Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 4th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. I have a couple of questions.

Ms. Chow has touched on a couple of issues that I would consider part of the major elements of reform.

Mr. St-Cyr actually touched on one that I'd like to get some further perspective on from you. That is the whole new refugee appeal division. I know you didn't quite get a chance to respond within the seven minutes. I thought you could expand a little more in terms of the effort the ministry went to, to set this process up and to make sure it did play a major role in the legislation itself.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

When Mr. Coderre was minister, and he was followed by Ms. Sgro and Mr. Volpe--they all expressed their sincere, I believe, intention to implement the RAD, but they all said it had to happen in the context of other broader streamlining in the system. I have all the quotes, and I agree 100% with what my predecessors said at the time. They were in a difficult bind, because it's not easy to come forward with a comprehensive but balanced reform of the asylum system. It is not easy, believe me. I've been working on this, burning the midnight oil for a year and a half on the policy details here, and this is something that department officials have been working on, frankly, for years, as Mr. Coderre will well know.

The point is this. Everyone has wanted to bring in an appeal division, but within the context of streamlining, and that's what we're able to achieve here. Through the moratoria on post-claim recourses for one year, through the faster first-level decision, and thanks to faster removal at the back end of the system, we believe we can introduce this additional level of administrative fairness in the refugee appeal division without further burdening an overburdened system.

I want to underscore that the refugee appeal division foreseen in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2003, and proposed, for instance, in Mr. St-Cyr's private member's bill, does not actually include, as does the RAD in Bill C-11, the ability to present new evidence and in certain cases to have an oral hearing before the appeal division decision-maker. This is an improved RAD. It's an additional level of administrative fairness, but it's not going to happen if we don't achieve the other streamlining in the system that the package speaks to.

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

One of the things you did—and you mentioned it in terms of burning the midnight oil—was to travel across the country once the introduction of Bill C-11 was brought forward by you in the House, and you went from one side to the other. I'm wondering if you can comment on some of the reactions you received in terms of folks you met, whether they be stakeholders, whether they be media, whether they be those who may come here and actually be witnesses. Could you tell us the reaction you've received in terms of dealing directly with people on this?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

To be absolutely honest, I was not expecting the kind of positive response we got, because this is such a difficult issue, with strongly held views. But I think there's a pretty broad consensus that something needs to be done.

This is an honest, balanced effort to achieve that, which is why every single newspaper editorial I've seen, with one exception—I think we have 15 or 20 here—from the Toronto Star to the National Post, from the Halifax Chronicle Herald to the Victoria Times -Colonist, have essentially endorsed the package, as have key stakeholders.

I've quoted one, but I see here the coordinator of the Catholic Immigration Society, Madame Godbout, saying, “I am strongly in support of stopping the abuse of the inland refugee determination system.”

I have the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society saying, “The changes to the refugee system proposed by the...government are a big step in the right direction.”

The Chinese Women's Association of Toronto says, “I am writing you to support your announcement of the refugee reform. That is good news for the Chinese community.”

I'd be happy to table the pages and pages of endorsements from settlement organizations, ethnocultural organizations, refugee policy experts, and media commentators. I think this reflects a pretty broad consensus. Now, that's not to dismiss the fact that there are people with legitimate concerns that we will work through here at the committee.

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

It would certainly be helpful if you were to table those for all of us.

How much time do I have left, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have a couple of minutes left.

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

Thank you.

At the beginning of your remarks you briefly touched on the need for change, and one of those changes relates to the backlog we face as a country, as a ministry, and as government. Perhaps you could remind folks how we got here with respect to how the backlog has increased to the point it has, and how we'll actually be able to put ourselves in a position of reduction over the next period of years if we pass this legislation.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I actually think this is an important issue. It came up at almost every opposition speech at second reading, and understandably so.

There is this ridiculous accusation from some people that the government.... I've read these ridiculous articles that say the government planned a crisis in the system by building up this big backlog. Look, the reforms are necessary in large part because large backlogs have been a permanent feature of this asylum system for well over a decade. The average size of the backlog of pending asylum claims before the IRB was 40,000 in the past decade alone. At one point, under the previous Liberal government, it was up to 52,000.

The previous government made some sensible efforts to try to reduce this by injecting short-term resources into the IRB and the CBSA. They didn't work. They worked in the short term to reduce the backlog, for example, down to 20,000. But then it just starts going back up again.

This is the story of our current, frankly broken, refugee system. It is so slow moving and so cumbersome that it creates a vicious cycle. The slower moving it is, the greater the incentive for false claimants to enter the system seeking to immigrate to Canada through the back door of the asylum system. And then the backlogs get bigger.

Now some have said that all we need to do is maintain the current system but spend more and speed things up. Bill Clinton once said that one definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome. I think it would be a disservice to Canadian taxpayers, to refugees, and to the public confidence in our asylum system if we were simply to dump more money--and this is what we've done in the past--without fixing the architecture of the system in a balanced way, which is what we seek to do.

When our government came to office, we inherited a 20,000-person backlog. Then, between 2006 and 2008 we saw a 60% increase in the number of claims. Altogether, since we took office, there have been about 20,000 more claims made than what is the capacity of the fully funded, fully staffed IRB to finalize decisions, which over four years would be 100,000 finalizations, or 25,000 per year.

It is true that part of the current backlog--and I admit this--is attributable to a short-term period of vacancies on the IRB as the government was moving to adopt a new and more rigorous pre-screening process. I'm pleased to say that it's working. Since I became minister, I have done 99 appointments or re-appointments. The RPD and the IRB are at 99% occupancy. And we're now beginning to turn the corner on the backlog, thanks in part to the visa impositions last year. That was a difficult decision, but we now finally have a surplus, if you will, of finalizations over claims made. We're starting to turn the corner, but we won't really be able to turn the corner in a significant way without such reforms.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Coderre has five minutes.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Minister, I think that what you are trying to have passed is something of an omnibus bill.

I am all for changing the process. Besides, that is something we both have already discussed. As for making sure that we do not weigh down the administrative process, while maintaining the right to a hearing, and eventually an appeal, that is something I fully agree with, as I told you at the outset. However, in trying to make such far-reaching changes, you might go from being the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, to being the Minister of Labelling. This all appears to be a labelling exercise.

In trying to manage population movements—speaking in practical terms— we are confronted by a number of facts. You know that all ministers of Immigration have imposed visas, which is quite normal and correct. However, ministers of Immigration should never give up their power to take exceptional measures when need be. The concept of “safe countries”, would create two systems: one intended for people from safe countries and another for people from countries that are not considered as such. That would undermine our distinctively Canadian system, which recognizes that each case is specific and unique.

You currently have regulatory powers that allow you to effectively manage cases of abuse. If this were a bill to improve the process, I would support you. I think that would be a good thing. We indeed have to cut down on as much legal quibbling as possible, while ensuring that people can defend themselves appropriately. I have full confidence in the public servants who support you. We need customs personnel who are adequately trained and who could make the decisions concerning refugee claims, based on specific criteria, as if they had the minister's delegated authority, and all the better if refugee claimants can file appeals with the Immigration and Refugee Board, depending on the merits of their cases.

To echo the question of my colleague, Mr. St-Cyr, I do not understand why this bill removes powers from the minister, depending on whether an individual comes from a safe or unsafe country. Things could be done differently if you retained the power to make exceptions in exceptional situations, a power that has been granted to all ministers of Immigration. Our role is to achieve a balance between the established system and the power of the minister to make decisions in exceptional circumstances. If we do not do that, we might weaken our entire immigration system, which has been built up over the past decades.

You say that you are ready to bring forward amendments. Would it not have been better to retain that exceptional power in the case of safe countries, rather than abandoning those responsibilities, as this leads me to believe? I am concerned that you might decide not to file appeals to the Federal Court in exceptional circumstances involving a safe country and not submit those cases to the normal process, despite the general ability to file an appeal with the Federal Court.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I must point out, Mr. Chair, that we are not removing section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which empowers the minister to act in exceptional cases. That section is not affected by our proposed reform.

However, I must also emphasize that many of the elements in the current legislation, which was adopted by Mr. Coderre, create distinctions among countries. The law designates source countries from which we accept refugee claims. We have a moratorium on deportation. For that, there is a list of countries established by the Minister of Public Safety on the advice of public servants. There is even a list of countries for which we grant visa exemptions. All that goes to show that we already assess countries' conditions.

As well, Mr. Coderre, I must underscore the fact that, according to our proposed reform, each refugee claim will be dealt with in a specific and unique way, on a case-by-case basis, according to its merits, by an independent and expert decision-maker at the IRB, all in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Decision-makers will not issue negative decisions based on the fact that claimants are nationals from designated safe countries.

There is only one exception for not granting a hearing before the IRB, and that is when claimants are U.S. nationals, and that is because of the agreement between Canada and the United States on safe third countries. That is the only exception that would prevent someone from obtaining a hearing before the IRB. If I may say so, you are the one who implemented that agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mrs. Thi Lac, you have five minutes.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Good afternoon, Minister. I would like to thank your officials for appearing here today with you.

Can you mention a single country whose nationals are systematically rejected, 100% of the time?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I apologize, I do not understand your question.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Is there a single country whose claimants are rejected, 100% of the time?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

No, but there are a number of countries with a rejection rate of close to 99%. Today, the rejection rate for claimants from Hungary is nearly 100%.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Very well.

With regard to people from Haiti, we learned last week that only nine additional cases were processed between January and March 2010 compared with the same quarter a year earlier. Your deputy minister also said that all the claims received prior to the earthquake would be completed by the end of April. We are still waiting. I wanted to know how your bill could benefit refugees who experience similar disasters. How can it help the Haitians? If this legislation were in effect, how would the situation be different? Would all of those cases have already been accepted? You promised you would speed up the process.

As I indicated, the figure is quite surprising: there were only nine cases more than the previous year, despite your promise to speed up the process. If your bill had already been adopted, how would it have made a difference for Haitians?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

The IRB decided to speed up the processing of refugee claims from Haiti that were already in the system before the earthquake. They announced a number of measures to speed up the process. I would encourage you to ask for more information from president Goodman, as he will be appearing before the committee shortly.

With regard to the family sponsorship claims, we will be able to finalize all decisions concerning Haitian claims that were in the system prior to the earthquake by the end of June.

Moreover, nothing in the bill will limit access to the refugee system for people from Haiti. On the contrary, refugee claimants from Haiti who are turned down at the Refugee Protection Division will, following the reform, have access to the Refugee Appeal Division. I am sure that Haiti will never be included in the list of designated safe countries.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Minister. I am disappointed that the end of April deadline has been put off to the month of June. That is disappointing.

My second question is on consultants. Many immigration consultants currently lie to and swindle clients. Many applicants are fraudulent applicants because of the advice they get from consultants. Why does your bill not include measures to govern the consultant sector in order to reduce the number of false refugee claimants?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That is a relevant question, madam. We decided to focus on reforming the asylum processes in this bill. However, I am committed to tabling a bill in the House soon that will provide tougher regulations for immigration consultants and that will provide for further measures that will improve regulations in that sector. You are absolutely right in saying that false claimants are often encouraged by unscrupulous consultants.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I will share the rest of my time with my colleague who has other questions to ask.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have one minute.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Minister, with respect to designated countries, has the department considered other possible mechanisms to achieve similar ends? If so, what are those mechanisms? Why did you discount them in favour of the one you are presenting today?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I did not receive any political advice from the department on tools that could be used other than designating safe countries and requiring visas.

That said, you can consider Western European systems. Several use the safe country designation differently. In fact, in some countries a hearing is held within 48 hours if the claimant comes from a country that has been designated safe. Other countries use the tool differently. However, most countries make a distinction from the outset between certain designated countries and the vast majority of countries. What this means is that this is a very widespread tool.