That's the current number and not the ideal number.
Evidence of meeting #7 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was safe.
Evidence of meeting #7 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was safe.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
So you're 10 short in that division right now.
You said there was an increasing number of immigration sponsorship appeals. Is there some way of characterizing that increased workload, or is there a typical case? Is there a particular kind of case that is coming forward that's different, or is it just more of the same?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
One question that came up earlier is in terms of the safe third country agreement with the United States. We had a case with a Pakistani doctor who got out. She was raped, she went to England, but she could not apply for refugee status in Canada because she was in England. She was refused...to apply for refugee status in Canada. We have those kinds of situations that are somewhat analogous to the safe third.
I'd like your opinion. We had a presentation from the European Union. The ones that belong to the European Union are members of OSCE and they have to abide by the Organization on Security and Co-operation in Europe. They have to abide by their human rights standards. They're members of NATO and they have to abide by those standards, and of course there's the European Union itself. I wonder if it's just not a waste of effort for us to be entertaining refugee claims from the European Union.
The reason I raise that is I think their system is at least as good as ours, or they have more safeguards than we do, given the multiplicity of the bodies. The other issue is that there's a problem with visa requirements from some of the countries that belong to the European Union, which creates a problem between us and Europe in case they want to reciprocate.
Would you agree that the European standard in terms of human rights is at least equal to, if not better than, Canada's?
4:25 p.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I wish I could help you there, but I don't know enough about the European standard myself, I must confess. Secondly, I think the department is in a better position to provide the standard issue in its standard discussions. I'm using the convention and the act.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I think we'll have to cut it off there.
I want to thank you, Mr. Fleury, and your associates for coming today. I want to compliment you again on your very good work.
Did you have a statement you wanted to make, Ms. Stuart-Major?
4:25 p.m.
Marilyn Stuart-Major Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I know there are a number of new members on the committee, and the chair talked about our outreach. If any one of the members of the committee is interested in the briefings, we'd be pleased to provide those briefings. As well, we invite you to attend any of our hearings across the country. Just contact our office and we'd be pleased to show you what we do and how we do it.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you. I'm sure some of our members will take advantage of it.
We'll have to break for a couple of minutes while we get our next group in.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Maybe we can resume our meeting, or start our new meeting, I should say.
On behalf of the committee, I want to welcome representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We have with us today Mr. Assadi, the representative from Canada, and Mr. Kale, a senior protection officer.
We have one hour. You will, of course, be given about 10 minutes to make an opening statement if you wish, after which of course we will go around the table and have questions, discussions, and what have you.
Welcome, gentlemen. You can begin any time you're ready.
4:30 p.m.
Jahanshah Assadi Representative in Canada, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting UNHCR to appear before this committee. Joining me, as the chairman said, is my colleague, Mr. Kale, the UNHCR senior protection officer here in our office in Ottawa.
First, Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate you on your election as chair of this very important committee. We very much look forward to working with this newly constituted committee on citizenship and immigration.
I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on key refugee protection issues specific to the Canadian context, as well as to draw the committee's attention to recent developments that will significantly impact the international dimension of UNHCR's work.
As members of the committee are certainly aware, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is mandated to provide international protection to refugees and to help governments solve refugee problems.
We have arranged to distribute an information brochure that describes our role here in Canada, so I won't go into great detail, except to emphasize a crucial point about the manner in which we carry out the supervisory functions of our mandate here in Canada.
As a party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Canada agrees to cooperate with UNHCR in supervising the application of the refugee convention, and this willingness to cooperate goes even further. UNHCR's role to attend and observe any proceedings concerning asylum seekers and refugees is actually enshrined in Canadian legislation. Thus, UNHCR is in a very good position to closely observe the actions that Canada takes in assuming its international obligations with respect to refugees and asylum seekers.
In general we find Canada's procedure for the determination of refugee status to be of a very high quality. From our observation, we find that the Immigration and Refugee Board has in place a fair and sound first instance decision-making procedure, which is very much enhanced by the fact that the IRB is an independent body.
A sound and well-resourced first instance mechanism must be the core of any refugee status determination procedure anywhere in the world. The fact that the IRB's decision-making looks at all protection aspects of the refugee claim, including the 1951 refugee convention as well as the 1984 convention against torture, helps to enhance fairness and efficiency.
Nonetheless, the chairman of the IRB himself has often stated that refugee determination is one of the most difficult forms of decision-making. UNHCR agrees, and it is in recognition of this fact that we believe that implementation of an appeal on the merits to review negative first instance decisions would strengthen even further the Canadian refugee status determination system. For UNHCR, an appeal on the merits would correct first instance errors and help to ensure consistency and fairness in decision-making.
The Federal Court judicial review is not an appeal on the merits. The court cannot replace a decision by the IRB with its own judgment. However, the Federal Court can refer a case back to the IRB if it finds that a decision is incorrect in law, or based on an unreasonable understanding of the facts, or if it was made in an unfair manner.
The pre-removal risk assessment, PRRA, is an important safety net, especially when there's a long passage of time between a negative decision and removal. Like the humanitarian and compassionate application, the PRRA is a circumscribed process that does not correct a first instance negative decision.
We also believe that another key element to enhancing the credibility and preserving the integrity of the refugee system is for rejected asylum seekers to leave Canada if, after full and fair consideration, they are found not to be in need of protection. The voluntary return of rejected claimants should be promoted, as such programs can be helpful in returning them home in a safe and dignified manner.
I would now like to comment on UNHCR's monitoring of the safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States of America—an issue that I know is of interest to this committee.
As the committee is aware, UNHCR was requested by the two parties to the agreement to monitor the implementation of this bilateral accord. The scope of UNHCR's monitoring role was to assess whether the implementation of the agreement was consistent with its terms and principles, as well as with international refugee law; in other words, whether the asylum seekers had access to the refugee determination procedure either in Canada or in the United States, and that protection from being sent to a possible place of persecution would be granted to those in need of it.
In general, UNHCR's findings on this agreement have been positive, notably that the safe third country agreement is being implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement and international refugee law. Eligibility decisions under the agreement are made correctly. The burden of proof required for refugee claimants, such as establishing family links, is generally reasonable. Moreover, UNHCR has enjoyed very good cooperation with government authorities and port of entry officials on both sides of the border in terms of free and unhindered access to ports of entry, as well as to asylum seekers.
During the course of our monitoring on the Canadian side, UNHCR held regular consultations with CIC and CBSA officials to discuss and/or address any issues that arose during the implementation of the agreement.
The main issues of concern that we identified and for which we proposed recommendations for these to be addressed included: one, an inadequate level of preparedness prior to implementation of the agreement; two, the policy of “direct backs”; three, lengthy processing times at certain ports of entry; four, refugee claimants often not understanding the complexities of the safe third country agreement interview process; five, a narrow definition and application of the public interest provision; and six, the need for a more timely provision of statistical reports.
I should mention that all of these issues have been addressed to varying degrees and UNHCR recommendations are being followed. Most notable amongst them is Canada's recent decision to discontinue the policy of “direct backs” as of August 31 of this year, except under extraordinary circumstances, which is a decision that we especially welcome.
Our findings during our first year of monitoring indicate that out of 4,041 refugee claimants, approximately 74% fell under one of the exceptions to the safe third country agreement and were deemed eligible to lodge their claims in Canada. The refugee claimants' main source countries of nationality were Colombia, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Peru, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Haiti.
UNHCR's final monitoring report covering the first year of the agreement's implementation will shortly be submitted to the governments of Canada and the United States, and we understand it will be placed in the public domain in due course.
I would now like to brief the committee on the importance that UNHCR attaches to Canada's role in the resettlement of refugees, not only in terms of the number it accepts on an annual basis, which hovers around 10,000 to 11,000 or so, but also for using its resettlement program in a flexible and strategic manner designed to provide durable solutions for a maximum number of refugees.
Canada has partnered closely with UNHCR in developing new strategies, such as applying a group resettlement approach to benefit a larger number of refugees who have been in a protracted refugee situation overseas and who can neither return home nor safely integrate in their host country. For example, this approach was used last year to resettle large numbers of Somali and Sudanese refugees from UNHCR camps in Kenya.
Another illustration is Canada's resettlement of over 1,000 Afghan refugees from the central Asian republics, where Canada not only responded to a protracted Afghan refugee situation, but it also positioned its program in order to leverage the governments in that region to allow the naturalization of 10,000 remaining Afghan refugees.
Today we are looking to Canada to play an active role in helping to build resettlement capacity in Latin American countries through technical and financial support. A number of countries in that region have committed to develop their own resettlement and integration programs in response to the Colombian refugee problem, but the know-how from experienced countries like Canada would be very much welcome, and to date, CIC has been forthcoming in its support for such initiatives.
Again, at the international level, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important for this committee to be aware that since the start of 2005—and this was mentioned in the discussions earlier with the IRB—the number of refugees worldwide is at its lowest level in almost a quarter of a century, at just over nine million persons. Several sizeable repatriation operations have contributed to the decrease of refugees, most notably in Afghanistan, where more than four million people have returned home since 2002. In Africa, return movements to Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Sudan have either been completed or are under way.
This positive shift in the number of refugees has been offset, unfortunately, by the growing number of internally displaced people, currently estimated at 25 million globally. These are persons who have been uprooted by violence and persecution and who are effectively refugees in their home country, as they haven't, strictly speaking, crossed an international border. A few examples of large-scale internal displacements are the 3.4 million people in Colombia, the 1.8 million in Sudan's Darfur province, and the 1.5 million in Uganda.
Addressing the inadequate level of protection assistance provided to these civilian victims has been recognized as one of the greatest challenges faced by the international community. As part of a new UN inter-agency approach to ensure a more reliable and predictable engagement in situations of internal displacement, UNHCR has been tasked to lead the so-called clusters on protection, camp management, and emergency shelter. This marks a turning point for UNHCR, as internally displaced people are now to become integral and important parts of UNHCR's global activities.
This will no doubt create pressures on UNHCR's work in terms of operational capacity and our ability to secure additional resources. Our high commissioner is fully committed for UNHCR to take on these new responsibilities with internally displaced persons on the condition that this greater role not come at the expense of refugee protection and assistance. The Government of Canada fully concurs with this position.
To recap and conclude, Mr. Chairman, my office believes that Canada has a strong tradition of helping refugees, both in Canada and abroad; that its determination of refugee status is of a high quality; and that its resettlement program is immensely important as a protection tool and in assisting UNHCR in finding doable solutions for refugees. We are grateful for the ongoing cooperation and assistance we enjoy with the government as well as with other partners in Canada.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this committee today.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you, sir.
Just one question. How does Canada stack up in terms of acceptance levels compared to other developed countries in the world?
4:45 p.m.
Representative in Canada, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
The ranking of Canada would be either second or third globally. The U.S. is the major resettlement country right now, as it resettles about 50,000 or so people. Canada and Australia, I would say, normally vie for second or third place. But it's in the top three.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Thank you.
Just to correct one thing, we no longer elect chairs in committees; they're appointed by the Prime Minister. That was something we played with briefly, and unfortunately that democratic renewal, or whatever, was not continued.
In terms of refugee hearings and fairness of various systems, how do you feel about the European model?
4:45 p.m.
Representative in Canada, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Certainly we consider that Europe and North America have quite developed models for the purposes of refugee status determination, but I guess to some extent it depends on what you mean by Europe.
In terms of some of the the former Eastern bloc countries, the UNHCR is working to expand their capacities.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Representative in Canada, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Yes, some of those countries are members of the European Union.
I recall the question you put to Mr. Fleury. There are some countries in Europe with long experience and expertise in dealing with refugee status determination, while other, newer members of the European Union are now developing their capacity. We are actively engaged with some of those countries.
So it's difficult for me to give a broad-brush assessment of all the European Union countries. Certainly among them you have some that are amongst the best practitioners, and there are those that have set up relatively new systems and are working to develop their capacities.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
But they all have to apply to the European Union. If you're a member of the European Union, you also have to apply to the OSCE.
4:50 p.m.
Representative in Canada, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Yes.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
You also have to apply to NATO, where it applies.
In some ways, I feel safer having those folks in the European Union make those determinations than I do with some aspects of our neighbour to the south, particularly when it comes to war resisters, for example. Do you have any comment on that?