Thank you.
I recognize the extreme time limits. I will be brief.
I would like to address two aspects of the proposed legislation. Specifically, I'll make a general comment on how Canada's vulnerability to illegitimate refugee claims undermines the purposes of the 1951 convention. Secondly, I will make a short comparison of some of the primary proposals in the bill versus the practice in comparable western democracies.
I'd actually like to start with a short parable, if you'll indulge me. Some years ago, when I lived in New York City, I met a young Canadian woman who'd just moved to New York. One day we were walking down the street in Greenwich Village and she was approached by a man who proceeded to spin a long tale of woe. It was something about needing money for a cab to go somewhere to meet somebody. Anyway, the bottom line was he wanted $20. When he finished, I told my Canadian friend not to give him anything, because it was a scam. She gave him $20 anyway.
A few days later, we found ourselves at the same corner and, sure enough, the same man approached us and told exactly the same story. This time she refused to give him the money. After I gently teased her about her earlier gullibility, she became indignant and defensive. She said she'd rather be a sucker than become cynical.
I've thought of this story frequently as I've reviewed the state of Canadian refugee policy. I've concluded that if Canada wants a motto for its current system, I would humbly suggest the motto “we'd rather be suckers”.
By almost any measure, Canada's refugee system compares unfavourably to other western systems. Some Canadians may take misguided pride in being so indulgent to so many claimants, whether they're legitimate or not. Given the much higher acceptance rate in Canada, I would submit that most of them are not legitimate. These Canadians may console themselves that at least they're not cynical. With due respect, I think it is a self-indulgent and dangerous way of thinking; and worse, it actually hurts those the 1951 convention was intended to help.
The refugees who make it to Canada and apply for refugee status in Canada are disproportionately among the most fortunate, sophisticated, and wealthy of all claimants, legitimate or illegitimate. By contrast, most genuine refugees do not make it much farther than across the border of the country they're fleeing to the first safe haven they can find, where they're often housed in UN refugee camps.
To its credit, Canada has a great program by which it resettles a select number of these overseas refugees. One of the best features of the proposed reforms, and one the government should be congratulated on, is the increase in the number of these clearly legitimate and deserved resettlements.
Canada spends much more money on inland refugee applications than it does on supporting overseas refugees, and that does not include health care and other state benefits, which can be as much as $1 billion or more a year. Ironically, and sadly, every dollar spent in Canada on refugee processing could be more effectively and profitably spent on overseas refugees. The amount spent to process a single refugee claim in Canada could sustain scores of refugees in UN camps every year.
A truly humane refugee system, one designed to benefit the most refugees and the most needy refugees, would focus on refugees in overseas camps rather than accepting virtually unquestioningly anyone savvy enough to target Canada or anyone wealthy enough to get here.
Because my time is limited, I will be very brief in addressing two aspects of the new bill: the timelines for processing claims and the safe country or designated country provision. My focus here will be on a comparison to other international countries, which is my area of expertise.
The proposed time periods of eight days and 60 days bring Canada in line with other western democracies. Actually, eight days and 60 days are still more generous than many other western democracies.
For example, the time limit for making a refugee determination in Australia is 90 days. In Finland, under their accelerated procedure, the average time is 57 days. In Ireland priority applications are decided within 20 days. In France the initial decision must be made within 21 days. Under the priority process, it's 15 days, and as few as five days if the applicant is in detention. In the Netherlands, decisions in the accelerated stream are made within 48 hours and an appeal must be lodged within 24 hours after that decision is made.
Canada's proposal of an initial information meeting within eight days and a hearing within 60 days is well within the international norm for the processing of claims. Likewise, the designated country provision finally brings Canada in line with best practices in refugee law.
The other option is to use what is called a “manifestly unfounded” or “clearly unfounded” standard for identifying frivolous claims right at the outset of the process, and then those claims can be expedited for removal either without appeal or with an appeal that occurs after the claimant has already left the country.
Virtually every western democracy uses one or both of these methods in streamlining the process, and it's really not too much to say that without one method or the other, reform is futile. Both of those are welcome additions to Canadian refugee law.