Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 17th, 2014

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Clerk, please let me know when I have one minute left, because I'm going to give the last minute to Mr. Cash. Thank you.

Mr. de Vlieger, or maybe Mr. MacDonald, in 2014, CIC's annual report to Parliament told us that the overall reduction in asylum claims has already resulted in greater than anticipated savings to Canadian taxpayers of more than $600 million in provincial and federal government welfare, education, and health care costs within the first year of the new system. Overall savings are projected to be more than $1.6 billion over five years.

Does this $1.6 billion include the projected savings brought about by these changes in the FPFAA?

[Matt de Vlieger]

No, it wouldn't. It would be just limited to the reforms that were brought in, in 2012.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So you said, “No, it would not include....”

[Matt de Vlieger]

That's right. It would just be referring to the reforms brought in, I think, in December 2012.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. MacDonald, did you have anything to add to that, or is it the same thing? Okay.

Clauses 172 and 173 were actually in a previous private member's bill, Bill C-585, which the government—I guess I can't say the government—kept on not being debated multiple times when it came up for debate. Now changes that are not really budgetary in nature are showing up in this omnibus budget bill.

Did your department provide any advice to the minister as to how to proceed to include these measures in Bill C-43, and if so, how long has CIC been involved in drafting clauses 172 and 173?

[Matt de Vlieger]

On the first part of your question, I wouldn't comment on the motivations of a particular private member's bill. But in terms of the Government of Canada's involvement and when that work started, I believe it was around March 2014 that we started to work on provisions related to what ended up in the budget bill.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So when you say the Government of Canada, you're saying CIC itself probably started working on what ended up being the actual provisions in clauses 172 and 173 around March of this year?

[Matt de Vlieger]

That's right.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay, thank you for the clarity.

I'm going to go back to my original idea of refugee claimants versus refugees. Refugee claimants in my mind are in fact refugees just waiting to get approved, because I believe in the good in people and in humanity. Also, many of the claimants would actually eventually become refugees and be accepted as protected persons in Canada, so while the provisions are supposed to actually target those who are known as bogus or unfounded refugee claimants, they in fact would similarly affect refugees with legitimate claims in the eyes of the Canadian refugee determination system, because it might be one, two, or five months before their application is approved.

How does CIC plan to address this very important issue?

[Matt de Vlieger]

You're right about the construct, that some claimants are successful and then, once they're successful at the Immigration and Refugee Board, they become protected persons and would be eligible for social benefits were a province to impose a residency requirement that otherwise limited that. By contrast, some claimants are found to have unfounded claims. If they have unfounded claims, then they would be subject to a removal order. If a province had brought in a residency requirement, they wouldn't be receiving benefits up to the point of that determination.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I have two follow-up questions from that.

One is about removal. CBSA has told us—or a report read—that it takes them about 23 days from the time that a case is referred to them until they actually remove the individual. Can you tell us how long it takes CIC to refer a case to CBSA?

The other question that I wanted to ask you was: what is the actual average percentage of refugee applications that come in and the percentage of success rates?

[Matt de Vlieger]

I'll deal with your last question first.

I believe that, based on 2013 figures, there were about 10,400 asylum claimants, and about 55% of those had a positive determination. So 55% of those were found to be refugees who then became protected persons.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So in the future, possibly 55% of all of the applicants who should be protected persons won't have the protection for a long period of time until their case is approved.

[Matt de Vlieger]

Depending on the provincial design and how they design their programs.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Possibly. I mean, we're the federal level and we're setting it up so that the provinces could possibly create this precarious situation for 55%, using existing averages.

[Matt de Vlieger]

I think it would be the 45% actually, based on these numbers. And then the province—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

You said 55% are approved.

[Matt de Vlieger]

Yes, 55% are approved, and so upon approval they would have access to the—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

They become protected persons. So while they're waiting for approval they don't have....

[Matt de Vlieger]

That's right.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

The 55%. That's what I'm saying.

[Matt de Vlieger]

While they're waiting for approval, none of the refugee claimants would have access to the benefits if a province instituted a residence—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Exactly.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Devinder Shory]

About six minutes.

[Andrew Cash]

I'll just follow up on that, just so that we just are totally clear here.

You said 55% were approved in 2013. I believe there are about 89,000 refugee claimants as of the end of 2012, in total. So 55% is just under 50,000.

Has the department done any kind of study on the social ramifications of removing social assistance to those 50,000 as they wait for their claims to be processed?