Fact Sheets on Refugee Issues

The following five fact sheets were presented to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on December 5, 2006 during an appearance by Citizenship and Immigration Canada senior officials on refugee issues. A number of stakeholders who work directly with refugees have raised concerns relating to five key areas of Canada’s refugee programs: the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, the Refugee Appeal Division, the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program, family reunification, and individuals who benefit from a stay of Temporary Suspension of Removals. The fact sheets address some of the issues raised by those stakeholders.

• Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement
• Family Reunification — Families of Protected Persons in Canada
• Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program
• Refugee Appeal Division
• Temporary Suspension of Removals

Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement

Witnesses have raised a number of issues relating to the Safe Third Country Agreement (Agreement). Some witnesses alleged that Canada is not meeting its international obligations of non-refoulement; that the Agreement is preventing asylum seekers from reaching Canada; and that the US refugee protection system is not safe for those in need of protection particularly in regard to the issue of the “material support bar” in US law, which they claim disproportionally affects asylum claimants from Colombia.

International cooperation on the principle of responsibility sharing provides a basis for more orderly handling of refugee applications. Several developed countries, including Canada and the United States, have articulated a safe third country policy. The European experience illustrates similar cooperation through responsibility-sharing arrangements.

The Canada-US Agreement is in full compliance with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) principles and guidelines on sharing responsibility to hear refugee protection claims. In their monitoring report of the first year of implementation of the Safe Third Country Agreement, the UNHCR notes that the Agreement has been implemented according to international refugee law.

The Agreement is based on the fact that both Canada and the US maintain refugee protection programs that meet international standards and both have mature legal systems that offer procedural safeguards. The Agreement acknowledges the international legal obligations of both governments under the principle of non-refoulement outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as the 1984 Convention Against Torture.

The two governments recognize that the sharing of responsibility for refugee protection must include access to a full and fair refugee status determination in order to guarantee the effective protection of the Refugee Convention and Convention against Torture.

Consistent with a 50% global decline in refugee claims in industrialized countries since 2001, the number of asylum claims in Canada went down from over 44,000 in 2001 to 25,521 in 2004. The number of claims in Canada continued to decline in 2005, the first year of the Agreement’s implementation. In 2005, the number of refugee claims at the Canada-US land border dropped 55% to 4,033. Refugee claims at airports were comparable to the previous year and inland claims dropped by nearly 1,000 (6%). The overall number of refugee claims across Canada decreased by 23% in 2005, to 19,735. Although the global number of asylum claims in industrialized countries continued to drop in 2006, the number of claims in Canada so far in 2006 is up by some 20% compared to last year.

With respect to criticisms of the US system expressed by some witnesses to the Committee, recently released analysis of Professor David A. Martin, Professor at Law at the University of Virginia and internationally recognized expert on the US refugee determination system, indicates that in the period from 2001 to 2005, out of 205,330 cases adjudicated, the US granted protection to 148,327 or 45% of cases. This compares favourably to the Canadian acceptance rate during the same time period of 43%.

US legislation imposes an asylum bar in certain circumstances for those who have knowingly provided material support to terrorist organisations. However, where this support is given under duress, a waiver of the bar is possible. Pending final guidance on the use of such a waiver in asylum cases, US officials are abstaining from making final decisions in theses cases and are withholding the removal of individuals. Neither the Government of Canada nor the UNHCR are aware of any case of removal or refoulement to Colombia based on material support under duress.

Family Reunification — Families of Protected Persons in Canada

The Committee has heard from witnesses concerns with respect to the processing times for family members overseas of protected persons in Canada applying for permanent residence. Some witnesses have suggested allowing family members of protected persons in Canada to travel immediately to Canada, and apply for permanent residence from within Canada.

Family reunification is a cornerstone of Canada’s immigration program. The government’s objective is to reunite families as quickly as possible, while guarding against potential abuses. Our system has safeguards to balance both interests.

Canada’s commitment to family reunification for protected persons in Canada and their family members overseas is reflected in the number of family members being granted permanent residence each year. Visa officers overseas make every effort to bring family members of refugees to Canada as quickly as possible. The objective to quickly reunite families must however be balanced with the Government’s commitment to protect Canadians’ health and security.

Medical concerns, particularly tuberculosis, must be considered, and where identified, be addressed, before allowing family members to travel to Canada since many immigrants originate from countries with high rates of tuberculosis. Additionally, family relationship concerns, largely related to trafficking in children, cannot be ignored. And allowing persons to travel immediately to Canada before security checks were finalized could place Canadians at risk, as once admitted, a person who would have been found inadmissible for security reasons would have access to the same mechanisms as other foreign nationals seeking a delay to their removal.

In the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, which was tabled by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on October 31, 2006, the Minister announced a target range of 5,000-6,800 for dependants abroad of protected persons in Canada. This reflects the priority accorded to the family reunification of protected persons in Canada.

CIC is exploring the potential for further acceleration of the processing of applications by overseas family members through earlier notification to the visa office abroad that there are family members to be examined; this could save up to 4 to 5 months on processing of these applications.

Given the particular vulnerability of children, and the Department’s commitment to the best interests of the child, a change to procedures with respect to minor children of protected persons who are at risk and without parental care was implemented in January 2005. Visa officers have been alerted to the need to be vigilant with respect to these situations. Once the medical examination is completed, or where rapid medical clearance is not feasible and the child is at risk, officers are instructed to consider the option of early admission to Canada through the use of a temporary residence permit.

Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program

The Standing Committee has heard testimony related to the Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) program on several occasions since October. Witnesses called for an increase in PSR targets and an increase in resources allocated to processing PSR applications.

The Department highly values the PSR program, which allows Canadians and permanent residents to support resettlement efforts by assuming the responsibility of funding and integrating resettled refugees. In the past 27 years, over 185,000 refugees have been resettled by private sponsors, above and beyond the government targets. Privately sponsored refugees greatly benefit from the personal assistance they receive from their sponsoring group — a connection that ultimately enhances their ability to integrate in Canada once they have been resettled.

The unique relationship that has been established between government and the sponsoring community as a result of the PSR program is a source of national pride and international note, and it exemplifies Canada’s commitment to humanitarian action.

That being said, the PSR program is currently facing several challenges, as highlighted during testimony before the Standing Committee. These challenges have led to recommendations from the sponsorship community to increase annual PSR targets and to increase overseas resources allocated to PSR to reduce processing times.

With regards to annual targets, private Canadians and CIC work together to bring 3,000-4,000 privately-sponsored refugees to Canada each year. In response to rising demand from the sponsorship community and in support of Canada’s humanitarian efforts, the upper end of this target was raised to 4,500 for 2007, as announced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, tabled on October 31, 2006. This change will give sponsors more flexibility to contribute to Canada’s broader efforts to manage down protracted refugee situations.

The longer-than-desired processing times in the PSR Program reflect the fact that the number of persons currently referred to the program far exceeds the target range in this category, which has resulted in the build-up of an inventory now reaching above 14,000 persons. Unfortunately, many people referred to the program are not genuine refugees under Canadian resettlement criteria. This has resulted in a refusal rate of 52% for the program in 2005.

The following table provides information on the number of applications received since 2000, as well as the number of applications processed and visas issued.

CIC and the sponsoring community have been working together to address challenges associated with high refusal rates and long processing times. For example, CIC funds a training program to train sponsors on refugee definitions, integration and settlement issues, and shares information on a regular basis with the sponsorship community on country conditions and other issues related to the program.

In 2006, Sponsorship Agreement Holders (SAHs) have voluntarily reduced the number of applications submitted as a special effort to reduce the inventory. At the same time, CIC visa officers have increased processing efforts and have processed more than 7,600 persons to date in 2006.

CIC is committed to protecting eligible refugees and recognizes the PSR program as a vital part of Canada’s international humanitarian efforts.

Refugee Appeal Division

The Standing Committee has heard criticism from witnesses of the decision to delay implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). Some witnesses linked the absence of an appeal to the issue of failed refugee claimants seeking sanctuary in churches.

The Refugee Appeal Division was created within the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) in legislation as part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which came into force on June 28, 2002. In March 2002, the government of the day announced a delay in the implementation of the RAD.

The RAD would provide refugee claimants with the right to a paper appeal of a negative decision from the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB. The RAD would be a paper-based process that would review individual cases for errors of fact, law and mixed fact and law. It was designed to promote consistency in decision making.

The RAD would be limited to the evidence presented at the original hearing. It would not allow for an appeal in person and there would be no oral hearing before the RAD. The RAD would not allow new information or details of changed circumstances, which were not submitted in the original hearing to be presented, not would it examine the case on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Despite the absence of the RAD, unsuccessful refugee claimants have the right to apply for judicial review to the Federal Court Trial Division. The Federal Court can, and has overturned IRB decisions based on patently unreasonable errors in finding of fact.

In addition, those who feel they will be at risk if they return to their country of origin can apply for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) before they are removed. Unlike the RAD, the PRRA allows for new evidence to be brought forward beyond what was heard at the IRB. They have the right to remain in Canada during these proceedings. When there are compelling reasons to do so, persons wishing to remain in Canada can also make a separate application to remain in the country on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds, including the ground of risk should they be removed.

CIC estimates that implementation of the RAD would have an annual cost of over $12 million to the federal government. It is further estimated that the implementation of the RAD would add a minimum of 5 months to the refugee determination process. This in turn would increase social assistance costs to the provinces by approximately $21 million annually.

Even without the RAD, the Government of Canada continues to meet its international and domestic obligations with respect to refugee protection. The system focuses on getting the decision correct at the first level, with highly qualified and well-trained decision makers, and an independent tribunal with extensive research capacity, including up-to-date and comprehensive information on conditions in countries of origin. It also offers multiple avenues of recourse for unsuccessful refugee claimants.

Canada has been a world leader in interpreting and applying refugee protection criteria generously. This demonstrates that our system is successfully identifying those in need of protection at the first opportunity.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees consistently refers to Canada’s asylum system as one of the best in the world.

Temporary Suspension of Removals

Witnesses have raised the following issues relating to individuals who are out of status and benefit from a Temporary Suspension of Removals (TSR) stay: although protected from immediate removal, they are unable to become permanent residents and go on with their lives; they are forced to work in low-paying jobs; and they have limited access to health services and education. Some witnesses called for a regulatory class providing permanent residence for those who have been in Canada for three years or more.

A temporary suspension of removals halts removals to a country when conditions such as war or environmental disaster threaten the lives or security of the entire civilian population. The decision to suspend removals to a country or territory is made by the Minister of Public Safety.

The following countries are currently the subject of a TSR: Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Iraq and Zimbabwe.

The Government of Canada is sensitive to the circumstances of foreign nationals from those countries that are currently subject to a TSR. Under current provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), there are a number of avenues for these individuals to apply for permanent residence in Canada.

The refugee determination process: the majority of these foreign nationals have successfully made refugee claims. Since the implementation of the stays, refugee status has been granted to over 15,000 individuals from these countries, resulting in an acceptance rate of almost 80% [note 1].

The in-Canada spousal public policy: this public policy allows out of status individuals married to or in a common-law relationship with a citizen or permanent resident of Canada to apply for permanent residence.

The humanitarian and compassionate grounds (H&C) process : this process exists specifically to address exceptional and compelling situations on a case-by-case basis. This summer, the H&C process was adjusted to permit greater consideration for individuals who may otherwise be inadmissible for medical or minor criminality. In 2005, acceptance rates were quite high for applications for H&C consideration (on average 85%) from foreign nationals who are subject to a TSR. So far in 2006, preliminary figures indicate a drop in acceptance rates. Even if the acceptance rate for H&C cases is lower in 2006 than it was in 2005, the fact is that the majority of people who apply under one of the available classes are accepted and become permanent residents and eventually Canadian citizens.

Since the implementation of the stays, more than 16,000 individuals from these countries have been granted permanent residence [note 2] in Canada in one of the categories above, which represents an acceptance rate of about 90%.

Prior to receiving permanent residence, foreign nationals benefiting from a TSR stay are entitled to the same employment and social benefits from the Government of Canada as any temporary foreign worker including NAFTA professionals. They are also subject to the same professional and labour market standards as all foreign workers in Canada.

Individuals benefiting from a TSR stay are also entitled to attend school. As in the case of refugee claimants, foreign students and temporary foreign workers, subsidised post-secondary education is not included in the services offered.

Individuals benefiting from a TSR stay are entitled to the Interim Federal Health program. This coverage includes but is not limited to: essential health services for the prevention and treatment of medical and dental conditions, including immunizations and other vital preventative medical care; essential prescription medications; and contraceptive, prenatal and obstetrical care. Other services may be covered if prior approval is sought and received.

With respect to the proposal that there be a new regulatory class, the Government of Canada believes the current provisions under IRPA provide foreign nationals benefiting from a TSR stay a number of avenues for obtaining permanent residence. The creation of a regulatory class for these individuals would be providing a unique benefit to some out-of-status foreign nationals, while requiring others to apply through regular immigration channels. It would also pose a risk to program integrity by creating a drawn factor to Canada for irregular migration of citizens from the affected countries.

____________

1. IRB information as of May 31, 2006.

2. Statistics current as of July 15, 2006. Includes all in-Canada non-economic immigrants.