Evidence of meeting #27 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rad.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:45 a.m.
As an Individual
I wonder if I could make a comment on Mr. St-Cyr's question.
10:45 a.m.
As an Individual
I think it's important to realize that if the enactment of the new appeal section came into effect, it simply means a paper review. It's not a de novo hearing. There can be no new facts presented, no new evidence presented. Someone reviews the paper decision that was made by the board. That's it. It's not worth it to do that at this particular time. Particularly when the backlog is building up, you will just add another time delay. There's no substance to this kind of an appeal. If there's going to be an appeal it should be a real appeal, a de novo.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I only need two. I have a question for Ms. Augenfeld and Ms. Dench.
There were three lawyers here earlier on, and I made these different suggestions: remove unscrupulous consultants; implement the refugee appeal division, with the power to reopen and review cases; eliminate the pre-removal risk assessment; eliminate the automatic stay of removal at Federal Court; hire more permanent refugee protection officers and give them the power to grant approval status to obvious cases—this is through the chair's guidelines and directives—and remove political patronage from appointments to the refugee board.
Those are the recommendations to have an effective, fair, consistent, and rapid refugee determination process. Are these recommendations, on top of the RAD, something that you would support?
10:50 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
From the point of view of the Canadian Council for Refugees, we would not support all those recommendations, and there are other things that we think are critical.
I would highlight that the implementation of the refugee appeal division has been an urgent call from the refugee advocacy community since the current system came into place in the 1980s. You, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to make sure that people who need Canada's protection are not sent back to persecution. You should therefore feel personally responsible for ensuring that the system meets its obligations, and that Canada meets its obligations, not to refoulerefugees. We're here today to urge you to make that a priority.
There are other problems in the system. The appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board are also a priority. Before any legislation is tabled for further reforms, we would very much like to discuss that with the government. We have many suggestions to make, and we are bemused, confused, that the government has failed and the minister has declined to have any conversation with the refugee advocacy community. We cannot understand how one can expect to have good legislation come forward when you don't make use of the communities of expertise that are out there.
10:50 a.m.
Representative, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
May I answer?
I agree with everything Janet Dench said, but I would also say that you can't first fix the system and then bring the appeal. The appeal is part of fixing the system. You bring in the appeal, you put in the necessary resources, and then you look simultaneously at some of the other things that can be done.
I would remind people, to go back to my point--and because I'm sitting right next to Joe Bissett--that in 1989, when there were over 100,000 people in a backlog when the new IRB came in, the NGO community, lawyers, and others had recommendations for how to clear that backlog that would have been fairer and more efficient. The government announced a program that was supposed to last two years and cost $200 million. It ended up taking over five years and cost $500 million. Who got left last in the whole thing? Refugees who needed protection. There are ways of dealing with this, but first you have to implement the RAD, make it fairer, and then other things will follow.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
You're suggesting the RAD should have the right to reopen and review cases for hearings, right?
10:50 a.m.
Representative, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
If necessary.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I didn't realize it was $500 million that was blown out the door at the time for the 100,000 backlog.
What percentage again—you said it so fast I missed it—actually right now go to Federal Court of all the ones that were turned down?
10:50 a.m.
Representative, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
May I answer?
10:50 a.m.
Representative, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes
I was given the statistic at a meeting last week with the Immigration and Refugee Board that about 65% of cases that are refused go to the Federal Court, ask for leave. Of those who ask for leave, very few are accepted for leave. Of those who are accepted for leave, very few have their appeal examined.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Maurizio Bevilacqua
Thank you very much.
As you probably can hear, there is a bell going on. The vote will take place around 11:08. There may be some members of Parliament on the committee who will be leaving. That's the reason why they're leaving. On their behalf, I want to thank you very much for your input.
We now will hear from Mr. Young.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mrs. Dench, you said the minister maybe hasn't consulted with the community. This process here today is the highest form of consultation. Two parliamentary assistants to the minister are sitting on this committee today to hear your testimony. It will be examined closely by the political staff. It will be examined closely by the bureaucracy and the minister. I wanted to assure you of that.
My question is for Mr. Bissett. You stated, Mr. Bissett, that we're the only western country that does not have some sort of a pre-screening procedure to sort out obviously fraudulent and unfounded refugee claims. What would such a procedure look like?
10:50 a.m.
As an Individual
The primary one is the one that we had in the 1989 legislation. This is that certain countries are listed as safe for refugees; they are a safe country of origin. If you're coming from a country, as I said, that's democratic, that follows the rule of law, that's a signatory to the UN convention, then you're not eligible to make a claim. You may be screened by a refugee officer at the port of entry who will ask you questions, but generally speaking you don't get access to the refugee systems.
Other countries in Europe and elsewhere have what they call “manifestly unfounded claims”. That is if someone has a claim that's obviously frivolous, the refugee officer questions him and believes that it's unfounded and there's no real substance to the claim, the claim can be stopped at that point and not allowed into the system. There are various ways of doing it.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you.
Can you please explain the involvement of what you described as foreign racketeers in the fraudulent routing of aspiring economic migrants to Canada's refugee system?
10:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Of course we're a favourite target of human smugglers because the smugglers know that all you have to do is get on an aircraft destined to Canada. They will provide you with false documents that will enable you to get on the aircraft. Once on the aircraft the smuggler will tell you that he guarantees you five to ten years in Canada, even if you're found by the board not to be genuine.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
10:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Of course they may. We know there are some cases where they pay $50,000 U.S. to get aboard an aircraft destined to Canada. We are the country of choice for human smuggling.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to give the rest of my time to Ms. Grewal.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
In the past you have stated that the Canadian refugee system needs reform. What are your proposals for efficiency or cost savings? Would you please comment on that?