Thank you very much. We're all very pleased to be here to address you on Bill C-11, the government's balanced refugee reform legislation.
As you know, Bill C-11 proposes to reform our asylum system by giving faster protection to asylum claimants who truly need it, reducing the abuse of our system, and providing for faster removal of failed claimants.
We are aware of four areas of concern for the committee: the safe country of origin list; matters concerning humanitarian and compassionate claims; timelines for initial interviews with claimants and later hearings before the board; the hiring and independence of the officials who carry out interviews and hearings at the board.
Today, we will address the first two matters. I understand the committee will later be hearing from representatives of the board, who will address the latter two concerns.
As you know, Mr. Chair, as part of the proposed reform measures, the government would develop a safe country of origin list. Most Canadians and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recognize that there are places in the world where the persecution of people is less likely to occur compared to other areas.
In his testimony to the committee earlier this week, Mr. Abraham Abraham, the UNHCR representative in Canada, noted that the UNHCR does not oppose the introduction of the safe country of origin list, as long as it is not used as an absolute bar to the consideration of an asylum claim. A safe country of origin list is a necessary tool to reform the asylum system. We have no way within the current system to rapidly address surges of asylum claims that could prove to be unfounded, such as claims from individuals whose countries have strong democratic, judicial, and accountability frameworks to protect their citizens. Without such a tool to help manage claims, our only other recourse is to impose visas.
Mr. Chair, we are aware that the proposal concerning this safe country of origin list has prompted concerns. As you know, the minister has stressed his desire to be flexible on this matter, and his appearance here on May 4 indicated his willingness to work out amendments either to the bill or to regulations that would clearly delineate the process for designating safe countries and the associated criteria.
As you know, Mr. Chair, the list of safe countries would include those that do not normally produce refugees, have robust human rights records, and offer state protection to their citizens. The safe country of origin list, however, would not be exhaustive, including countries from A to Z.
I would like to note that in developing the proposed list, we would not close the door on refugees seeking Canada's protection.
All eligible asylum claimants, regardless of where they came from, would continue to receive a fair hearing before the board just as they do today.
I would also like to underline that under this proposal, asylum claimants from safe countries of origin would receive the same hearing and access they receive under the system today.
In order to be even considered for the list, countries would first need to meet quantitative criteria. For example, only if the volume of asylum claims from a country exceeded a specified threshold and the acceptance rate for these claims did not reach a specific threshold, would that country be considered for the list.
These thresholds will be articulated in revised regulations, a draft of which will be provided to the committee, as agreed to by the minister.
Countries meeting the threshold would then undergo a thorough assessment, based on objective criteria. Such assessments would consider whether the country had a strong record of providing its citizens with human rights protections, and the availability of state protection and redress. The goal of these is to clearly delineate the criteria for the designation of safe countries of origin, including the factors that would trigger a review of a particular country, and ensure that the minister would not have discretion to designate a country that had not undergone a rigorous assessment.
This assessment would be done by a panel of experts from a variety of departments. It would make recommendations to the minister about which countries to include on the list once the country assessments were completed. We would also seek the input of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in this process.
Using a safe country of origin mechanism to deter and manage spikes in asylum claims is not unique to Canada. Our approach would be consistent with similar policies in many European countries, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.
In addition, most European Union states also have accelerated asylum procedures for the nationals of other EU member states, which are considered to be generally safe.
Furthermore, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has noted that the principle of developing such a list is not inconsistent with acceptable asylum practices.
I should note that Canada already makes determinations on country conditions, such as when ministers receive advice on which countries should be placed on the temporary stay of removal list.
This is also the case with visa policy decisions. Countries are treated differently. Some countries have a visa exemption and some countries do not.
Developing a safe country of origin list would fundamentally help reduce abuse of Canada's asylum system by those who are not truly in need of our protection.
Mr. Chair, we also realize that the proposed provisions on the humanitarian and compassionate program are prompting some concern. It is worth noting that the original intent of the H and C provision was to provide the government with the flexibility to approve exceptional and compelling cases not anticipated in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It was never intended to be an alternate immigration stream or an appeal mechanism for failed asylum claimants. It should be reserved for exceptional cases.
But what has happened is that some failed asylum claimants use the humanitarian and compassionate provision in another process to try to remain in Canada. In fact, more than half of the humanitarian and compassionate backlog is now made up of failed asylum claimants.
The government has therefore proposed a one-year bar on humanitarian and compassionate claims following the last IRB decision, in order to discourage failed claimants from seeking to remain in Canada.
The idea here is to recognize that, since failed claimants would have just had their risk assessed, most would have access to an appeal and all could seek leave from the Federal Court.
In addition, these H and C applications often raise issues related to personal risk and country conditions, factors that are already considered by the IRB when it assesses the asylum claim. As a result, the proposed reforms also include removing the consideration of certain kinds of risks from humanitarian and compassionate applications.
Specifically, this concerns risks as defined under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which are also assessed as part of the refugee protection process and in a pre-removal risk assessment. This reform would clarify the distinction between H and C decision-making and the refugee protection and pre-removal risk assessment processes.
Under the proposed measures, H and C decisions would focus on considerations such as establishment in Canada, the best interests of the child, relationships in Canada, the country of origin's ability to provide medical treatment, and risks of discrimination in that country, as well as generalized risk in the country of origin.
In conclusion, as the minister has said, the proposed measures meet and exceed Canada's domestic and international obligations and maintain the balance and fairness that are the principles of our entire immigration, refugee, and citizenship systems.
Thank you very much.
