Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 4th, 2010

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

To PRRA.

[Les Linklater]

—before they are removed from Canada.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Okay, which is a big change from what it is now.

[Les Linklater]

Regardless of time spent, a PRRA is accorded if someone applies for it.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Right.

Is that the same for people who are not from the safe country list? If they have been rejected in the appeal division and they are ready to be removed but PRRA takes a long time, let's say, that person would also not be able to have a hearing prior to removal?

[Les Linklater]

If their last negative decision, whether from the RAD or from the Federal Court, is within one year of their departure from Canada, that's correct, PRRA would not apply.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

What is the current backlog? How long does it take to get a PRRA these days?

[Les Linklater]

I'm not sure of the timing on the backlog—perhaps my colleagues could respond—but there are about 4,000 cases awaiting PRRA.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Are you hiring more people to hear a PRRA case?

[Peter MacDougall, Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

The backlog time is about nine months, but I think it's important to remember that the person would not have access to the PRRA, so the timing of how long it takes is not strictly relevant in this case.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Why?

[Peter MacDougall]

When a person has a negative decision of the RAD or the RPD, and they presumably go to the Federal Court, they cannot apply for or are not eligible for a PRRA during that 12-month period. It's only after that period has elapsed and they've not been removed that their access to the PRRA would be restored.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I see. So why have the PRRA there anyway, because they would never get there?

[Peter MacDougall]

The PRRA is not only available to failed refugee claimants, it's available to other streams of the immigration program, so those people would still have access to it.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Right. But for a refugee's claim, this is now gone, really, this PRRA access.

[Peter MacDougall]

Only for one year following the last negative decision at the IRB.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

But if it takes more than a year to get there? Really, whatever is on paper is one thing. There's already a huge backlog. They'll probably be longer than a year. They won't be able to appeal to PRRA.

[Les Linklater]

During the transitional period we expect that the current backlog of PRRA requests will be run down, so as we get to implementation--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]...to run that down?

[Les Linklater]

No. We will able to manage within our existing resources. But as we move to the new system, there should be a significant decline in new intake because of the one-year bar.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Chow.

Dr. Wong.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you again for coming to the committee.

In the act itself there's another program for the assisted voluntary removal of failed claimants. It will make it easier for people to return to their country of origin, and therefore they will be more likely to leave.

My questions are twofold. The first is about the details--so that's about what. Then I have other questions about how. So tell us the details, as well as who we'll be working with and what we'll be funding them to do to help with this. Are there similar programs in other countries? If so, how does this proposal compare?

I have lumped everything together because in your presentation you might be able to touch on them all.

[Les Linklater]

Thank you for the question.

I will ask my colleague from CBSA to respond in detail.

Briefly, other countries have profited from AVR-type programs, where they've been able to partner with international organizations like the IOM to facilitate the removal of individuals by giving them incentives to leave, as opposed to having those individuals wait longer in the country where they have made asylum claims.

I'll ask Mr. Hill to respond in detail to the question.

[Peter Hill, Acting Associate Vice-President, Program Branch, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thank you for the question.

What's being proposed is a four-year pilot project aimed at encouraging more voluntary returns. It would essentially provide counselling to claimants throughout the refugee determination process with respect to failed claimants' rights and their obligations. For example, many people just don't realize that if they are removed from Canada, that is, if they are deported, they're banned from ever returning.

The pilot project would be delivered in partnership with an independent service provider. The pilot would be located in the greater Toronto area and would consist of two phases. The first phase would be for failed claimants who are being returned to Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. That would essentially be for the first two years of the project. The second phase—again located in Toronto—would be for failed claimants being returned to all other parts of the world.

In addition to counselling, the pilot project would provide a number of other features. For example, it would provide failed asylum claimants with a plane ticket to return home. It would provide funding up to a maximum of $2,000, to be given to the service providers who will be working to facilitate re-integration in the country of origin. The kind of support that is envisaged is educational assistance, employment assistance, and things of that nature. I want to underline that the funding would be provided to the independent service provider to administer; these funds would not be provided directly to the failed claimants. There would be strict eligibility criteria for this program, in particular, no criminality, complete adherence to reporting to the Canada Border Services Agency, complete compliance in obtaining travel documents, and there would also be a temporary bar from ever returning to Canada.

So those are the features of the program. As my colleague mentioned, other countries have very mature programs, in particular, the European countries. The U.K. has had a program along these lines for the last decade. Australia conducted national trials recently and implemented a national program in 2009.

The benefits that we anticipate from the AVR program include: more removals within the one-year timeframe as a result of the incentives to comply; cost savings, including significant cost savings with respect to enforcement activities; less detention; less complex investigations; and less escorted removals. There would also be less risk of failed claimants not appearing for removal, in view of the educational assistance and counselling that would be provided, as has been witnessed by other countries with such programs. The last feature, and perhaps one of the most important ones of the AVR program, would be the way it would facilitate failed claimants' acquisition of travel documents. Individuals would have to cooperate with the CBSA in obtaining travel documents, which has been one of the key impediments to removal.

Those essentially are the highlights of the proposed AVR program.