number of Federal Court judges.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you.

I think, Ms. Grewal, you're pointing to a number of issues that I would categorize as reinforcing and defending the integrity of the immigration system. One positive step in that direction was the adoption of Bill C-11, the balanced refugee reform act, which is in process; we're working towards its implementation later this year. That will, we believe, disincentivise false asylum seekers from abusing Canada's asylum system. In the end, it will result in fewer false asylum claims being filed in Canada, which will, we project, save taxpayers as much as $1.8 billion over five years.

Secondly, as you know, we brought in the cracking down on crooked immigration consultants act, which is now in the Senate. By the way, I encouraged the official opposition to ask Senator Jaffer to get that bill through the Senate. It received unanimous support. That will help us to deal with ghost consultants, make it a criminal offence for them to operate without being licensed immigration consultants of the recognized regulatory body, and we're also, as you know, working on the process of designating a regulatory body.

Also, it's very important that we address, as you mentioned, the issue of human smuggling. We believe that Bill C-49 represents a strong but balanced approach to addressing the smuggling networks, basically criminal gangs, that are targeting Canada. These are groups that don't really care about human life. They regard people as commodities. Particular syndicates used to run guns and other contraband into Sri Lanka during the civil war; now they're running people. Every year, thousands of people around the world die in smuggling operations. We've seen that recently in Britain, in Australia, in Mexico, the United States. Certainly one person passed away on the last vessel coming to Canada. These syndicates are using dangerous, decommissioned, leaky vessels to cross the Pacific Ocean.

I don't think any of us as parliamentarians, as Canadians, should be sanguine or indifferent about the threat that poses to human life, or indeed the integrity of our immigration system. That's why we have a balanced bill that seeks to send a message to the smuggling syndicates and their prospective customers, who after all are willing customers, that they shouldn't be willing to pay $30,000 to $45,000 to a smuggling syndicate to come to Canada. They should think twice about it. We think the five-year period in the bill does that, and we would call on the opposition to take seriously the expectation of Canadians that we will defend the integrity of our system against those who seek to abuse it.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You're talking about the refugees. Right now we have two bills, Bill C-11 and Bill C-49. We want to make sure that the bogus refugees can't stay in Canada forever.

Do you think your Canadian customers will appreciate that they are not subsidizing fake refugees? Because there could be people coming to the pharmacists claiming that.

[Simon Coakeley, Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

As you heard, my name is Simon Coakeley and I am the Executive Director of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. I am the board's Chief Operating Officer and am responsible for the performance of the board's adjudicative support, registry and corporate support services. I report directly to the Chairperson, Mr. Brian Goodman.

I am joined today by Ms. Diane Lacelle, our Director General of Human Resources and Professional Development; Ms. Sylvia Cox-Duquette, our Senior General Counsel; and Mr. Serge Gascon, our Director General of Corporate Planning and Services and our Official Languages Champion.

We are pleased to have this opportunity to meet with the committee and to provide you with information about how the IRB meets its linguistic obligations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act.

Like all federal institutions, the IRB is subject to Parts 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Official Languages Act, and I will discuss these parts in a few minutes. However, as an administrative tribunal, we are also subject to Part 3 of the act dealing with the administration of justice. In addition, the charter principles of access to justice also apply to our everyday work in terms of individuals' rights to use English or French in our proceedings, but also in terms of our obligation to ensure that the individuals and witnesses who do not speak either English or French are able to understand the proceedings in which they are participating. In the next few minutes, I would like to outline how we meet these obligations.

The Immigration and Refugee Board is Canada's largest administrative tribunal. The board is currently composed of three divisions: the Refugee Protection Division determines refugee claims made in Canada; the Immigration Appeal Division decides appeals of removal orders, sponsorship refusals and residency obligation appeals; the Immigration Division conducts reviews of immigration detentions and conducts hearings to determine if persons may lawfully enter or remain in Canada. When the Balanced Refugee Reform Act comes into force, a new Refugee Appeal Division will be created to hear appeals from the Refugee Protection Division.

Each of our three divisions conducts hearings across the country, primarily in our regional offices located in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. We also conduct some hearings in our facilities in Ottawa and Calgary, as well as at other locations across the country, including a number of provincial correctional institutions.

According to our departmental performance report, in the last fiscal year our divisions finalized more than 55,000 cases, broken down as follows: at the RPD, 28,500 refugee claims; at the lAD, 7,200 appeals; at the ID, 3,150 admissibility hearings and 16,500 detention reviews.

All of the people appearing before us as subjects of proceedings are asked to indicate to us at the earliest possible time whether they wish their proceeding to be conducted in English or French. In addition, if the subject does not speak either English or French, we ask them to indicate their need for interpretation into English or French. Once the subject has indicated their choice of the language of proceedings, all material submitted by CBSA, acting on behalf of the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, must be filed in the language of proceedings; if the original documentation is in another language, it must be translated into the language of proceedings, in accordance with the applicable divisional rule. When the matter is ready, it is scheduled for a hearing before a board member who is able to understand the matter in the language chosen by the subject.

In practise, the majority of French proceedings are assigned to a member whose first language is French, just as the majority of English proceedings are assigned to a member whose first language is English. Prior to the beginning of a hearing, or even during the hearing itself, the subject may choose to change the language of the proceeding. If the minister's representative has any objections to changing the language once the hearing has started, the presiding member will provide the minister's representative with an opportunity to make submissions, prior to granting the request to change the language of proceedings. In the event that the minister's representative is not able to proceed immediately in the new language, the matter will be adjourned to allow the minister time to prepare. Any additional documentation will have to be filed in the new language of proceedings.

The minister will not be required to translate documents already filed in the original language of proceedings. This approach was recently endorsed by the Federal Court.

In some instances, the subject of proceedings before the board will be represented by counsel whose first language is different from the one selected by his or her client. In those circumstances, the board will ensure that interpretation is provided so that the subject of the proceedings is fully able to understand and participate in the proceedings. The language of the proceedings, though—in other words, the language in which the board member will render his or her decision—is the language chosen by the subjects themselves.

All of our divisions are able to conduct business across the country in both English and French. However, the demand for French-language hearings is concentrated in our eastern region, while the demand for English-language hearings is somewhat more evenly spread across the country.

As of December 14, two days ago, the linguistic breakdown of our decision-makers was the following. In the eastern region, we have 54 members, of whom 44 are bilingual, seven are unilingual French, and three are unilingual English. In the central region, we have 111 members, of whom nine are bilingual and 102 are unilingual English. In the western region, we have 38 members, of whom six are bilingual and 32 are unilingual English. A copy of this information was provided to the clerk prior to this morning's session.

As I've also already mentioned, once a case is ready to proceed, it is assigned to a member who is able to understand the language of the proceeding. In the event that no member from that region is available to hear the matter in the language selected, a member from another region can hear the case either by video conference or in person.

These obligations are enshrined in both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act, and they're reinforced in our own rules. As we are a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, they also go to the very heart of the IRB's raison d'être and our strategic objective, which is to resolve immigration and refugee matters efficiently, fairly, and in accordance with the law.

This is an obligation we take very seriously. But in addition to this very specific obligation, as I mentioned earlier, we're also subject to parts IV through VII of the Official Languages Act, as are other federal institutions.

In terms of service to the public, in addition to our Ottawa headquarters, our offices in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are able to provide service in both languages to the public, and our Ottawa headquarters and Montreal offices are designated as being bilingual for the purposes of language of work.

While we're proud of our successes and progress to date, we also recognize that we live in an ever-changing environment where the level of demand for our service in a specific language can vary over time, just as our capacity to deliver the required level of service. Consequently, we're very proud to have a very engaged group of employees on our official languages advisory committee, which is chaired by our champion, Serge Gascon. This committee has adopted a two-year action plan that highlights the need for us to continue to focus on specific issues under parts III, IV, V, and VII of the Official Languages Act. A copy of the plan was provided to the clerk ahead of this morning's meeting.

The action plan was adopted before Bill C-11 was introduced in Parliament, and as we implement the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the issue of structuring and staffing the new public servant-based refugee protection division and the new refugee appeal division in such a way that we continue to discharge our linguistic obligations to the people appearing before those divisions will be a significant priority. In that regard, I can indicate that when the new RPD positions are staffed sometime in the new year, we will be identifying the number of positions in each of our regions that will need to be staffed on a bilingual imperative basis, and these bilingual positions will be rated at the CCC level.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues and I will be very pleased to answer your questions.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, I am pleased to rise today to commence third reading of Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This important piece of legislation would strengthen the rules governing those who charge a fee for immigration advice and representation. I hope at the end of the day that all hon. members will support the bill.

Over the past four years, this government has proposed and implemented initiatives and policies that clearly demonstrate a commitment to innovation and to improvement. Hon. members will recall that we modernized our immigration system by bringing flexibility to the way we select immigrants while tackling the backlog. We had to fix our immigration system or else the number of people waiting to come here would have swelled to over 1.5 million by 2012.

To improve Canada's asylum system, the minister introduced earlier this year the balanced refugee reform act. Its implementation will mean faster protection for those who genuinely need it and fast removals of bogus refugees who simply do not.

Now it is time to address the lack of public confidence in the regulation of immigration consultants. We all know that people anxious to immigrate to Canada can fall victim to unscrupulous immigration representatives who charge exorbitant fees and may promise would-be immigrants high-paying jobs or guaranteed, fast-tracked visas.

We have all heard or read about their unscrupulous and deceitful schemes such as encouraging prospective immigrants to lie on their applications, to concoct bogus stories about persecution while making refugee claims or to enter into sham marriages with Canadian citizens and permanent residents. In their quest for personal gain these unscrupulous representatives have displayed a wanton disregard for our immigration rules, bilked numerous people out of their hard-earned dollars and left countless lives in tatters along the way. These crooked immigration representatives are a menace, posing a costly threat not only to their victims but also to the integrity and fairness of our system.

Bill C-35 would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that only members in good standing of a law society of a province, the Chambre des notaires du Québec or a body designated by the minister may represent or advise for a fee, or offer to do so at any stage of a proceeding or application.

Under the current legislation, the involvement of representatives in the pre-application or pre-submission period is beyond the scope of the law. Well, I am happy to say that Bill C-35 fixes that. By our casting a wider net, unauthorized individuals who provide paid advice or representation at any stage would be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment. This includes undeclared ghost consultants who operate in the shadows and conceal their involvement in an application or proceeding.

Further, there are currently no mechanisms in law that give the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism the authority to oversee the governing body regulating immigration consultants. The bill would provide the minister with the power by regulation to designate a body to govern immigration consultants and provide the Governor in Council the ability to establish measures to enhance the government's oversight of that designated body.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada is currently limited in its ability to disclose to the relevant governing body information on individuals providing unethical or unprofessional representation or advice. The bill would allow CIC to disclose such information to those responsible for governing or investigating that conduct, so we can work together to crack down on crooked consultants. An investigation could be undertaken more readily by the appropriate governing body and, where appropriate, disciplinary action pursued.

As we all know, governing bodies are responsible for taking disciplinary action against their members in cases of misconduct. This includes the revocation of membership. The governing body for immigration consultants can, like other bodies, investigate the conduct of its members where there is a concern that a member has breached a term of his or her membership. Provincial law societies use a similar process to look into complaints concerning their own members.

This bill is a comprehensive proposal to provide protection for vulnerable would-be immigrants by imposing serious criminal sanctions on unscrupulous representatives, enhancing oversight of the governing body for immigration consultants and improving information-sharing tools.

Since its introduction, Bill C-35 has received positive feedback from stakeholders, the media and Canadians, all of whom believe that this change was long overdue.

Throughout the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration study of Bill C-35, the minister and government committee members listened to the concerns raised and, accordingly, have adjusted the bill in a way that we believe can only strengthen it. That is what I said. We adjusted the bill accordingly during our consultations at committee.

For example, the government proposed the recognition of paralegals regulated by a law society. By recognizing the ability of law societies to govern their members in the public interest, such recognition could help protect would-be immigrants.

In response to concerns raised in good faith by parliamentarians, we also agreed to a number of amendments that reflect their input, resulting in language that, I believe, has strengthened this bill.

These amendments create a package that would realize our goal of cracking down on unscrupulous immigration representatives who exploit prospective would-be immigrants.

The offence provision found in Bill C-35 has been amended to capture both direct and indirect representation and advice. Penalties have been toughened by increasing the maximum fine for the offence of providing unauthorized immigration advice from $50,000 to $100,000; and summary convictions from $10,000 to $20,000.

The statute of limitations for summary conviction has also been increased to 10 years, offering investigators ample time to properly and fully investigate various offences committed under the act and lay charges before the time period passes.

In addition, for greater clarity, the government proposed a compromise amendment, which would respect Quebec's jurisdiction while maintaining federal authority over the regulation of immigration consultants.

The intention of this provision is to recognize that the province's act respecting immigration to Quebec applies to immigration consultants who, for consideration, advise or represent a person who files an application with the Quebec minister or government.

This amendment is not intended to capture immigration consultants who are advising or representing a person with regard to processes or requirements only under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, where these processes or requirements do not relate to Quebec legislation.

The proposed reforms follow the launch in 2009 of a public information campaign with information on the web in Canada, at missions abroad and through the media, explaining to Canadians how our immigration system works.

At the same time that Bill C-35 moves through the legislative process, a public selection process has been undertaken, under current authority, to identify a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants.

In 2008 and 2009, reports of the standing committee pointed to a lack of public confidence in the body currently governing immigration consultants. This lack of public confidence poses a significant and immediate threat to the immigration program and its process.

Public comments on the selection process were solicited in June. This was followed by a call for submissions, as published in the Canada Gazette on August 28.

This open and transparent process is being undertaken in order to ensure that the body governing immigration consultants can effectively regulate its members, thus ensuring public confidence in the integrity of our immigration program.

A selection committee, composed of officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, other federal government organizations and external experts, will examine all of the completed submissions against the criteria listed in the call for submissions that I spoke of earlier.

The selection committee will provide the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism with a recommendation as to which organizations, if any, has or have demonstrated the necessary organizational competencies.

Any and all potential and interested candidates are welcome to apply, including the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

This ongoing public selection process, together with the legislative changes proposed in Bill C-35, ensure the most efficient and the most effective approach to strengthening the regulation of immigration consultants, immediately and in the future. However, as we know all too well, there are large numbers of immigration consultants who operate beyond our borders.

The problem we are trying to address is large in scale and it is international in scope. The value of coming to Canada is so great in the minds of so many that they are often willing to pay their life savings in cash, and beyond, to unscrupulous representatives with the false promise of obtaining visas to visit or to move to Canada. That is why, when the minister met in September with some of our international partners, he underscored the need for combined action to thwart fraud and various forms of exploitation by unscrupulous immigration representatives.

The commission of fraud under Canada's immigration program is a crime that threatens the integrity of our immigration system, raises security concerns, wastes tax dollars, is unfair to those who do follow the rules and adds to the processing time for legitimate applications. We are fortunate that Canada's visa officers are extremely vigilant in preventing the exploitation of victims, but every fake document and false story we find slows down the entire system and diverts our resources away from legitimate applications. That is because our fraud deterrents and verification efforts, while effective, require much more time and resources than routine processing of applications.

Members can see why we are determined to crack down on immigration fraud or misrepresentation by unscrupulous immigration representatives. These unscrupulous representatives victimize people who dream of immigrating to this country. With no motive but greed, these profiteers take advantage of would-be immigrants and tempt them with a bogus bill of goods.

Needless to say, the underhanded schemes of unscrupulous representatives undermine the integrity and the fairness of Canada's immigration system. It is imperative that we tackle the threat they pose and this bill would allow us to do just that. The changes we propose would strengthen the rules governing those who provide immigration advice and representation for a fee, or offer to do so, and it would improve the way in which immigration consultants are regulated.

These changes are also in line with amendments we have proposed to the Citizenship Act to regulate citizenship consultants, which is Bill C-37 and will be coming to this House for second reading very shortly.

For far too long, unscrupulous immigration representatives have preyed upon the hopes and the dreams of would-be immigrants to our country. This disreputable conduct has brought shame to their profession and has abused our immigration system.

As was the case with Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the spirit of compromise and co-operation surrounding this bill has again been remarkable. I should speak to that briefly.

The fact is that one of the things Canadians have asked this government to do, and have asked all parties in this House to do, is to do our best to work together, to not be seen as always opposing the position of each other for political gain or to embarrass each other, because at the end of the day, legislation that passes through this House must be good for Canadians. It must be effective and efficient in terms of the new law that it sets, the new standard that it sets, in legislation.

I have to say, having been a member, as a parliamentary secretary, of the citizenship and immigration committee since the 40th general election, it is in fact a testament to the group of people who have sat on that committee and the group of people who sit on the committee now that indeed, while we do have our political flare-ups and we do have our disagreements, we have in fact, with Bill C-11 and Bill C-35, found a way to work together.

I certainly want to credit my critic who, while being on the job for a little less than a year, has in fact taken up the challenge that his predecessor put in front of him in terms of ensuring that, if we are going to work on issues of citizenship, on issues of immigration and on issues of multiculturalism and because the laws of the country sit before that committee, we must work together on behalf of Canadians to move that legislation forward.

The citizenship and immigration committee certainly has set an example of the spirit of compromise. It is a testament that legislation requires the support not just of the government but of a number of individuals in order to get it through the House.

Bill C-35 is a testament to the compromise the government is prepared to make without surrendering its values or the importance of the legislation the government puts before the House. The government recognizes that in the spirit of compromise, in some cases, the amendments actually strengthen the legislation. Bill C-35 is stronger now than it was before it went to committee. I compliment the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who understands the need to listen, respond and act when legislation is moving forward.

I think the vote on third reading of Bill C-35 will show the support throughout the House for this piece of legislation. This legislation stands for those people who come to this country to become Canadians because of the history and traditions that make Canada a great country. Many people want to become Canadian citizens.

It is important to note that this legislation is for prospective Canadians. It is not just for those who are already Canadian citizens. That speaks volumes to where we are going as a country in terms of the immigrants coming here to build better lives for themselves and to contribute to the Canadian way of life. This bill does a great job in terms of representing that direction.

It is my hope that the spirit of compromise and co-operation as seen during the committee's study of Bill C-35 will ensure the bill's passage in the House.

I want to note the tireless efforts of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. Many in the House know of his hard work.

I also want to compliment all of the members of the committee, in particular my colleagues who sit on the government side. All five of them put in hours and hours of effort to ensure that this bill would move forward and carry.

I want to thank the chairman of the committee who at times had to rule with an iron fist. At times, he had to ensure that even the parliamentary secretary kept his cool during the hearings. In fact, I moved a motion to challenge the chair. I lost that vote as the opposition members actually sided with the chairman, but I certainly respected his decision in that regard.

Despite the workings of some of the issues that arose, the chairman did an excellent job in guiding the committee through some difficult negotiations and discussions on the bill. He ensured that witnesses, members of the public from across the country, who wanted the opportunity to participate and speak to the bill in terms of what was good or in need of change were allowed to do so.

At the end of the day, we have a piece of legislation before this House of which all of us regardless of political stripe can be proud. The government will do its best to ensure that Bill C-35 is implemented quickly once it receives royal assent.

To conclude, I wish to thank the people who work at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They did an amazing job in ensuring that this bill met all of the standards this government wanted it to meet.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Oh, great.

Look, we certainly work here in Ottawa...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...in a minority, but it is a democracy...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...at this committee proven that you can move bills forward, move legislation forward--Bill C-11 and Bill C-35, which is up for third reading debate tomorrow--and that we can find compromise and still maintain the integrity of a piece of legislation that is important to Canadians, to the running of our government, and to the fairness within the system you've just spoken of.

One of the options the opposition obviously has...and it is certainly within their realm and within their right to oppose legislation the government moves. But based on their input and their response to that, it's also important that we attempt to move legislation forward.

I'm asking you whether or not you have had any proposals put forward either from parties in this House, in terms of options that would see Bill C-49 move forward, or whether we've seen suggestions and comments from those who are opposed to the legislation, from organizations within this country that have said, look, we don't necessarily agree with the bill, but here are some options you could put forward, and perhaps we could move this bill forward.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Can you please tell the committee about the cost savings that will result from Bill C-11?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Minister, there is funding in the estimates for the implementation of Bill C-11. Could you please just update us on the status of this legislation?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

But the other punitive measures, not the up-to-one-year detention, which we argue is not going to be constitutionally valid, are my bigger concern, because those measures are actually for people who have already been determined to be refugees. So if Bill C-11 works, this doesn't make sense to me.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I think there may be some confusion here. The enhanced detention provisions for those arriving in designated smuggling operations would apply prior to the refugee determination, not following it. So 500 people arrive in a vessel and we need to determine who they are. They are currently put into detention. I think we're at month five for most of the Sun Sea arrivees.

The difference is that we have to go back constantly, sending lawyers and CBSA personnel into a revolving door at the IRB every 30 days for detention renewal just to say, look, we still don't know who they are. We need a period of time to be able to establish who these individuals are, especially when they come in large numbers and the system is really strained.

Under what we propose in Bill C-49, we would simply say we can detain people for up to a year without having to constantly go back for these renewals. This would allow us to focus our resources on the actual work of identification. And if during that year they get a positive determination as a refugee, they are automatically released.

By the way, under Bill C-11, which comes into effect next year, the bona fide refugees would be released from detention in two or three months. I don't think that's a firing squad. I think that's eminently reasonable.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I think that Bill C-11 was a good comprehensive reform for the problems associated with the refugee protection system, but it was not sufficient to deal with the particular threats from the big human smuggling rings.

We need to have access to various tools. For example, in the area of visas, there has been a decline since 2008 in the number of refugee protection claims filed in Canada: from 38,000 to about 19,000, this year, and that is largely because of the visa requirement instituted in June 2008.

So there is not just one solution to the problems we're facing. Yes, a more efficient, speedier system, like the one we adopted in one sitting, is useful, as a general rule. But I don't think it is necessarily useful for the people who are prepared to pay $50,000 to come to Canada illegally.

[Inaudible--Editor] that these people are necessarily going to claim refugee protection.

As I said, in terms of the arrival of the Fujian vessels 10 years ago, they weren't really people looking for refugee protection, they were clearly actually people looking for jobs.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

I am pleased today to present to the Committee my department's supplementary estimates (B) for fiscal year 2010-2011.

I think the supplementary estimates are self-explanatory, but if you have questions, of course, we are here to answer them. Perhaps in my opening remarks I can provide a brief summary of new developments within the Department, our operations and our policies.

Last March, as you all know, we introduced Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act, which received Royal Assent on June 29, 2010, of course after receiving the unanimous approval of both Houses of Parliament.

I would again like to thank my colleagues from all parties who worked on this.

This act will make Canada's refugee system more balanced, ensuring quicker protection for those who need it and quicker removals of those who don't. It will help deter those who would seek to abuse our immigration and refugee protection systems.

As part of these changes, Canada will also increase the number of resettled refugees by 20%, or 2,500 refugees per year. This includes 2,000 more spots in the private sponsorship program and 500 more government-assisted refugees. In addition, we will increase funding to the refugee assistance program. We've already started that work. This will give the refugees we resettle the support they need to begin their lives in Canada.

To promote these increases, I travelled across the country this summer to encourage individuals and organizations to become private sponsors, to become more involved in a revitalization of the private sponsorship refugee program. In particular, I urged them to become part of our humanitarian tradition by helping to provide a new beginning for victims of violence and persecution around the world, such as those forced to flee the cruelty and brutality of the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran and religious persecution in Iraq.

I should also mention that we've begun--or more than begun, we're well into--the hard work of implementation of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. In fact, I've appointed, I believe, all of the additional IRB decision-makers for the refugee protection division who are necessary as part of our commitment to begin the process of backlog reduction.

Canada remains committed to protecting those who are most vulnerable. The Government of Canada is equally committed to upholding our laws and to protecting the integrity of our immigration and refugee systems.

That's why we've introduced legislation to crack down on crooked immigration consultants who promote fraud in our immigration program and victimize those who dream of immigrating to this great country.

I'd like to acknowledge Ms. Chow's advocacy that this initiative had to be twinned with our efforts on refugee reform.

As was the case with Bill C-11, this spirit of compromise and cooperation surrounding Bill C-35 has spoken, I think, very well to all parliamentarians on this committee.

We also introduced legislation that would strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship by making it easier to lose citizenship if it is improperly obtained, and we hope to begin debate upon second reading in the House in the near future.

But for Canadian citizenship to be meaningful, it also is essential that new and established Canadians alike share a common understanding of our rights and responsibilities, our institutions, our democratic traditions, and our history. That's why, just over a year ago, I was proud to launch Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship, our popular new citizenship study guide, which is required reading for anyone seeking to become a Canadian citizen. In fact, the demands for the publication and tens of thousands of downloads from the website, as well as the very positive feedback, have been extraordinary.

This past March, my department began administering a new citizenship test based on Discover Canada. We expect new citizens to know about our country, so we've made the material and guide more comprehensive in scope. We strongly encourage citizenship applicants who want to do well on the test to study the new guide and familiarize themselves with their new country's history, symbols, values, and institutions.

To become a Canadian citizen, you also need to have knowledge of English or French. That obligation is set out in the Citizenship Act. Discover Canada is available as an audio version to help applicants who are still learning English or French study.

And since 2006, we have tripled funding to settlement services, including free language classes, after it had been previously frozen for years. That's meant an additional $1.4 billion over five years to enhance services that help newcomers integrate into Canadian society.

While the government helps immigrants integrate into our society, including through the provision of language training, we expect newcomers to take advantage of this support. What concerns me is that only about 25% of newcomers who qualify for free language classes have enrolled in federally funded classes. To ensure that all immigrants are able to fully integrate and participate in society, this is a number that we would like to see increase.

I'm very pleased to report today that we are well on our way to achieving this goal, as a result, in part, of a pilot project that we launched last fall, where we mailed language training vouchers to 2,000 randomly selected permanent residents. The preliminary results of the vouchers show that more than twice the number of immigrants who received vouchers enrolled in language classes than those who did not. We'll being seeing the final results of our assessment in the spring, and if they continue to be positive, we'll look at options to expand this approach.

We've also updated the multiculturalism program's objectives, placing a much greater emphasis on integration. Through its new objectives, the program will help build an integrated, socially cohesive society, and improve the responsiveness of institutions to the needs of a diverse population.

The Government is committed to improving the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to protect foreign workers and live-in caregivers from potential abuse and exploitation.

To this end, we proposed improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, including penalties for employers who fail in their commitments to their employees.

We also made changes to the live-in caregiver program to better protect these workers and make it easier and faster for them and their families to obtain permanent residency in Canada.

In addition, Mr. Chair, we have introduced important legislative amendments to Canada's immigration laws, which would help protect vulnerable foreign workers, such as exotic dancers, who could be victims of exploitation or human trafficking.

The government is committed to maintaining our tradition of welcoming newcomers from around the world, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it's likely that this year, we will see the largest number of newcomers landing in Canada as permanent residents in more than five decades. In 2011 we intend to welcome between 240,000 and 265,000 permanent residents. I understand my officials were before you last week to discuss the planned levels.

The Government of Canada also remains committed to using immigration in a way that best serves our economic needs.

That's why I'm pleased that Canada was able to lift the visa requirement for travellers with ordinary Taiwan passports. This is something we announced, I believe, just a week ago. This is the eighth visa that we've lifted since 2006.

As you know, I spent time in September visiting our principal immigration source countries—India, China, and the Philippines—as well as having discussions with my colleagues in Europe and Australia. We focused on working together to combat abuse of our immigration system, and human smuggling and trafficking.

We are taking steps to address this challenge. Regulatory changes have been introduced to clarify the authority of the government to refuse applicants on the basis of marriages of convenience. The changes provide visa officers with a better tool to prevent people who have entered into phony marriages from undermining the integrity of our system.

This fall I also held a series of cross-country town hall meetings on the issue of phony marriages. I want to personally hear people's stories, as well as their opinions and ideas about how to best address the issue. While we obviously want to keep the doors open for legitimate spouses, we also want to make sure the doors are not open for those who would break our laws and exploit Canadians.

Mr. Chair, in closing, let me just address human smuggling. This represents an assault on our country's borders and generosity. It clogs our immigration system by diverting resources away from other areas where they ought to be focused. That's why our law enforcement agencies need the tools to be able to combat human smuggling, whether on a small or large scale. Bill C-49, an act Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System, will enable us to crack down on the despicable human smugglers who prey on vulnerable migrants.

Canadians expect strong actions, but actions that are also balanced with our humanitarian and legal obligations. We believe Bill C-49 achieves that objective.

In closing, these are just some of the ways we are working to make immigration more responsive to our economy, and make our refugee programs more fair and efficient.

Thank you for this opportunity to address the Committee, and I would be happy to respond to your questions.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to follow up a little bit on your commitment from 2009, in terms of offering protection to more than 22,000 refugees here, including more than 12,000 who've resettled from abroad. One of the things we did as a government, and it was supported in the House by all opposition parties, was pass Bill C-11, which committed to an additional 2,500 refugees on a yearly basis to our current obligations to the UN.

I do want to get an understanding of this because I think it needs to be clarified. Those refugees, whether they be Bhutanese or whether they be Iraqi, are in fact already approved and it's been indicated, from a UN perspective and from a worldwide perspective, that they are true refugees.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, certainly Bill C-49, our tough legislation to prevent human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system, gives us the tools we need to stop illegal smuggling boats. Longer detention will keep our streets safer. Preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining sponsoring relatives for five years reduces the incentive to queue jump. Finally, we will have the tools under our criminal law to pursue and punish the captain and crew.

We did it with Bill C-11, refugee reform legislation. We did it with Bill C-35, dealing with crooked immigration consultants. Let us work together to get this bill through the House.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'll pick up on Mr. Marston's questions and comments with Madame Desloges.

There's also another way: those who are highly skilled or who have technical skills that are on a list of what we're looking for to build our economy can apply and be fast-tracked through the immigration process rather than come through the refugee process. There's that avenue too.

I should say right from the beginning, for full disclosure, that I know Madame Desloges quite well. I've been an admirer of her great work, and we've had the opportunity to work together. One of our mutual pursuits was the expansion of the private sponsorship of refugees program in order to get the numbers to a place that would allow us to welcome more people here.

This is one of the areas that's tough in that sense. I was just going to mention.... Chantal, you mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan. Some other countries that come to my mind are Sudan, Myanmar, and Iran--particularly Iran, as far as the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender community is concerned--where there is a huge need similar to the need we're talking about right now. Our capacity to absorb is one of the challenges we face. We're a country that takes a lot of refugees per capita.

You mentioned the visa office, but in the case of private sponsorship there's also the capacity to process them by having families or groups of people who will look after them and settle them here as well. That is a major challenge. I appreciate some of the comments you've made about some ideas.

Because you commented on some other legislation, I wanted to ask you about Bill C-11. That bill, the refugee reform act, was passed and has received royal assent, but it's not in place now. Did that move the ball along the field, so to speak, in terms of making it easier for inland refugees?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the last thing this government has been is soft on our views on immigration.

We have welcomed more Canadians to this country from other lands than ever before in the history of Canada. Landing fees were cut in half as soon as this government was elected. We just passed Bill C-11, refugee reform legislation, which is some of the best legislation this country has ever seen.

When it comes to people wanting to come to this country, our doors are open. We want to see more immigration.