Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.
I'd first like to talk about the challenges that are currently faced by the CBSA in conducting removals, and then I'd like to describe how the proposed reforms and funding would provide some needed solutions.
In the current system, when a person makes a refugee claim in Canada a removal order is issued against that individual. The removal order is unenforceable until after the determination of their refugee claim. After a negative refugee determination decision, the removal order becomes enforceable and the person is required to leave Canada.
Prior to removal, individuals may seek judicial review of their negative refugee determination. An application for leave to the Federal Court for judicial review of a negative refugee determination decision results in an automatic stay of removal until a decision is rendered. So for failed refugee claimants who apply to the Federal Court within prescribed timelines, the CBSA cannot enforce the removal order until the court has had an opportunity to consider the decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board on their claim for protection.
Failed claimants are also entitled to a pre-removal risk assessment; humanitarian and compassionate consideration; and, potentially, temporary resident permits. Pre-removal risk assessment applications and applications for humanitarian and compassionate considerations are administered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada staff, and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism also has the authority to examine humanitarian and compassionate considerations on his or her own initiative. Each of these recourse mechanisms represents a decision point that could be judicially reviewed, and in turn delay removal.
Once a removal order becomes enforceable, the CBSA has a statutory obligation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to remove that person from Canada as soon as reasonably practicable. It is often challenging to execute removal orders, since people facing removal may have no desire to comply.
The decision to remove someone from Canada is not taken lightly. The CBSA ensures that the right to due process is respected in each removal case before proceeding. Once individuals have exhausted all avenues of recourse, they are expected to respect our immigration laws and leave Canada on their own accord, or face removal by the agency.
In an effort to avoid removal, failed refugee claimants will often go underground to evade detection by the agency. The CBSA works with law enforcement partners at all levels of government to locate absconders, but the strong desire of many failed refugee claimants to remain in Canada means that ensuring that these individuals appear for removal is often challenging. The agency currently has an inventory of over 40,000 immigration warrants, 38,000 of which are for failed refugee claimants.
One of the greatest challenges to removals is the failure of claimants to provide a travel document. Because lack of travel documentation can defer removal indefinitely, the individual may have little incentive to provide existing travel documents or assist the agency in securing new travel documents. Consequently, the agency faces challenges in meeting the requirements of consular officials for granting new travel documents. Even when the individual's identity is not in doubt, some countries are not cooperative in issuing travel documents.
Where all administrative and judicial recourses, such as the pre-removal risk assessment and an application to the Federal Court, have been exhausted and a travel document is available, the subject may still request that the CBSA enforcement officers defer their removal date on an administrative basis. A common reason for CBSA enforcement officers to defer removal is that a medical reason precludes that person from travelling. Officers are obligated to consider every request, and where an officer refuses a deferral request, the applicant must be provided with the decision and the supporting rationale in writing. This decision may also be judicially reviewed by the Federal Court.
The cumulative result of these processes is a refugee system that allows failed claimants to avoid removal for years. The situation appears to be a draw factor for individuals not in need of protection, and it is also apparent that the longer an individual stays in Canada, the more difficult it may be to remove him or her, because they become established here.
Currently, there are more cases entering the enforcement stream than the CBSA is able to remove. The agency must prioritize removal cases based on risk. As the protection and safety of Canadians is a top priority for the CBSA and the Government of Canada, the cases involving individuals who are determined to be inadmissible on the grounds of security, organized crime, crimes against humanity, and serious criminality are handled first. Next in terms of priority are removal cases involving criminality, failed refugee claimants, and others who do not comply with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Consequently, although failed refugee claimants represent the largest volume of cases in removal inventories, the need to remove priority cases means that the agency is unable to address all cases in the inventory. Despite removing an average of over 9,000 failed refugee claimants a year over each of the last five years, the removals inventory remains quite large, a fact that the Auditor General has noted with concern. The agency shares the concern of the Auditor General, and the proposed new system would allow the CBSA to effectively and efficiently address this issue.
Under the proposed new system, the objective would be to remove failed asylum claimants within 12 months of the final decision of the immigration and refugee appeal division. The role of detentions and removals under the proposed measures would continue to be vital. Timely removal following a final negative decision on a refugee claim is crucial to the success of a reformed asylum system.
The introduction of a one-year bar on post-claim recourses would provide the CBSA a new policy and legal framework that would allow the agency to remove more failed claimants, and remove them in a shorter timeframe. By temporarily barring these mechanisms, duplication and redundancy of the current system and the resulting vulnerability to abuse would be significantly mitigated. As a result of faster decisions and limits on post-claim recourses, the agency expects greater success in the removal of failed claimants. Over the longer term, faster decisions and timelier removals are also expected to deter claims from individuals not in need of protection, resulting in a reduction and removal of pressures.
An assisted voluntary returns pilot program, which would be delivered exclusively in the greater Toronto area, is a key component of the reform package. The pilot would run for four years. It 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. And the second phase, again delivered through the GTA, would be for failed claimants who are being returned to all other parts of the world. The objective of this proposed program is to fundamentally change the behaviour of failed claimants. The aim is to encourage greater compliance and make the alternative of going underground less attractive.
Too many failed claimants do not respect their obligation to leave voluntarily, and as a result face enforcement action and a permanent bar on returning to Canada. Many are unaware of the consequences of not leaving Canada because they lack information. Others simply don't have the means to effect their own return or to support themselves upon return.
An AVR pilot program would respond to these issues by providing increased education, counselling, and limited financial assistance to support reintegration in their home country. This program is key to the removal strategy. It would achieve both humanitarian and enforcement objectives by encouraging timely voluntary removals. From a humanitarian perspective, voluntary removals would allow failed claimants to return with dignity and anonymity to their home countries.
AVR programs are being successfully employed by our international partners, for example the United Kingdom and Australia. In recent years, for example, in the United Kingdom, approximately 20% to 30% of all of their returns had been through their assisted voluntary returns program. The CBSA anticipates that the proposed AVR program would relieve pressure on our warrant and removal inventories, and reduce the need for extensive, time-consuming, and costly immigration investigations.
There would be strict eligibility criteria for this program, in particular no criminality, adherence to reporting to the CBSA, compliance in obtaining travel documents, and a temporary ban on returning to Canada. The expectation is that this program would significantly expedite the process of securing travel documents required for removal. This program would be delivered in partnership with an independent service provider who would undertake the responsibility for making travel arrangements, including securing documents, which are functions currently performed by the CBSA.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, in addition to the cost saving for the CBSA removal program, the Government of Canada, provincial and territorial governments, and taxpayers are expected to benefit from cost savings, as timely voluntary removals reduce pressures on social assistance and health care programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to trying to answer your questions.