Evidence of meeting #19 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was list.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I want to be clear that you cannot set up a new division overnight. The IRB has to establish all the rules relating to evidence and procedures.
4 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I understand that and I'll reserve my questions for later.
But you could hire your workers at the same time that the board is set up. You could implement all of the recommendations in the bill at the same time. Why would one do it separately in a different timeline?
4 p.m.
Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm not sure if I...between the H and C provisions and the...?
4 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Why can't all of the provisions of this law come into effect at the same time?
4 p.m.
Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
First of all, a very simple point is that upon royal assent. assuming that is obtained, the IRB is going to be hiring 130 or 140 new people. As you may know, the hiring processes in government take some time. They will have to lease additional or procure new building space. There's a substantial amount of administrative and--
4 p.m.
Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm not clear on your question.
4 p.m.
Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
With the exception of the H and C provisions.
4 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Okay. That's fine. I'll reserve my questions for later on.
What I don't understand in terms of the H and C provisions is that you said here it deters “failed asylum claimants from using them to delay removal”; you are in fact deporting them while the H and C consideration is going on. That hasn't changed. So how would that defer or delay removal? As of right now, I've seen many H and C applicants removed, deported, before the hearing is done. So that's why...I'm just reading it; it is just not factually true.
4 p.m.
Luke Morton Senior Legal Counsel, Manager, Refugee Legal Team, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
With respect to removing applicants who have an H and C pending, it's true that the pending H and C is not a legal impediment to removal. However, in some cases, the courts will grant stays and will cite the existence of the pending H and C and the delays in processing. So it's not a clear-cut--
4:05 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Manager, Refugee Legal Team, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
No, I think it's higher than that. I don't have the percentages, but--
4:05 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Manager, Refugee Legal Team, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I have not seen official statistics, but my sense is that it's a lot higher than 1%.
4:05 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Manager, Refugee Legal Team, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm not even confident to say it's that low.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Well, let me just ask, then, about your statement on a safe country of origin reducing abuse. How would it do that? Giving the refugees the fundamental right for an appeal, does that mean that they will then reduce abuse? I can't see the logic behind it. You are denying a person the right to appeal. How would that reduce abuse?
Because you reduce abuse by speeding up the program, speeding up the determination, and you make sure they get deported quickly. Having a right for appeal for them is fundamental. How would having that list help reduce abuse? This seems to be a complete leap of logic in that sentence, in that line of thinking.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
When you have people coming from countries that are more or less safe, that have the infrastructure in place that I mentioned—strong state protection and a good record of human rights—for people coming from such countries, there's typically a higher rejection rate at the IRB. Over time, with the expedited procedure we're proposing, the lack of access to the refugee appeal division will, we believe, deter future claimants from those kinds of countries.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Why would that happen? Is it because they would get deported faster? I think you deport the people the same way.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The entire system is, as you say, designed to provide faster protection for those in need of protection and faster removal for those not in need of protection. So claimants who--
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
So do you see that you can deport those who are from safe countries faster without the appeal or deport those who are from unsafe countries a bit more slowly? What would be the average timeline?
It's the same timeline in terms of deporting them. If they're bogus, whether they're from safe countries or unsafe countries, you still deport them. Are you seeing that it'll be faster to deport those who are from safe countries?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Do you want me to answer your first question first? How will the safe country list deter future false claimants?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
No, it's not just speed. Well, it is if you see that you're going to be in... Right now if you come in and you're a failed claimant, you're going to be in Canada about four and a half years. In the new system, once you've been through the refugee protection division hearing, and if you're from a safe country, you will be out of the country in about 15 or 16 months. That should provide a disincentive to people who are thinking about coming here and thinking they're going to establish themselves over a longer period of time.