Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2019

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you for clarifying that.

I have another question. This time, it's about clause 306. When an individual comes to Canada to make a claim but has already made a claim in one of the four countries with which Canada has a data-sharing agreement, that person is deemed ineligible.

Do you have a sense of how many claims would be deemed ineligible as a result of this measure? I'm referring to all the claims already received or currently being examined.

[André Baril]

No, we don't have that information.

The new measure is meant as a deterrent. We hope it will encourage people to follow through with the process that was initiated in the country where they claimed asylum and to comply with the resulting decision.

According to our numbers, if the measure had been in place in 2017 and 2018, between 3,200 and 3,400 people could have been affected, given that they had made a number of refugee claims. Approximately 75% of them crossed the border irregularly. Most of those cases have not yet been processed by the board.

About a hundred or so made refugee claims in Canada, then went to the U.S. to do the same thing, before returning to Canada to make another refugee claim.

In addition, approximately 150 people made a refugee claim at a port of entry to Canada, but were sent back to the U.S. further to the safe third country agreement between Canada and the U.S. Those people then decided to return to Canada by crossing the border irregularly. Most of them were Haitian. As of now, the number of successful claims is fairly low, but many of them have yet to be processed by the board.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Have you observed the principle of communicating vessels at work when people come to Canada and make a claim that is subsequently deemed ineligible? Does their claim still receive consideration after the fact so that it isn't denied without the possibility of further recourse? Can their claim be considered at a later stage or is that the end of the line for them?

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Unfortunately, Mr. Ayoub, we don't have enough time for the witness to answer the question.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Perhaps he could send us the answer in writing.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

If Mr. Tilson asks the same question, we'll get an answer.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I'd like to comment a little bit more on something that has to do with division 16, which amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prevent asylum claims in Canada if a claimant has been rejected in certain other countries with whom we have information-sharing agreements.

I expect this is the area that will most concern the witnesses who are going to be appearing before us after you. I wonder if you could help us as to the rationale behind all of that. By listening to what has been said in the media and elsewhere, I can anticipate that this issue is not going to be accepted by a large number of people.

Mr. MacKinnon, do you have any thoughts?

[Paul MacKinnon]

I can offer a couple of thoughts. I guess the first thought would be that we are confident that this meets our international obligations, albeit it's a different process than going through the IRB. As I've said on a couple of occasions, it makes the determination based upon the same standards and thresholds as the IRB.

My second and final point would be that, in some sense, we're not breaking brand new ground here. We have situations where certain claimants who come into Canada do not have access to the IRB and they go directly to a pre-removal risk assessment.

I'll just give you a couple of examples. We have five or six that I can leave with you, Mr. Chair, if it's helpful.

If someone has already made a previous asylum claim in Canada—including those whose claim was withdrawn or abandoned—if they already have protection in a third country, that is, if they have already been granted asylum but they show up in Canada and make another asylum claim, they will go directly to the pre-removal risk assessment. Or, if someone is inadmissible for security reasons—violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized crime—they do not go directly to the IRB for the refugee protection division, the refugee appeal division, the Federal Court and then the PRRA. In these examples, they go directly to the pre-removal risk assessment, which is a process comparable with what we're suggesting for this cohort.

The main point I would leave with you, however, is that they are looked at under the international obligations to Canada, which is critical. The government does not want to send anybody back to persecution.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I would expect the exact opposite, that this is a move to reject asylum claims.

[Paul MacKinnon]

To reject asylum claims? No, it's a move to recognize that you should make your claim for asylum in the first safe country you enter.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes.

[Paul MacKinnon]

My colleague shared some figures of people claiming asylum in the U.S., then coming to Canada and claiming asylum, then being sent back to the U.S. under the safe third country agreement, and finally coming back to Canada through Roxham Road. In that case, we think it's best for the overall system if that individual makes the claim in the first safe country.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I may be asking you a political question, but we'll see what the chairman says. We'll test him out. It's time to be tested.

Are you aware of any discussions that have gone on with the Americans on this topic?

[Paul MacKinnon]

Well, I'm aware, because as officials—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Are you able to talk to us about it?

[Paul MacKinnon]

That might be a political question, I think, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure exactly the question....

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I'm hoping you'd say it wouldn't be.

[Paul MacKinnon]

As senior officials, we speak to our American colleagues all the time.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes, but this is a concern. It's going to be raised at this committee, so I'm interested as to the comments that may have been made between you and the Americans.

[Paul MacKinnon]

I can only speak to my conversations. In a general sense, we give them a briefing on what the government is putting in the BIA, and we'll keep them up to date as this committee deliberates on where you take this proposed legislation. It's very much a briefing type discussion.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

How have they responded?

[Paul MacKinnon]

I think it's fair to say, Mr. Chair, that they have responded positively, in that they haven't raised concerns with anything that's in the BIA.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Does the government have a plan to implement the Auditor General's recommendations on developing a more flexible funding model? Ms. MacDonald, I think you referred to that.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Mr. Tilson, that's a wonderful question, but I'm afraid that you've reached your five minutes.

I'll be moving on now to Mr. DeCourcey.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. MacKinnon, I wanted to give you a chance to answer a question that I don't think you had an opportunity to answer properly earlier. What is the distinct difference between a refugee claimant who would have been barred from the ability to ask for asylum in Australia, who made their way to the U.S. where they claimed asylum, and then came to Canada versus an asylum claimant who was in Australia, unable to make the claim and then came to Canada? Could you please answer that, so we can get that on record. What is the distinct difference in the way that division 16 would treat those two different applicants?