Balanced Refugee Reform Act Presentation by John Butt, Manager, Program Design, Asylum Policy and Program Development Refugees Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada Purpose The purpose of this technical briefing is to provide you with background on the legislation to improve our asylum system which Minister Jason Kenney tabled in the House of Commons on March 30, 2010. Current System Canada has two different refugee program streams Refugee Resettlement Program Canada is recognized as a world leader in refugee resettlement; it resettles 10% of the refugees resettled globally To bring these refugees here, CIC works closely with the UNHCR and the private sponsorship community in Canada to identify refugees overseas in need of protection. Everyone who arrives in Canada through this program has already been determined to be a bona fide refugee. In-Canada Asylum System In the In-Canada asylum system, people in Canada, including temporary workers, students and visitors, make a refugee claim at a port of entry (airport, land border) or at a CIC office within Canada. Unlike the resettlement program, people who make refugee claims upon arrival in Canada have not yet been determined to be genuine refugees. Unlike the resettlement program, there are no annual targets or limits; virtually all claims made on Canadian territory are heard and decided by the independent Immigration and Refugee Appeal Board.
In 2009, Canada resettled over 12,400 refugees from abroad received over 33,200 refugee claims in Canada. Why do we need to reform the In-Canada asylum system? Our system is slow. Claims have grown significantly since 2005, declining somewhat in 2009 as a result of visa impositions on Mexico and the Czech Republic in July. The result of the growing number of claims, and the current inefficient system, is a significant backlog and long wait times at the IRB; the number of claims made annually far exceeds the IRB s current capacity. For those whose claim is unfounded, such a delay may suit them just fine. They can work, receive health care coverage and even collect social assistance while they exhaust all processes to extend their stay and avoid removal. So it s little wonder that people who may not truly need our protection take their chances and seek asylum. But for those who truly need our help, 19 months is too long to wait. Our system is complex and vulnerable to abuse. A negative decision from the IRB is often the beginning of a long series of delays. Claimants have access to multiple recourses under IRPA and the Federal Court Act that they can - and do - use to delay their removal from Canada. On average it takes 4 ½ years from the time of an initial claim to the removal of a failed claimant- in some cases, a failed claimant can be in Canada 10 years or longer. This is particularly the case for claimants that are difficult to remove because they use any recourse, legal and judicial, that is available, sometimes multiple times. Over the same period that asylum claims were increasing in Canada, they were declining (or remaining stable) in the United States and the United Kingdom.
These lengthy delays actually draw to Canada people who see our asylum system as a means of staying in Canada for years. Access to a work permit and to health care and social services available to claimants makes Canada very attractive. Canada forced to rely on visas to maintain integrity of immigration system which can undermine diplomatic and commercial ties. The reform proposals are guided by a number of key principles: All claims will continue to be heard by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, and decided on their individual merit regardless of country of origin. Canada will continue to meet its international and domestic obligations by providing all claimants with an in person hearing on the merits of their claim before the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. In addition, every claimant would also have access to at least one recourse mechanism such as the Refugee Appeal Division or the Federal Court. Those involved in serious criminal acts, war crimes or terrorism will not be eligible to make a refugee claim. Canada will continue its commitment to protect refugees both in Canada and overseas. Here are some of the major changes we are proposing compared to the current system: An initial interview to gather complete information at 8 days after referral, as opposed to the current 28 days to allow for a scheduling of a first level hearing Hearings conducted by public servants. Hearings generally at 60 days, as opposed the current 19 months it takes, on average to hear a claim. The addition of a Refugee Appeal Division, made up of Governor in Council appointees. Inclusion of an authority to designate safe countries of origin One-year limit on accessing post-claim processes, thus allowing for removals to take place.
And faster removals within 1 year of final IRB decision as opposed to 3 years. Faster Decisions I will now go into more detail on the proposed reforms. The reforms begin with changes to allow faster processing at the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. We would introduce an initial information-gathering interview at 8 days after the claim has been found eligible for referral. This new step replaces the current process where claimant completes and returns a form in 28 days. The interview, conducted by an employee of the IRB, is designed to collect basic information about a claim and to schedule a hearing. No decision on the claim would be made at this point. What is different about this step is that an officer from the independent IRB actually sits down with the claimant and collects the personal information, including the reasons for the claim. This information is the critical basis of the actual hearing at the IRB, and allows for the earlier screening, streaming, and scheduling of cases. In the current process, the time to complete this form is much longer (28 days), and the forms are often incomplete and late, which can delay the hearings process. It is only upon receipt of this form that the IRB is able to categorize cases and identify exclusion cases, vulnerable claimants, and whether special accommodation is needed. The information-gathering interview is an essential component of an efficient system as it would facilitate coordinated information gathering and the management of claims at the IRB. This would in turn allow for a hearing to be scheduled. The next step is an initial hearing at the Refugee Protection Division. This would be a different person from the officer who conducted the information-gathering interview. Public servant decision makers would replace the current Governor in Council appointees. These, more permanent, appointments would allow for the longer retention of expertise; less time will be spent on training as experienced members will remain. More flexible staffing
Refugee Appeal Division actions will address upwards and downwards spikes in claims; there will be fewer vacancies in the longer term. Experience requirement, and training, for decision makers would remain the same. Hearings on claims will occur at 60 days following the interview, in most cases. A new Refugee Appeal Division or RAD would also be introduced at the IRB. The RAD proposed here is more substantive than the one currently provided for in IRPA, and proposed for implementation in previous legislation such as Bill C-280 and C-291. Unlike the current legislation, this RAD could consider new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the first hearing and could hold an oral hearing if credibility were at issue. The RAD would provide claimants with access to a real and robust appeal mechanism. Staffed by Governor in Council appointees, decisions will generally be made within approximately 4 months of the appeal being made. All failed asylum claimants would still be entitled to ask the Federal Court for leave to review a negative decision. Designated Countries of Origin Most Canadians recognize that there are places in the world where the persecution of people is less likely to occur compared to other areas. A safe country of origin would not normally produce refugees, would have a robust human rights record and offer strong state protection. States with strong democratic, judicial and accountability frameworks are likely to provide the necessary protection to their citizens. The authority to designate safe countries of origin is new. This authority does not currently exist in IRPA. Specific criteria for designation would be outlined in regulations at a later date. However, the criteria would consider the country s compliance with human rights instruments and whether removal to that country would be in compliance with Canada s international obligations.
Advice from the UNHCR would be sought in designating countries. It is important to remember that all eligible refugee claimants would have their case heard by the independent IRB. Designating safe countries of origin can reduce abuse of the system by claimants from countries that do not normally produce refugees. A number of countries including the United Kingdom, France and Germany already designate safe countries of origin. Faster Removals In May 2008, the Auditor General noted that, The integrity of Canada s immigration and refugee program depends on the effective implementation of its policy to remove individuals and on the voluntary compliance of individuals Removals are a key component of a reformed asylum system which is why CBSA would hire and train additional Enforcement Officers to remove failed asylum claimants within one year of final negative decision by the IRB. To help ensure that those timelines are met and that failed claimants do not avoid removals, officers would also conduct investigations; issue warrants; and detain individuals where necessary for example, where there is a flight risk. I should underline that detention is not a new policy and is a key element of a successful removals strategy as it is often the only means to ensure the person is available for removal. On average, 20% of failed asylum cases are detained prior to removal. No legislative or policy changes for detentions are proposed. To minimize the use of enforced removals, an Assisted Voluntary Returns program would also be introduced on a pilot basis. Window for Removal The proposed reform measures would allow for faster removals. As mentioned, each eligible asylum claimant would have had their claim reviewed by the independent IRB. Following a final negative IRB decision, failed asylum claimants would not be able to apply for:
pre-removal risk assessments (PRRA), humanitarian and compassionate consideration or, temporary resident permits. The vast majority of failed claimants will have had two timely decisions related to the risk they would face if returned home; these decisions will have been made by the independent IRB. The one year time period for removal would significantly shorten the overall amount of time a failed claimant stays in Canada. These proposals are expected to significantly reduce the incentives for trying to use the asylum system as a means to immigrate to Canada. Assisted Voluntary Returns This will be a pilot project would be a four year project aimed at encouraging more voluntary returns. It would provide counselling throughout the asylum determination process on failed claimants rights and obligations. For example, many people do not realize that if they are removed from Canada that they are banned from returning to Canada. Delivered in partnership with an independent service provider, it would initially be piloted in the Greater Toronto Area and consist of two phases: first, for failed claimants being returned to Mexico, the Caribbean, Central and South America; and, second, for failed claimants being returned to all other countries. In addition to counselling, the pilot project would: - Provide failed asylum claimants with a return plane ticket home - Provide funding up to a maximum of $2,000 to service providers in the country of origin to facilitate reintegration through, for example, education or employment assistance. This funding would be administered by an independent service provider to help people reintegrate. It would not be given directly to the failed asylum claimant. In order to qualify for this program, there would be strict eligibility conditions including: no criminality; cooperation in obtaining travel documents; complete compliance with CBSA reporting requirements, and a temporary bar on returning to Canada.
The CBSA would assess applications for inclusion in the AVR pilot program based on the eligibility criteria. Should the applicant be deemed eligible, an independent service provider would be responsible for evaluating each file and tailoring assistance to the particular needs of the individual. The service provider would also arrange for the individual s return, including securing travel documents making travel arrangements, and working with destination country service providers to arrange for the delivery of any assistance. This amount of funding support is a conservative amount compared to comparable programs in the UK which provide the equivalent of up to $7200 per claimant and Australia which does not impose a limit on assistance. An Assisted Voluntary Returns program would achieve the following results: More removals within the one year timeline as failed claimants would have greater assistance to leave Canada in a timely manner. Cost savings through reduced enforcement activities, such as fewer investigations and detentions. As the program would be delivered by an independent service provider, the CBSA would also eliminate certain costs for escorted removals. Less of a risk that failed claimants would fail to appear for removal as a result of increased education of the consequences of not complying with removal orders as has been witnessed by other countries with Assisted Voluntary Returns programs. Facilitation of securing travel documents which is currently a major removal impediment. To be eligible for the Assisted Voluntary Returns program claimants would have to cooperate in the travel document application process including having completed applications on file at the beginning of the process. Enhancing Overseas Protection In addition to improving our ability to protect those who arrive in Canada, we are also taking measures to increase our protection of refugees through resettlement from abroad. As the Minister announced yesterday, we are committed to strengthening Canada s role as a global leader in refugee protection by enhancing our resettlement programs.
Continuing Canada s tradition as a leader in international refugee protection, the Government of Canada plans to increase the number of refugees resettled from abroad by up to 2,500. Government-Assisted Refugees Program would be increased over time by up to 500, and a further 2,000 resettlement places would be added to the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program. This would bring the total number of refugees resettled by Canada to as many as 14,500 a year. Increase funding for the Resettlement Assistance Program. RAP offers financial support and immediate and essential services to refugees resettled from overseas, including help with temporary accommodation. Backlog Reduction A full complement of decision-makers is now in place at the IRB. The Government of Canada is committed to clearing the backlog of claims that currently exists. Initial funding has been set aside. In addition, the imposition of visas on Mexico and the Czech Republic (as well as the tightening of the exceptions under the Safe Third Country Agreement with the US) has helped slow the growth of the backlog of cases at the IRB. Resources for backlog reduction would ensure that the IRB, Federal Court and CBSA can render decisions on claims and effect removals. Investment Overall, Canada s new asylum system would receive a net federal investment of $540.7M over 5 years, and ongoing funding of $85.4M annually. $324M over 5 years for the development and implementation of the new asylum system This investment would put in place an improved asylum system that is faster. Faster decisions also means faster removal of failed asylum claimants which would also result in reduced social service costs as people would no longer remain in Canada 4.5 years before being removed.
In addition, $126M has been set aside to specifically address the backlog $90.7M over five years for overseas protection and Resettlement Assistance Program funding.