Appearance before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) - November 25, 2022

When I first appeared before you as the newly appointed Chair of the IRB in the fall of 2018, the Board was facing a very challenging operating context. A surge in refugee claims, both regular and irregular, had far outstripped the IRB’s annual processing capacity, leading to the largest backlog and the longest wait times in the IRB’s history.

At the time, our assessment was that without interventions, the backlog would reach well over 200,000 claims with wait times in excess of 6 years for a first level refugee decision by 2022-23. The system was on the brink of collapse.

As a result, in 2018-19, the IRB responded with developing an ambitious Growth and Transformation Agenda.

Growth and Transformation Agenda

Now into our fourth year of our plan, I wanted to share some key results and provide a sense of the challenges ahead.

Growth

First on “Growth”. Since 2018-19, the Board received significant temporary investments by way of successive federal budgets which allowed us to effectively double our decision-making output and better align IRB’s annual processing capacity with refugee claim intake. This was a massive scaling up in a short period of time.

This growth, coupled with internal efficiencies and the pandemic-related border restrictions, led to improved access to justice for existing claimants as measured by both the number of claims adjudicated and a reduction in wait times.

Most recently, Budget 2022 announced that the funds previously provided in recent budgets to the IRB on a temporary basis will be made permanent and that the IRB will also receive additional funds over two years to process additional claims. Subject to Parliamentary approval, these funds will both stabilize the organization at current levels and allow us to continue to grow to better meet increasing intake volumes.

Transformation

As part of our Transformation agenda, we have implemented a range of measures to improve both the efficiency and quality of our decision-making.

One area I wanted to highlight is our hearings operating model. The Board seized the opportunities presented by the pandemic to become a digital organization. In 2020-2021, during the height of the pandemic, the Board moved to a paperless and virtual hearings operating model. All files have since been digitized. Adjudicators now work almost entirely with digital files. An electronic portal has been built and is well adopted by the counsel community. And over 98% of our hearings are now held virtually, with a 96% satisfaction rate in post-hearing surveys.

Moving to a virtual hearings operating posture allowed the Board to both protect the health of our employees and those appearing before the Board while maintaining access to justice during the toughest days of the pandemic. It was key to keeping our inventories and wait times in check.

In fact, according to the latest UNHCR global trends report released this past June, Canada was 1 of only 4 countries over the previous year that was able to significantly reduce its inventory of asylum cases (by 25% in FY 21-22) at the refugee determination stage during the pandemic.

Results

As a result of new investments and measures introduced under our Growth and Transformation plan, both the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division finalized more claims and appeals last year than ever before.

In 2018-19, when I first appeared at this Committee in this capacity, wait times were at two years and growing at a pace not previously seen. Today, wait times for new claimants are at 16 months, down 25% from where they were in 2018-19 and down almost 30% from their peak in 2020.

At the end of Q1 of this fiscal year, wait times at the IRB were at their lowest since 2016-17, prior to the unprecedented influx of claimants.

Given the operating context over the past few years, these are solid results.

Going Forward

Despite these positive developments at the IRB, I want to be clear: the tide has now clearly turned. The IRB and certainly the asylum system as a whole are once again under real strain.

As you have heard, the pending eligibility inventory at IRCC and CBSA is growing quickly. IRCC/CBSA intake this year is projected to be some 90,000+ claims, well beyond the system’s and IRB’s annual processing capacity of up to 50,000. Referrals to the IRB are now outpacing our annual processing capacity, leading once again to growing inventories and wait times, reversing hard-won gains.

As a result, all those involved will need to redouble our efforts to advance system-wide efficiencies and funding strategies to deal with these realities, improve access to justice, and better support Canada’s refugee determination system.

Thank you.

Materials related to CIMM Study

CIMM Motions related to the Conditions faced by Asylum Seekers Study

(Note: changes to the wording of the motion are reflected in bold)

Motion adopted on October 28, 2022:

It was agreed, — That the motion pertaining to the study of conditions faced by asylum-seekers, adopted by the committee on Friday, October 7, 2022, be rescinded and replaced with the following: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(b), the committee undertake a study as soon as possible on the conditions faced by asylum-seekers using the irregular administrative path maintained by the Safe Third Country Agreement; that the committee consider the safety, security and health of people and families of migrants who cross the Canada–United States border at Roxham Road in particular; that the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to appear; that the committee hold no more than four meetings to hear witnesses; that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

Motion adopted on October 7, 2022:

The motion, as amended, read as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(b), the committee undertake a study as soon as possible on the conditions faced by asylum-seekers using the irregular administrative path maintained by the Safe Third Country Agreement; that the committee consider the safety, security and health of people and families of migrants who cross the Canada–United States border at Roxham Road in particular; that the committee hold no more than three meetings to hear witnesses; that the committee it report its findings and recommendations to the House ; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

Original motion read as follows:

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe moved, — That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(b), the committee undertake a study as soon as possible on the conditions faced by asylum-seekers using the irregular administrative path maintained by the Safe Third Country Agreement; that the committee consider the safety, security and health of people and families of migrants who cross the Canada–United States border at Roxham Road in particular; that the committee hold no less than five meetings to hear witnesses; and that it report its findings and recommendations to the House.

IRCC Summary of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) meeting of November 15, 2022

Meeting Information

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM)
Meeting No. 41 – Conditions Faced by Asylum-Seekers
November 15, 2022 from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Committee Members

BQ	Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, QC)
NDP	Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, BC)
CPC	Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, SK) Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, AB) Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, AB) Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, MB)
LPC	Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, ON) Marie-France Lalonde (Orléans, ON) Shafqat Ali (Brampton Centre, ON) Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, BC) Arielle Kayabaga (London West, ON) Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, QC)

Witnesses Present

4:48 p.m. to 5:31 p.m.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Rema Jamous Imseis, Representative to Canada
Azadeh Tamjeedi, Senior Legal Officer and Head of Protection Unit

Alliance des Burundais du Canada

Appolonie Simbizi, Secretary General

Plattsburgh Cares

Janet McFetridge, Mayor of Champlain, New York

Takeaways

Due to a vote in the House of Commons and committee debate on motions, the committee only met with one panel of witnesses.
The committee adopted two motions. The first was moved by MP Kwan to invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to update the committee on the 2022 Annual Report on Immigration. The second motion was moved by MP Maguire for IRCC to submit monthly data claims to the committee.
Discussions focused on Roxham Road, specifically in relation to the Safe Third Country Agreement, the safety and security of asylum claimants, and others.

Summary

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) provided information on the role of the UNHCR in supporting nations and refugees alike. They shared data on global force displacement, noting that Canada receives less than 1% of the world’s refugees. They stated that Canada is well equipped and resourced to share safe access to asylum, and recognize the humane and dignified approach of Canadian authorities at the boarder.

Alliance des Burundais du Canada (ABC) discussed the publicity of Roxham Road, stating that the increase in its usage as an entry point has also augmented the debate around it. Overall, there is agreement that the situation stems from the poor asylum seeker protection system in the United States. They suggest that Canada would be dodging its responsibilities if it were to close Roxham Road without an alternative system to protect asylum seekers. ABC recommends that additional resources be added to these efforts to ensure that asylum seekers are being processed in a timely and humane manner.

Mayor Janet McFetridge, of Plattsburgh Cares (PC), shared the heartfelt encounters they had experienced on the United States side of the Roxham Road border crossing as they greeted people before they left for their journey to Canada. They painted an image of those fleeing the United States, sharing that refugees are most often scared, and running for their lives.

Questions and interventions by committee members focused on the following topics:

Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA)

In reference to STCAs, MP Ali (LPC) sought the UNHCR’s opinion on agreements between two countries to share responsibilities when it comes to welcoming asylum seekers. In response, the UNHCR stated they are in support of STCAs so long as certain safeguards are in place.
MP Ali (LPC) inquired whether there would be negative effects of closing down Roxham Road. PC expects that if this access point was removed, people will likely seek potentially more dangerous ways of entering Canada, such as through fields and the woods.
MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) claims that many asylum seekers avoid regular border crossings in fear of being turned away due to the STCA. He sought concurrence from the witnesses to encourage the government to suspend the STCA. ABC argued that welcoming newcomers through unofficial points of entry may not be ideal, but it is the safest way.

Safety and Security

MP Rempel Garner (CPC) referenced a report tabled by the High Commissioner’s office that included statistics on the increasing cases of abuse in some UNHCR camps. She recalls previously meeting with Yazidis people in CIMM who had shared stories of abuse faced by majority ethnic communities in said camps. The UNHCR noted that they have zero tolerance for any kind of abuse, but was unable to speak to the specific report.
MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) explained that Roxham Road allows for human trafficking, where criminal organizations are charging people up to $10,000 to bring them to the border.
MP Kwan (NDP) stated that the STCA forces people to use unsafe routes to get to Canada, rather than official border crossings. The UNHCR noted that despite it being an unusual entry point, Roxham Road currently meets the minimum legal requirements.

Other

MP Rempel Garner (CPC) questioned the UNHCR on whether the United States are a safe country for refugees, adding that some civil society groups have stated otherwise. The UNHCR shared that there is no perfect asylum system, however they work with nations to identify and communicate gaps that exist in hopes to develop solutions.
MP Kayabaga (LPC) asked what the United States and Canada can to better support asylum seekers crossing at the borders. ABC shared that many people who have crossed at Roxham Road were well integrated; many of which were able to go to school or work. She noted that the challenge lies in the way they are received at the border, suggesting that the government should provide further resources to RCMP or CBSA.
MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) outlined the journey of an asylum claimant, the waiting times and hurdles they face while their application is processed. The UNHCR described the appeal process that is available to claimants and the options available to them.
MP Kwan (NDP) stated that people are forced to choose irregular entry points because the United States has the right to refuse individuals to asylum claims. The UNHCR shared that the United States recently repealed “the matter of AB”, to improve the decision making process related to gender-based and gang-related violence claims. The UNHCR continues to work bilaterally with the United States government on the way they determine refugee claims.

Motions

The committee debated the following motions:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and department officials to update the committee on the 2022 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, including Canada’s Immigration Levels Plan, 2023-2025. (MP Kwan)

The motion was unanimously adopted.

That, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada table, in both English and French, with the committee, until further notice, the previous month’s number of people entering Canada through non-official points of entry, who claim asylum, not later than the 5th of the month succeeding the data. (MP Maguire)

MP Lalonde moved to amend the motion for the data to be shared with committee not later than the 20th of the succeeding month (rather than the 5th).

The amendment was adopted.

The motion was adopted with amendments.

Summary of November 18, 2022, meeting with Minister and IRCC officials (Unedited copy)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today we will continue our study of the conditions faced by asylum seekers. For today's meeting in our first panel I would like to welcome the officials from IRCC. I would like to welcome Ms. Christiane Fox, deputy minister, Mr. Scott Harris, associate deputy minister, Jason Hollmann, acting director general, asylum policy, and Michèle Kingsley, assistant deputy minister, operations. The officials will have five minutes for their opening remarks.

Ms. Fox, you have the floor and you can begin. You will have five minutes for you opening remarks and then we will go to a round of questioning.

[Français]

Mme Christiane Fox (sous-ministre, ministère de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration): C'est parfait. Merci beaucoup, madame la présidente.

[English]

I want to start today by acknowledging that I am here on the traditional and unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinabe Peoples.

[Français]

Je suis Christiane Fox, sous-ministre d'Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada. Je tiens à remercier le Comité de m'avoir invitée à comparaître aujourd'hui.

Comme mentionné, je suis accompagné de Scott Harris, Michèle Kingsley et Jason Hollmann.

Le Canada est une destination de choix pour les personnes provenant des quatre coins du monde à la recherche d'une meilleure vie. Nos communautés sont accueillantes, inclusives et diversifiées. Notre économie offre de nombreuses possibilités de travail et nous offrons une qualité de vie exceptionnelle.

[English]

We have seen significant demand to come to Canada, with 2021 being a record setting year for permanent immigration with over 405,000 new permanent residents.

For 2022 admissions are expected to pass 2021 in most immigration programs, including permanent residency, student visas, refugees, and family reunifications.

[Français]

Lorsque le Canada a levé ses mesures frontalières liées à la pandémie plus tôt cet automne, il y a eu une nouvelle vague d'arrivées en particulier à la rue Roxham.

[English]

It is important to note that Canada’s asylum system and refugee resettlement program are separate. The asylum system is for people making refugee protection claims from within Canada.

[Français]

Trois organisations, soit la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié, soit CISR, Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada, soit IRCC et l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada, soit l'ASFC, se partagent le mandat du système d'asile. De plus, la GRC joue un rôle actif dans la surveillance de la frontière entre les points d'entrée.

[English]

An asylum seeker entering a point of entry would be met by a CBSA officer. For irregular arrivals, an RCMP officer is the first point of contact upon crossing into Canada, before being transferred to CBSA to process their claim.

[Français]

IRCC traite les demandes d'asile présentées par des personnes se trouvant déjà au Canada de manière temporaire, par exemple, en tant qu'étudiant ou visiteur, qui décident ensuite de demander l'asile.

[English]

Asylum seekers can make their claim at a port of entry upon arrival, or online if already in Canada. If IRCC or CBSA determines an individual is eligible to make an asylum claim, the claim is then referred to the IRB to assess whether the claimant requires Canada’s protection.

[Français]

Les personnes dont la demande d'asile est jugée fondée par la CISR reçoivent le statut de personne protégée au Canada et elles peuvent ensuite demander la résidence permanente.

[English]

If an individual’s refugee claim is determined to not be well-founded, CBSA oversees the removal process. The individuals are released on condition to report for a future removal proceeding which is managed by the CBSA.

[Français]

Le système d'asile du Canada a été mis à rude épreuve en raison d'un nombre élevé et soutenu de demandeurs d'asile cherchant la protection de notre pays. Cette année, le Canada a déjà reçu plus de 62 000 demandes d'asile.

[English]

The Government of Canada continues to urge individuals to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter after fleeing persecution, as per the Safe Third Country Agreement, and to not resort to irregular crossings. Irregular routes can be dangerous and individuals may be subject to exploitation.

[Français]

Cependant, nous reconnaissons qu'un grand nombre de personnes ont continué à entrer au Canada de façon irrégulière à Roxham Road.

[English]

In response, the government has set up capabilities to process arrivals, conduct safety verifications, health screenings and to ensure that migrants are assessed for eligibility of their applications.

IRCC has been working to support CBSA in addressing the backlog to determine eligibility and admissibility to Canada.

[Français]

Le budget de 2022 a fourni aux partenaires 1,3 milliard de dollars sur cinq ans et 331,2 millions de dollars en permanence pour soutenir la stabilité et l'intégrité à long terme du système d'asile du Canada. Ce financement permettra de renforcer le système dans les années à venir.

[English]

Recognizing that the determination process can take time—and higher volumes are causing delays—Canada provides asylum claimants support throughout the process.

[Français]

Depuis le début de la pandémie, le gouvernement fédéral fournit un abri temporaire aux demandeurs d'asile au Québec et en Ontario dans des hôtels loués par IRCC.

[English]

These facilities were initially established to support public health needs by providing newly arrived, asymptomatic claimants with an appropriate place to meet quarantine and testing requirements.

[Français]

Pour soutenir la province de Québec et, surtout, la ville de Toronto, où les réseaux de refuges ont été surchargés par l'augmentation des volumes après le mois de novembre 2021, le gouvernement a permis aux demandeurs de rester dans les hôtels loués par IRCC jusqu'à ce qu'une place se libère dans un refuge ou que les demandeurs trouvent leur propre logement.

[English]

The federal government has also provided support to provinces and municipalities through the temporary interim housing assistance program to reimburse some of the costs for housing asylum claimants—

The Chair: Ms. Fox, can you please wind it up? Your time is up. Can you quickly wind it up?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Absolutely.

I would close by saying that I want to thank the committee for their work to support a very strong asylum system, ensuring that Canada remains one of the most welcoming countries in the world, and for your work more broadly.

Being new to the department, I've been looking at the reports of the committee.

I look forward to working with all of you and taking your questions today.

Thank you very much, Chair. It's back to you.

(1310)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fox.

We will now go into our round of questioning. We will begin our round of questioning with Mr. Maguire. Mr. Maguire, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to direct these questions to Ms. Fox. Thank you for your testimony.

Being a signature of the safe third country agreement, the Government of Canada's official position is that the United States is a safe third country.

Do you agree with that statement?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I do agree with that statement, yes.

Mr. Larry Maguire: In the past 12 months, has IRCC ever issued a statement, press release or circulated anything to foreign media that unequivocally states that in accordance with the safe third country agreement individuals currently in the United States should be filing for asylum there, rather than walking across the border?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I should take a look and see.

I joined the department in July. I can say that since July I have not seen any type of issuance from the department of that nature. I can definitely do a check. Since I've been here I have not seen that.

Mr. Larry Maguire: If you find some, can you table that with the committee, all of the communications products?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Absolutely.

Mr. Larry Maguire: Thanks.

Are you aware that Minister Goodale stated in 2018 that the Government of Canada wanted to negotiate with the American government to amend the safe third country agreement?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think that in working very closely with the United States, we always stay in close contact with officials from the United States to make sure that since the inception of the agreement in 2004—

Mr. Larry Maguire: Excuse me, I have questions.

Were you aware that Minister Goodale in 2018 had made that request?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes.

Mr. Larry Maguire: Have you ever been part of any conversation on current efforts—this is more likely where you were looking at—to amend the safe third country agreement?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Our department has been in contact with officials from the United States, yes. I, personally, have not yet.

Mr. Larry Maguire: Has IRCC ever conducted any analysis or had any discussions on the specific language needed to amend the safe third country agreement, so individuals cannot walk across the border to claim asylum?

Ms. Christiane Fox: IRCC has been looking at the agreement in working with the U.S., absolutely.

Have we written any paragraphs in terms of changes to it? Not at this stage. We have been working very closely on the context.

Mr. Larry Maguire: You haven't put any specific language down to amend it and stop them from coming across the border?

Ms. Christiane Fox: No, we have not put such language down.

Mr. Larry Maguire: Can you please ask your officials to inquire if IRCC has produced any reports, memos or analysis on what would be needed to amend the safe third country agreement, so individuals cannot walk across the border to claim asylum? Table that with this committee.

Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes, we have definitely done some work in that regard and we can table that with the committee.
Mr. Larry Maguire: So you've had reports, okay. If you could do that, please, that would be helpful.

Are you aware that in 2018, Minister Hussen, after Mr. Goodale, travelled to other countries such as Nigeria to discourage people from flying to the United States for the sole purpose of then walking across the border to claim asylum in Canada?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I am aware that ministers did go to, I think you referenced Minister Hussen in Nigeria, to share information about the asylum system in this country, yes, absolutely.

Mr. Larry Maguire: And has IRCC ever been tasked to arrange for similar trips for the current minister?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Not to my knowledge, no.

Mr. Larry Maguire: In 2017, there was a dramatic increase in people walking across the border to claim asylum and the Liberal government dispatched Mr. Pablo Rodriguez and Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg to the United States to communicate to various communities about respecting Canada's asylum system.

Are you aware of these past efforts?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes, I am.

Mr. Larry Maguire: And I believe these efforts were helpful in encouraging people to not walk across the border to enter Canada. Can you please table with this committee any memos, documents and reports that IRCC conducted after these trips to determine if they were successful? Do you know if they reduced the flow?

Ms. Christiane Fox: We can take a look at the data from the flows after visits to see whether or not there are any changes or shifts that would be noteworthy.

Mr. Larry Maguire: The numbers of people crossing into Canada are higher today than they were back in 2017. So to date, has anyone in IRCC been asked to help arrange similar trips for MPs or other officials to discourage people from
walking across the border to claim asylum?

(1315)

Ms. Christiane Fox: We have not been asked to arrange such trips.

Mr. Larry Maguire: The numbers of people, though, have increased. Correct?

Ms. Christiane Fox: The numbers of peoples have increased, absolutely.

Mr. Larry Maguire: And your estimate for this year would be...is it the 50,000 that we've heard of, at Roxham Road?

Ms. Christiane Fox: From January to September, irregular crossings in this country have been at about 27,500. Total from January to September is 62,000, and we are anticipating our projections for the full year of both regular and irregular would be between 84,000 and 94,000. That's the projection at this point.

Mr. Larry Maguire: In 2017 IRCC was specifically monitoring foreign press and other misinformation circulating about Canada's asylum system which was contributing to the rise of people walking across the border. Is IRCC currently monitoring what is circulating in various media outlets or online about Canada's asylum system?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think as part of our regular media monitoring we look at all data and information that could be useful to the department including any information on asylum.

Mr. Larry Maguire: So can you please table that with the committee, all relevant information that IRCC has collected?

The Chair: Sorry for interrupting, Mr. Maguire. Your time is up. Thank you.

Mr. Larry Maguire: Madam Chair, I just wondered if I could get a response to the tabling of that information?

The Chair: Yes, Ms. Fox?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I guess I'm not quite sure exactly what we would table in terms of all of our media relations activities, our reports. I'm not quite sure exactly what was requested.

Mr. Larry Maguire: Well, just the monitoring of what's being circulated in the various media outlets or online if you are following it as I think you indicated you were. I just wanted to know if we could have copies of that tabled for this
committee.

Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes. I think we can table, I'll take a look at the media relations reports and see what's relevant to the question, absolutely.

Mr. Larry Maguire: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin. The floor is yours.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, Lib.): Thank you, and Ms. Fox, welcome to the new portfolio. It's not an easy file. I have dealt with immigration for the last 20 years. I tell you right now this is one of the most difficult files and good luck with this and the very best to you.

I will carry on with my friend Larry's questions on the safe third country agreement. Is there anything that you wanted to add that you haven't added? I'm open to comments, to discussions about modernizing this agreement.

Ms. Christiane Fox: Thank you for the question.

It is, indeed, a very complex organization, and I look forward to working with a team here and others.

What I would say is the objective of the Government of Canada, in working with the United States on the Safe Third Country Agreement, is really to find a system that is compassionate, fair and a good way to handle asylum claims. In our bilateral conversations with the United States is a process, an orderly process, for us to work together to ensure the processing of asylum claims along our shared border is done in a humane way. That's one of the important parts of why it's integral for us to be working in lockstep with the United States.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: It is economically imperative that Canada supports those who are coming to Canada, whether they are coming as immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees. What are the economic benefits for the entire country because of these people coming to Canada?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Especially in light of some of the labour challenges we're seeing across the country, immigration is a big part of what Canada's response will be to that. One of the things I would share with the committee is around the issuance of work permits for asylum seekers. That's an important part. As people wait for their processing, which can be timely, we can integrate these individuals into the workplace, and that's something that IRCC is very dedicated to doing.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: Do you have numbers dollar-wise how much the government has budgeted and allocated for the months and the years ahead towards the migration you talked about?
Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes, absolutely.

In terms of funding overall—and I would say we work in very close partnership here at IRCC with the CBSA and the IRB in terms of the processing required of managing the asylum workload—just recently in Budget 2022, the government invested $1.3 billion over the next five years and $331.2 million ongoing to the supports required for asylum seekers from
all three organizations.

(1320)

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: What else can the Government of Canada do to help and assist asylum seekers once they're already in Canada?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Those supports are essential. It's about assess to education, access to health care, social services, like shelters or legal aid. Really, the government works very closely with provinces and territories because provinces and territories do manage some social supports, some manipulates not-for-profit organizations as well. We work with them, and, from a federal government standpoint specifically, what I would point to is the interim health benefits we offer asylum seekers, as well as the interim supports for housing. Again, this is something we do in close collaboration with the provinces, including the Province of Quebec, which has seen a lot of pressure obviously. These are the types of things we try to do in terms of supporting. It goes without saying that for children who come with their parents seeking asylum, they do have access to education without any type of permitting involved.
These are some of the examples of the supports.

I would also say, as part of the health supports that are provided, mental health supports are also included in that.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: Thank you.

I'm sure you have heard there are many refugee claimants whose claim was dismissed and they are still in Canada and the government can't send them back to their respective countries where they have come from. But they have contributed enormously to Canada. They are here for many, many years, they have learned French, they have learned English, and they are working and they have work permits.

What alternative pathways or streams can the IRCC bring to help those who are the failed the refugee claimants or the [Inaudible] who are seeking asylum here?

Ms. Christiane Fox: It's an excellent question.

As you may have seen in the minister's mandate letter, the department is looking to see what we can do for some of these either failed claimants or undocumented workers who remain in this country. We are looking at what are some of the pathways, what are some of the possibilities to address undocumented workers, because of the vulnerability they can represent. One program I would also note during the last few years is the guardian angels program, which was a temporary public policy put in place during the pandemic to provide a permanent residence pathway for those who are pending or failed asylum refugee claimants who worked in direct patient care, and their family members. That's an example of how the department is looking at some of these very challenging issues.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: There are many [Inaudible] place the same issue as well. [Inaudible] is key to our economy and I hope you will consider those as well and you amend it.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): J'invoque le Règlement, madame la présidente.

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Stephanie Bond): On a point of order.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Madame la présidente, l'interprète me glisse à l'oreille qu'il y a un problème de son chez mon bien estimé collègue, M. Dhaliwal. Il faudrait peut-être régler cela pour pouvoir continuer et faciliter le travail de nos interprètes.

[English]

The Chair: Time is up for Mr. Dhaliwal.

Was there interpretation available for his comments or do we have to go back? [Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Ça va aller. C'était juste à la fin. On va juste s'assurer que cela ne se reproduise plus. Merci beaucoup.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Dhaliwal, can you quickly take a minute to go through the tail end of your round of questioning?

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: The last question was, what are some of the immigration pathways [Inaudible] the IRCC can bring to help, not necessarily the undocumented workers but the people who are documented create refugee cases and who have been in Canada for many years and have learned French and English?

Those are the people I'm talking to. Hopefully, the deputy minister will address that.

Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes. Thank you. What I was indicating is that the department and in Minister Fraser's mandate letter there is a mandate commitment to look at regularizing some of these people and have programs and pathways put in place in order to address some of these vulnerable people who are either failed asylum claimants or are undocumented.

One of the programs that I referred to was the Guardian Angels. It was a temporary public policy put in place during the pandemic to provide a permanent residency pathway for those who had failed or pending asylum, refugee claims, and who were in direct patient care along with their family members.

That's just one example.

The department is going to be doing a lot of policy work in terms of how to address some of these challenges.

Mr. Chair, I think it was also noticed for us to take a look at the trucking industry and perhaps the vulnerability of some of those workers.

We will definitely take that back.

(1325)

The Chair: Thank you.

Your time is up, Mr. Dhaliwal.

We will now go to Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you can please begin.

You will have six minutes for your round of questioning.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Merci, madame la présidente.

Merci aux témoins qui sont présents avec nous aujourd'hui pour cette importante étude. J'ai plusieurs questions et je vais d'abord m'adresser à M. Fox.

J'aimerais connaître le taux de refus les plus récents possible que vous avez pour les demandes d'asile déposées en passant par Roxham.

Mme Christiane Fox: Je m'excuse, j'ai juste les pourcentages.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Ça me va, les pourcentages.

Mme Christiane Fox: Le taux de refus en général...

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Oui, celui de ceux qui sont passés par Roxham et qui au bout du compte ont été refusés.

Mme Christiane Fox: Je vais vérifier, je ne l'ai pas sur moi exactement. C'est peut-être dans mes données ici.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Dès que vous l'aurez, vous nous le donnerez. Entretemps, je vais continuer avec mes questions.

J'aimerais aussi connaître le taux de répartition des demandeurs d'asile dans les plus grandes villes du Canada, y compris le Québec.

Est-ce que le temps d'attente est inclus dans mon temps, madame la présidente?

Mme Christiane Fox: J'en suis désolé.

Vous voulez donc savoir le taux des refus en premier lieu puis le taux de répartition de ceux qui se retrouvent à Québec comparativement à d'autres grandes...

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: En fait, je veux savoir le taux de répartition des demandeurs d'asile dans les plus grandes villes du Canada, y compris évidemment le Québec. Si vous le trouvez, vous allez nous le donner.

Mme Christiane Fox: De façon irrégulière, je dirais que la grande proportion passe par Roxham. Je dirais presque dans le 90 %.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Parfait, merci beaucoup.

Quel est actuellement le délai de traitement pour les demandeurs d'asile qui passent par Roxham? Combien de temps est- ce que cela prend, avant qu'on donne une décision?

Mme Christiane Fox: C'est retardé à cause du traitement. Cela pourrait prendre jusqu'à 18 mois. Une des mesures qu'on a mise en place...

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Attendez, je ne parle pas des permis de travail. Je parle des demandes d'asile. J'ai entendu que des gens qui sont ici depuis quatre ans viennent d'avoir leur...

Mme Christiane Fox: Oui, absolument. Je pensais que vous parliez des permis de travail. Essentiellement, cela pourrait prendre des années. Cela dépend aussi de la complexité des cas...

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Il doit y avoir une moyenne. Vous devriez avoir ces chiffres normalement.

Mme Christiane Fox: Oui.

Si vous me le permettez, j'aimerais simplement vérifier.

Je vais me tourner vers mon équipe pour savoir si quelqu'un aurait le pourcentage exact en termes de temps.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Normalement, c'est dans...

Mme Christiane Fox: Pour la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada, ou CISR, c'est environ 26 mois, en général.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: C'est donc en moyenne, 26 mois. Cependant, on a des gens pour qui c'est beaucoup plus longtemps que cela.

D'accord. Merci.

Vous m'avez dit que c'était 18 mois pour le délai d'obtention du permis de travail présentement.

Mme Christiane Fox: Cependant, nous venons cette semaine de faire un changement important sur lequel je pourrais informer le Comité.

Essentiellement, la façon de fonctionner était la suivante: les permis de travail n'étaient seulement donnés, une fois que la référence était donnée à la CISR. C'est cela qui faisait que nous avions le délai de 18 mois.

Nous avons devancé la décision. Une fois que nous avons les biométriques et l'examen médical de fait, nous serons dorénavant capables de faire le permis de travail, ce qui diminuera le délai de 18 mois à environ 1 mois. Nous allons essayer de le faire encore plus vite, parce nous avions évidemment remarqué le problème du délai de 18 mois pour l'obtention du permis de travail.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Pour cela, nous n'avons pas encore la preuve que cela fonctionne.

Mme Christiane Fox: Pas encore.

La politique publique a été lancée le 16 novembre. Cela va donc être effectué dorénavant.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: D'accord. Parfait.

Il n'y a pas encore de chiffres là-dessus pour voir que cela fonctionne vraiment.

Mme Christiane Fox: Non. Pas encore.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: D'accord. Merci.

Le délai de 26 mois m'intéresse beaucoup. En tout cas, je demanderais à vos gens d'être certain et de vérifier que le délai de traitement prend vraiment 26 mois pour une demande d'asile. En passant par le chemin Roxham, cela me paraît bas, mais je vous fais confiance.

Pouvez-vous expliquer au Comité comment les demandes d'asile des gens venant des États‑Unis fonctionnaient, avant la mise en place de l'Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs? Quel était le processus avant 2004?

(1330)

Mme Christiane Fox: Il faudrait que je vérifie. Je ne sais pas si M. Hollman le sait.

Nous devrions vous revenir avec cela parce qu'avant 2004, cela va demander un peu de recherche.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Je ne peux pas croire que personne dans votre ministère ne sait pas comment cela fonctionnait avant l'Entente pour faire une demande d'asile en passant par les États‑Unis.

Excusez-moi, mais, à un moment donné, il faut connaître ses dossiers.

Personne ne sait comment fonctionnaient les demandes d'asile provenant des États‑Unis avant 2004. Le ministère me confirme-t-il bien cela?

Mme Christiane Fox: C'est plutôt parce qu'avant, c'était vraiment la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada, ou CISR, qui s'en occupait et non pas IRCC. C'est alors un peu à cause de la distinction des tâches, mais nous pouvons vous revenir avec cela et vous donner les détails pour le ministère.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Parfait.

Ce serait le fun que vous soyez au courant de tout cela, parce que vous nous dites que vous voulez travailler à moderniser l'Entente et que vous avez des rencontres à ce sujet, mais, si vous n'êtes pas capable de savoir comment cela fonctionnait avant l'Entente, cela va être difficile de la moderniser en ne sachant pas comment cela fonctionnait avant.

Je voulais seulement savoir si, en 2004, faire une demande d'asile en provenance des États‑Unis fonctionnait bien.

Mme Christiane Fox: Vous avez absolument un bon point.

Nous allons vous revenir avec la réponse. En même temps, le contexte mondial a énormément changé. Même si cela fonctionnait bien en 2004, cela ne voudrait pas nécessairement dire qu'un système identique pourrait fonctionner en 2022.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Tout à fait, mais, pour cela, il faudrait savoir comment cela fonctionnait.

Or, ce que vous êtes en train de me dire, c'est que votre équipe n'est pas au courant, de savoir comment cela fonctionnait. Cela, c'est un très gros problème, quand vous participez à des réunions pour moderniser une entente. Si on veut moderniser l'Entente, c'est donc dire que, présentement, cette entente ne fait pas votre affaire, oui ou non?

Mme Christiane Fox: Je pense qu'en ce moment, ce que nous voyons sur le chemin Roxham fait en sorte qu'effectivement, il faut continuer les conversations, parce que les tendances démontrent qu'il y a en effet des problématiques, incluant le volume irrégulier de chemin Roxham.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: D'accord.

Quand vous dites qu'« il faut continuer les discussions », vous...

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. Time is up. We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.
Ms. Kwan, you will have six minutes. You can please begin.

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to the witnesses—the officials—for coming to our committee.

Could the officials advise, what is the first document that asylum claimants receive when they first arrive in Canada?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I recently went to Roxham Road. I think I can say that the first point of contact is the RCMP.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: I'm sorry, could I just get the answer to the question?

What is the document that IRCC issues to them when they first arrive?

Ms. Christiane Fox: The document itself, okay.

I think that there are a number of documents. IRCC would be the third person that would issue one. They would see, essentially, the RCMP and then CBSA.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: You did not provide the document that IRCC provides. Could I get that answer, please?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes. It's the acknowledgement of claim. That is the name of the document that they receive from IRCC.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Is this a new practice, in issuing the acknowledgement of claim?

Ms. Christiane Fox: A new practice? No.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: When does the asylum seeker get what is known as their “brown paper”, the refugee protection claimant document?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Usually it's when they go to their follow-up appointment at the IRCC office and that's usually about two weeks later.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Is that the current time period to which people will get that, two weeks later?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes, from what I had seen when I did the visit, it was about a two-week, and maybe it's a little bit less or more, depending, but it's approximately two weeks.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: One of the witnesses who will appear before the committee has sent in a document to indicate that in fact it's taking much longer than that for them to get what's known as the “brown paper”. The process has now added an
additional 12 to 24 months before they could get it. If they can't get that document, that means the claimant cannot access the interim health program. For example, they can't get their identification to try and seek employment. Is that the reality right now, where people are waiting that long to get that brown paper document?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think it would depend, and apologies for the complexities, but I think it would depend on if the CBSA referred, or whether or not we received. I think depending on who has processed them, there could be a change.
That's why we have been trying to really coordinate with the CBSA and the RCMP. I've written down the 12 to 24 months based on what the testimony has said and I'll go back and check, but our understanding was that for the IRCC processes it was shorter than that.

(1335)

Ms. Jenny Kwan: From what I understand, it used to take three to six weeks for people to get an appointment to get their brown paper document. It's now taking 16 to 18 months to get that appointment and then on top of that, in addition to the acknowledgement-of-receipt document, they're now being issued an “entry for further examination document”. That is because CBSA is unable to process their claim in a timely fashion.

Then in total, people are now faced with a 12-24 month delay before they can get that document. In the meantime, what they have to do is to apply for income assistance through the province to just survive. You can imagine the hardship that's related to that.

My question is, why can't the government issue that brown paper document on arrival so people can actually get on with starting their legal process, and then of course being able to survive and access the necessary services?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Thank you for that.

I think that, just in terms of access to services, there are services right away upon arrival, including housing services and supports. There isn't a delay, but I will definitely go back and see what can be done in terms of accelerating the brown paper, seeing what the delays are, and what flexibilities we have.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Yes, and if committee could get the information on what is the actual delay, not just from your visit, but in actuality in terms of the practice, because on the ground if a refugee centre who's dealing with claimants day in and day out regularly are seeing this significant shift in timelines, which is causing huge problems for people, so it would be good to get the data on what is the delay and the process for each step and how long it takes. Then we can get a clear picture of what's going on and what more can be done to expedite this.

The other question is, in your negotiations with the United States on modernizing—the government likes to use the term “modernizing” the Safe Third Country Agreement—Canada used to provide an exemption for sending people back to their country of origin that is deemed to be unsafe. We used to have an exemption and that exemption was taken away by the Harper administration in 2009. Is there any discussion in reinstating that exemption?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think that in light of the negotiations being sort of bilateral negotiations, I don't want to get into what could be or not be put on the table. I think what I can say is that we're looking at all elements to improve the STCA, but I wouldn't want to get into specifics just in light of the bilateral conversations that are taking place.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Well, more specifically, what's happening right now is that Canada is turning away and sending people back who face gender-based claims, for example, or other vulnerable classes of people. They're being turned back because of exemptions being taken away. You can imagine, people who face gender-based violence are being sent back to their country of origin to face gender-based violence because the United States does not recognize it and Canada will not provide an exemption to it. These are huge problems. The NDP takes the view that the safer country agreements should be—

The Chair: I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: —should be [Inaudible] at minimum suspended if not eliminated. The government should be taking that action.

The Chair: Ms. Kwan, your time is up. Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd you have five minutes for your round of questioning. Please begin.

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is deterring asylum claimants who cross at an irregular crossing like Roxham Road a priority of your department and this government?

Ms. Christiane Fox: The message is always that we would like to have people claim asylum at ports of entry in this country. That is our message, absolutely, because it is [Inaudible].

Mr. Dane Lloyd: So you would agree that deterrence is one of your priorities.

Ms. Christiane Fox: I would say that we absolutely look to ensure that people take safe passages to claim asylum in this country, yes.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: Does your department have any programs to deter people from undertaking this dangerous journey in the first place?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think there is information-sharing about safe ways to seek haven in this country. I think that we continuously demonstrate a record in this country of accepting asylum claimants, and I think we share information around a safe way to do that.

(1340)

Mr. Dane Lloyd: But are you spending any money to share this information with people coming from countries that we have identified are the source of irregular claimants? Is there any money being put into sharing that information so that people will choose not to come in the first place?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think there's always capacity-building that we do in terms of sharing information about the proper channels [Inaudible] follows.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: How much money...?

Ms. Christiane Fox: So in terms of investment, it's part of our international protection systems or our information flows that could have some of this but would have other types of—

Mr. Dane Lloyd: How much is the government spending to educate people to try to deter them from coming to this country irregularly?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I don't have that dollar figure. I think it would part of the broader information packages.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: Is it anything? Is it zero dollars?

Ms. Christiane Fox: There is work done in terms of information and capacity-building in other countries, absolutely. It's not zero dollars.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: Okay, it's not zero dollars.

How much of the $1.2 billion in new funding that's been announced is dedicated to reducing the Immigration and Refugee Board wait times that you admit take over two years?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I'd have to get the exact breakdown of how much the IRB is getting. I'm sure they can speak to that.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: Can you please provide this committee with that information?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes, I can.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: Do you agree that if we were to cut down this two-year-plus claims process to a process that took a matter of weeks or possibly months at most, this would prove to be an effective deterrent to bogus claimants who come to this country?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think it's hard to answer that question. I think what I would say is that we want to have an asylum system that is efficient, nimble, flexible and responsive to the demands we get. I think right now we don't have that. So we have to work with our CBSA and IRB colleagues to improve this system and the processing so that we don't have these delays.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: What efforts are being undertaken to reduce those wait times right now?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think I would say that a good example of it is that, given the fact that it was 18 months to get a work permit, the department has just put in place a public policy to reduce that time to one month [Inaudible] people who need a work permit.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: That's for the work permit. I understand. But what is being done to reduce the two-year-plus wait time for hearing these asylum claims?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think that would be better placed with the IRB. I can't speak to what their efforts are specifically on [Inaudible].

Mr. Dane Lloyd: Do you know if any money—

Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes, there is.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: —is being put forward to reduce these wait times?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Absolutely.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: Can you please provide this committee with information on additional resources that are put in towards reducing asylum claim wait times as well as the number of full-time equivalents that have been hired to reduce this backlog?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Absolutely. I can say that Budget 2022...$1.3 billion. The Fall Economic Statement of 2020...$780 million. Budget 2019...[Inaudible]—

Mr. Dane Lloyd: But you don't know how much of those big numbers are actually being spent on these specific measures that I've asked about? Is that correct?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Do you mean the breakdown of the processing specifically?

Mr. Dane Lloyd: Yes.

Ms. Christiane Fox: I don't have it here, but we do have them, yes.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: I guess with my final time, my other question is that I see in the estimates here that about $87 million was spent on providing temporary accommodations to unvaccinated, asymptomatic travellers during the time when quarantine hotels were the policy of this country. Were there ever any efforts made to ask those people who were participating in these quarantine hotels if they could pay for the hotels themselves?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think that, just given the public health risk, there was a decision made for the government to pay for the hotels and just given the levels that we're seeing now, the government has agreed to continue to pay.

Mr. Dane Lloyd: So for a regular—

The Chair: Sorry for interrupting, Mr. Lloyd. Your time is up.

Before we go to our next member, I just want to clarify and let everyone know that when asking a question you should allow the other person to respond. If you speak over them then it becomes very difficult for the interpreters to interpret. Please allow the person to respond to your question and then speak. That is just a request of all the members.

Now we will proceed to Ms. Saks. Ms. Saks, you will have five minutes for your round of questioning. Please begin.

Ms. Ya'ara Saks (York Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, Madam Chair, to the officials, I actually had the opportunity to explore Roxham Road recently at the ethics committee. Roxham Road itself is actually a number of kilometres from the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle border crossing.

Knowing that the volumes have dramatically increased in 2022 even higher than prepandemic numbers, do you believe that closing Roxham Road would be a responsible solution to the thousands of asylum seekers, including children, who are seeking safety in Canada despite knowing the dangers when they cross at Roxham Road and that they will be out in the cold on a road with maybe about four or five houses around them? Knowing the dangers of going through this avenue, they still take it knowing that they are a distance from the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle border. Do you think that we should be closing it?

(1345)

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think that we have to have a system that works for the most vulnerable. When we look at the asylum claimants, you're absolutely right. People are taking great risks to cross either at Roxham or at other border crossings. I think that Canada has to think about how do we organize ourselves to protect the most vulnerable. Our view is that the points of entry are the safest way in which a person can make an asylum claim in this country. As such, we need to kind of build a system that can respond to that.

We are not closing Roxham Road right now. We need to efficiently deal with what we're seeing right now, which is the reality on the ground of every day up to 100 or more are crossing. Therefore, we have the systems in place. We're working with our partners at the RCMP and the CBSA.

You're absolutely right that these are very desperate people coming through and so we try to provide those supports. That's what we'll continue to do.

Ms. Ya'ara Saks: Great, thank you.

Just launching off of that, we know that asylum seekers are fleeing governments who persecute them. They also face tremendous dangers in crossing the borders. I think everyone in this room can recall the story about the family who died at the Manitoba border in the freezing cold, not even within the last two years. I've heard stories of women giving birth nearly at the border, even at the Roxham Road crossing, so the dangers are real.

What measures do you think we need to take to make life easier for them when they enter Canada so vulnerable, without having to risk their lives in this manner?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Absolutely. What I would say is that we need to continue to offer supports in terms of that access to education, access to health care; access to shelter and housing. We recognize that there is a lot of pressures on housing, just more broadly. However, that's why the government has continued to provide the interim housing program because it's such an essential part of protecting people.

I think that access to education and study permits for those who need it, access to work permits, are all ways that the government can continue to provide those supports to the asylum seekers and not only for a short duration of time, but if we can provide open work permits that allows them to contribute and that allows them to perhaps start thinking about the supports differently in terms of what they can do for themselves and their families.

I would say that everything we put in place with respect to education and work permits helps to build the stability that they so very much need in order to continue to do what they need to do for themselves and their families.

Ms. Ya'ara Saks: Thank you for that.

Some of my colleagues were talking about the volumes. Let's just keep it in perspective here. When I look at the numbers, just for Quebec alone, if you look at 2022 which is only January to September; comparatively to even 2019, prepandemic, 2022 is tracking at almost 27,000 coming through Quebec as opposed to, in 2019, 16,000. That is an almost 11,000-person increase in a relatively short period of time. Particularly at Roxham Road, I have heard numbers as high as 400 a day, 500 a day, coming through that border at peak times; less at other times, obviously.

With the number of asylum seekers crossing at Roxham Road increasing over the years, how can we improve the immigration system resources to ensure that asylum seekers are efficiently resettled and integrated into the country and can contribute to our communities? You have alluded to some of those measures with visas and so on, but even at the border itself there have been some measures that have been put into place.

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think the investments that we've received in order to increase the efficiency for processing—which I recognize we're not there yet, we need a lot of work to get there—but if we can have an efficient system that can actually deal with people upon arrival, for them to be in a position to be assessed by the IRB in a short time frame, to then once they either become a protected persons or they can move to a permanent residency and eventually citizenship, that's the stability that we hope that these people will go through as part of their journey. I think that in order to do that—

(1350)

The Chair: Sorry for interrupting, Ms. Fox. The time is up for Ms. Saks.

Ms. Ya'ara Saks: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Saks.

We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for two and a half minutes. Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you have the floor.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Merci, madame la présidente.

Je veux juste souligner que je n'ai toujours pas de réponse concernant le taux de refus des demandeurs d'asile qui ont passé par le chemin Roxham. Également, je n'ai toujours pas de réponse quant à la répartition des demandeurs d'asile.

Alors, j'espère que les fonctionnaires pourront nous fournir cette information plus tard.

Vous avez parlé d'une politique qui ferait passer les délais des permis de travail de 18 mois à un mois, dans une politique temporaire.

Est-ce que c'est parce que vous vous attendez à une augmentation de personnes qui voudront traverser la frontière de façon irrégulière?

Mme Christiane Fox: En fait, c'est vraiment pour aider ceux qui arriveront, mais aussi ceux qui sont déjà dans le système.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Donc, vous ne vous attendez à aucune augmentation pour les prochains mois.

Mme Christiane Fox: En fait, nous regardons le volume d'arrivants tous les jours. Comme je le disais dans mes projections, nous faisons face à des chiffres très élevés pour cette année. Donc, nous travaillons en conséquence.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Merci.

Vous avez beaucoup parlé des négociations afin de moderniser l'Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs. Combien de réunions avez- vous tenues au sein du ministère pour discuter de la modernisation de l'Entente, depuis 2019?

Mme Christiane Fox: Je suis arrivée en poste en juillet, mais je pourrais vous donner une liste...

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Est-ce que tous ceux qui sont présents ici, aujourd'hui, sont arrivés au mois de juillet?

Mme Christiane Fox: Non.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Donc, il y en a qui ont participé à ces réunions

Mme Christiane Fox: La dernière rencontre a eu lieu au mois de septembre, je crois.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Cependant, les gens qui vous accompagnent aujourd'hui ne sont pas en poste depuis le mois de juillet seulement.

Est-ce qu'ils pourraient nous dire combien de réunions ont eu lieu sur la modernisation de l'Entente sur les tiers sûrs, depuis 2019?

Mme Christiane Fox: Non, mais je pourrais vous revenir avec une liste de rencontres qui ont eu lieu. Cependant, il faut comprendre que ce sont des négociations bilatérales entre le Canada et les États-Unis et il y a une certaine confidentialité en matière d'information.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Je sais que vous en avez parlé dans votre allocution, mais à combien vous attendez-vous, en 2023, en ce qui a trait au nombre d'entrées irrégulières?

Mme Christiane Fox: Pour les chiffres sur les entrées régulières et irrégulières, nous nous attendons à un nombre entre 84 000 et 94 000.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Quel serait le nombre d'entrées irrégulières?

Mme Christiane Fox: Jusqu'à présent, les entrées irrégulières se chiffrent à environ 27 000. En ce moment, il y en a 55 000 ou 62 000 au total.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Vous parlez de 62 000 entrées irrégulières pour 2022. Est-ce exact?

Mme Christiane Fox: Ces chiffres sont seulement de janvier jusqu'à la fin septembre. Il s'agit de 62 000 réguliers et irréguliers.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Excusez-moi de vous interrompre, mais je m'explique.

Je parle seulement des entrées irrégulières. Donc, j'ai compris que c'était 27 000, mais à combien vous attendez-vous pour toute l'année?

J'imagine que vous faites des projections au ministère. Alors, quelles sont les projections pour l'année 2022 au complet, pour les entrées irrégulières?

Mme Christiane Fox: Probablement, environ 50 000.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Merci beaucoup.

[English]

The Chair: Sorry for interrupting. The time is up, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. We will now go to Ms. Kwan. Ms. Kwan, you will have two and a half minutes. Please begin.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Could the official tell us what the processing time is right now for asylum seekers who are crossing over irregularly into Canada?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I'll turn to Michèle Kingsley for this one.

Ms. Michèle Kingsley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Chair.

I think it depends on what exact process that you want to know about. The deputy has spoken about the fact that—

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Sorry, could I get the entire process? How long is it taking for someone to go through the IRB processing, for it to be completed? What's the average processing time?

Ms. Michèle Kingsley: I believe the deputy indicated earlier that, on average, right now it's taking 26 months. That would really be a question to pose to the IRB.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Could the officials provide us with all of the data on the information around the processing timeline? Could we also get information on the top countries of origin in terms of asylum-seekers whose claims have been denied and rejected?

Ms. Michèle Kingsley: Yes, we can definitely provide that.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: And could you also further break down the information on rejections of claims on the basis that they are gender-based?

(1355)

Ms. Michèle Kingsley: Gender-based, yes.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Yes, and then along with that, how many of the people are being returned or rejected with their application to countries where the countries are in turmoil or unsafe, and if you could list what those countries might be?

Ms. Michèle Kingsley: Yes, we can do that and I would also say that just before there's any type of decision made, there is a pre-removal risk assessment that the department conducts.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm aware of that.

When the government engages in these bilateral discussions, at any point in time has the government raised the issue of suspending the safe third country agreement?

Ms. Christiane Fox: I think it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the conversations that are happening around the STCA in a bilateral negotiations context.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Maybe I'll ask the minister because the government uses this term of modernizing. Modernizing actually, I think, is euphemistic and what we've seen is the Liberal government has actually extended the application of safe third country agreement to the Five Eye countries. So to that end, on the Five Eye countries, how many people have tried to make a claim to Canada through that process?

Ms. Christiane Fox: With the Five Eyes countries, how many of them have claimed asylum in this country?

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Yes, tried to and then been rejected because of the safe third country agreement.

Ms. Christiane Fox: Okay, I will check. I'm not sure.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Kwan, your time is up.

We will now proceed to CPC for two and a half minutes and then Liberals for two and a half minutes. So who will be taking the round from the Conservative side?

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): I will, Chair.

The Chair: Okay, Ms. Rempel Garner, you will have two and a half minutes. You can please begin.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Thank you.

As part of the government's posture in arguing the Supreme Court case that's currently pending regarding the safe third country agreement, it's my understanding that the government has asked the court for a year grace period to provide an alternative, if there is an overturning of the agreement. Has the department provided advice to the government to date on what that alternative could entail?

Ms. Christiane Fox: We have been definitely preparing for all scenarios of a decision and therefore we are kind of looking at what the impacts of the decision would be. The time frame in terms of phasing out a new system and then of course we're always looking at the various options around what would be—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Thank you.

Can you please provide what you can to committee with regard to that advice?

Ms. Christiane Fox: Yes, I think we have to be mindful of what the public service advice is to ministers and to—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Thank you for that undertaking.

I'm also wondering if you could provide or speak now to the committee about the total number of persons who have made inland asylum claims after irregularly entering Canada since November 2015 who have been removed from Canada after having had their claims denied, and could you break that down by category, inadmissibility and country of origin.

Ms. Christiane Fox: I don't think I'm able to do that on the spot but I can definitely take that back.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Yes, I can imagine.
If we could get that data prior to the committee ending, that would be great, and I do appreciate some of the
confidentiality of advice but on the first instance that we talked about, general principles, particularly if the government anticipates having to change posture on the United States being a safe third country for the return of refugees per the definition of international law. That's something that we would be interested in and if you could comment on that right now, that would be great as well.

Ms. Christiane Fox: I would say that our position in court has been clear, that we do consider the U.S. a safe third country.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: If the Supreme Court rules against this posture, perhaps could you speak to some of the potential implications for processing, and whether you have done any extrapolation on the potential increase in demand on Canada's asylum system.

The Chair: I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Rempel Garner. Your time is up. You'll get an opportunity in the second round.

We will now proceed to Mr. El-Khoury. Mr. El-Khoury you will have two and a half minutes and then we will end this panel.

[Français]

M. Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Merci, madame la présidente. Je remercie les témoins qui sont présents aujourd'hui.

Ma question s'adresse à Mme Fox.

Madame Fox, lors de la dernière réunion, une témoin a mentionné, de manière positive, que le nombre de personnes acceptées à l'arrivée était grand.

Êtes-vous en mesure de corroborer ce jugement et de nous éclairer sur certaines nuances que des gens ne perçoivent peut- être pas?

(1400)

Mme Christiane Fox: Pardon, je ne suis pas certaine que je comprends votre question. Qu'est-ce que la personne a noté?

M. Fayçal El-Khoury: La personne a mentionné, de manière positive, que le nombre de personnes acceptées était grand. Êtes-vous en mesure de corroborer ce jugement?

Je parle du jugement de la témoin.

Êtes-vous en mesure de nous éclairer sur certaines nuances que des gens ne perçoivent pas?

Mme Christiane Fox: Ce que je dirais, c'est que nous avons effectivement un système, ici, au Canada, qui priorise la protection des réfugiés de façon équitable et humaine.

Effectivement, nous, à l'IRCC, collaborons avec nos collègues de l'Agence des services frontaliers du Canada, de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada et des provinces et des territoires afin d'accueillir et de donner aux demandeurs d'asile des opportunités dans un système qui va favoriser l'accès à l'éducation, l'accès au travail, l'accès aux services sociaux, l'accès aux services de santé, etc.

Ce que je peux dire, c'est que, effectivement, nous devons travailler sur la durée des traitements des demandes. Nous devons faire des améliorations de ce côté sauf que, si on regarde le système en entier avec la collaboration avec les provinces, les territoires, ainsi que les municipalités, on se retrouve vraiment dans un système qui appuie les personnes les plus fragiles. Je pense que nous continuerons au sein du ministère à prioriser ce travail.

M. Fayçal El-Khoury: Il y a aussi des témoins qui nous ont récemment mentionné que les conditions d'accueil étaient tout à fait adéquates et raisonnables, malgré la condition irrégulière du franchissement de la frontière.

Pourriez-vous préciser à propos des opérations afin d'expliquer comment le Canada s'assure de toujours bien traiter les demandeurs?

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. El-Khoury. Mr. El-Khoury, your time is up.

With that, we will end our panel. I will suspend the meeting for two or three minutes so that we can do a sound check for the minister. I see he's logged in.

I will suspend the meeting. Minister, welcome. The clerk will do a sound check and then we will resume the meeting.

The meeting is suspended.

(1405)

The Chair: I call the meeting to order. I would like to welcome the minister. Thank you, Minister, for appearing before the committee.

We have with us in this panel, the honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Minister, you will have five minutes for your opening remarks and then we will go into a round of questioning. You can please begin.

[Français]

Unknown 1 CIMM 42- (à titre personnel): C'est excellent. Merci.

Bonjour à tous.

C'est un plaisir d'être ici avec vous aujourd'hui.

[English]

Good afternoon, everyone. Today I'm joining you from my home province of Nova Scotia which rests on the traditional and unceded territories of the Mi'kmaq people. This territory is covered by the Peace and Friendship Treaties.

To turn to the issue of the day, persecution, conflict, violence and human rights violations happening all across the world are forcibly displacing people in record numbers. This is resulting in unprecedented rates of global migration. Like many other countries, Canada has seen an increase in the number of people coming to our country and claiming asylum in search of a safer future for themselves and for their loved ones. When someone seeking this safety arrives to Canada, we have a duty to uphold our international and domestic legal obligations and to provide protection for those fleeing persecution.

[Français]

S'ils reçoivent une décision négative concernant leur demande d'asile, ils seront informés qu'ils font l'objet d'une mesure de renvoi, seront demandés de se présenter dans le futur à la prochaine étape de la procédure d'expulsion.

[English]

The IRB and the Canada Border Services Agency share a role in this system as well, and these departments work together to ensure that cases flow through as quickly and as efficiently as possible. In addition to this collaboration, the government is investing new resources in the asylum system to increase capacity and timely processing.

I want to highlight something that's not always obvious at first. The fact is nobody choses to be displaced. In this role and even before, I've had the opportunity to meet with many displaced people. No one who has a great life at home just wakes up one day and decides to risk everything to cross the border in search of a safer future. You don't uproot your life and all that you know - you family, your cultural and language connections, your professional skills, and really the sense of who you are to live in limbo with an uncertain future.

The people that I've met decide to do this because they have no other choice in order to survive or to ensure their family's well-being.

(1410)

[Français]

Tout comme nous travaillons avec IRCC, le Canada travaille aussi avec nos homologues américains, avec qui nous partageons la plus longue frontière internationale du monde. Cela comprend la modernisation de l'Entente entre le Canada et les États-Unis sur les tiers pays sûrs. Depuis sa mise en oeuvre, l’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs a été un outil important de collaboration avec les États-Unis afin d’assurer le traitement ordonné des demandes d’asile à notre frontière commune.

[English]

The agreement applies at all ports of entry and states that refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in. This is the case unless they qualify for an exception to the agreement. Exceptions to the agreement consider the importance of family unity, the best interests of children and the public interest.

My provincial counterparts have expressed an empathy for the issues facing asylum seekers and want to be able to do their part to help accommodate them as well.

That said, supporting asylum seekers is a shared responsibility and the federal government assists provinces in the delivery of services to asylum seekers. One such way is by providing provincial and municipal partners with support for temporary housing. Since 2017, support has primarily been through the Interim Housing Assistance Program.

This program provides compensation to provinces and municipalities for extraordinary costs of interim housing for asylum seekers on a cost-sharing basis.

The Government of Canada is going to continue to support provincial and municipal partners to help develop shared solutions.

Madam Chair, I know you said I had five minutes. I've prepared somewhat longer remarks, I expect I am close to the end of my time, so perhaps I'll leave it there and deal with the remainder during the time we set aside for questions.

I do want to say thank you so much to members of the committee.

[Français]

Merci de votre invitation aujourd'hui.

[English]

The Chair: You have 45 seconds still.

Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship): I have 45 seconds and a few pages of notes.

I'll cut my comments off there, say thank you to my colleagues and that I'm very much looking forward to the opportunity to take what questions you may have, and of course to follow up with each and all of you on the floor of the House of Commons or in the hallways of Parliament.

Thank you so much.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

With that, we will now go to our round of questioning.

We will start our round of questioning with Ms. Rempel Garner.

Ms. Rempel Garner, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister.

Particularly given that the United States-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement allows for numerous exceptions, does the federal government affirm that this agreement is constitutional within a Canadian legal context?

Hon. Sean Fraser: It's our view that the agreement is constitutional as was upheld by the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision . Of course matters are still before the courts and we'll respect whatever decision they have, but it's our view of course that the agreement is constitutional.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Does the federal government affirm that Canada's obligation to provide effective protection and to ensure effective protection is provided by a country to which Canada transfers refugees is being met via current legislative priorities and other related protocols currently in place within the United States of America?

Hon. Sean Fraser: You're asking effectively do they meet the standard to be a safe country under the agreement?

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Correct.

Hon. Sean Fraser: It's my view that they do. There's a number of factors that we look at, whether they're parties to certain treaties, their policies and practices, and whether they have a functioning asylum system that allows people to have their claim fairly adjudicated. It's my assessment that they meet that standard and we're obliged under the agreement to monitor that on an ongoing basis, and we believe that they have met that standard.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: That's right.

Minister, are you aware of President Joe Biden's executive order? I believe it was about a year and a half ago that essentially said that the United States was going to take more efforts to look at gender-based violence, gang violence in terms of their refugee determination system. Do you believe that this executive order shows further evidence that United States is meeting its obligation in terms of being deemed a safe country per international law?

Hon. Sean Fraser: I am aware of it. I believe it's one factor.

It's not determinative one way or the other. We look at whether people are a party to the Convention against Torture, the Refugee Convention, policies and practices such as you've just identified, their human rights record and whether they agree to share responsibility for refugee protection.

That's one of many factors to consider, but it would move the needle towards satisfying the standard that we would require. There are many other factors that we also continuously monitor.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Just to be clear, based on everything you just said, the federal government affirms that the United States currently meets the basic standards of refugee protection as set out in international law?

Hon. Sean Fraser: That's correct, but more specifically as set out in the safe third country agreement.

(1415)

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Thank you.

Does the government affirm international law, which states that asylum seekers should make their claim for asylum in the first safe country that they reach?

Hon. Sean Fraser: Let me just put a finer point on it. Indulge me for 30 seconds. I promise not to take too much time.

Having a background in international law, the only thing I can tell you I'm certain about, is that you'll find people who disagree on different points. If you include the terms of the safe third country agreement, then certainly that's an element of that legal obligation. However, I think in addition to it having some basis in the agreement, it's advisable. We don't want to encourage people to take on often dangerous or perilous journeys. It's a principle that I've seen the UNHCR support in the past. There is some debate about whether it's firmly embedded in different international legal instruments.

I think it's advisable to adhere by that principle. It is adopted as a principle in the safe third country agreement, as well.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Thank you.

Given that, does the government affirm that asylum seekers who first reach the United States of America should make a claim in that country, as opposed to seeking to irregularly enter Canada to make an inland asylum claim?

Hon. Sean Fraser: There are always unique exceptions, even under the safe third country agreement. We always do a case-by-case assessment. We try not to have blanketed decision-making in an omnibus way.

The principles underlying the safe third country agreement promote the outcome you've just described. Which is to say, if you're safe in the country where you first arrived we would prefer to have you make the asylum claim in that country, including for people who first arrive in Canada.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Does the government affirm that economic migrants should apply for residency within Canada via regular migration streams, as opposed to seeking to make an inland asylum claim?

Hon. Sean Fraser: Yes, it's our view that people who seek to come here for economic reasons should use the economic streams. In fact, Canada is engaged as the chair of the support platform for an organization called Merks to promote regular migration pathways in Central and South America. We believe it is advisable to have organized, regular migration pathways, including for economic migrants, for those who are seeking to migrate for economic purposes.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Do you affirm that reducing the amount of time that passes between an inland asylum claim being made and when the claim is processed could deter persons from seeking to make an inland asylum claim after having reached the United States?

Hon. Sean Fraser: You know, I would have been more inclined to give you a quick “yes” a year and a half ago, before I was in this job. Honestly, Ms. Rempel Garner, I've met now a significant number of refugees and asylum seekers. I haven't met a person who told me their motivation was processing times. It's been fleeing challenging circumstances in every instance.

Conceptually, I can see why the argument suggests it could. Anecdotally, I've yet to meet a person who has indicated that was a motivating factor.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Non-Canadians who are low-skilled workers have relatively few revenues to access permanent residency in Canada. Do you think this reality—when compared to expedited work permits processing for persons who make inland asylum claims after having reached the United States strains the asylum system, potentially— sends a message of unfairness to economic migrants seeking to come to Canada via regular means? Ergo, the government should be looking at more pathways for regular migration for economic migrants?

Hon. Sean Fraser: I agree with you for part of your question. I may take a different slant on another element.

I agree that we need to continue to increase pathways for regular economic migration, including at different skill levels. You would have seen in the recent immigration levels planned a significant increase in our ambition and a decision to try to tailor our economic programs to meet different key gaps in the labour force.

I wouldn't necessarily say that we've created an incentive for people to make asylum claims for reasons that are inappropriate. I do think that we need to continue to do more to make it easier for people who are seeking to migrate for genuine economic reasons through regular migration pathways.

The Chair: Thank you.

The time is up for Ms. Rempel Garner, thank you. We will now proceed to MP Ali.
MP Ali, you will have six minutes for your round of questioning. You can please begin.

Mr. Shafqat Ali (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, thank you for appearing today.

Through you, Madam Chair, to the minister, could you please tell us what additional steps we can take as a country to show compassion to those asylum seekers and move them from their temporary status to permanent residents?

Hon. Sean Fraser: It's a great question.

A lot of people who are here in Canada—not just asylum seekers by the way—who are living on a temporary status would like to become permanent residents. Having certainty in what those pathways look like is really important.

In order to do that, we need to continue to increase our immigration ambition which I believe is a good thing for both economic and demographic reasons, but it can also be for compassionate reasons.

Smoothing the pathway after a person receives protected person status to permanent residency is one thing that we would be able to do to make life easier, particularly because people who achieve protected person status do not automatically become entitled to be reunified with their families.

Another example would be making sure that we're investing in the asylum system so people have timely decision-making so they are not left wondering what their status would be and continuing to work with different levels of government at the provincial or municipal levels to make sure that when a person is here going through the process, they're not without a place to go to sleep, with a roof over their head and have their basic needs—such as health care—taken care of.

There are a number of elements we can do to make sure that our system of migration and asylum is more compassionate. Of course, I don't have a monopoly on good ideas and if the committee arrives on additional recommendations, I would be more than happy to consider them in good faith.

(1420)

Mr. Shafqat Ali: Thank you, Minister.

I understand that many asylum seekers who have entered by Roxham Road become productive workers, but they have to wait some time to obtain a work permit.

Given that Canadian businesses need workers, and given the aging Canadian demographic, what can be done to facilitate entry into the work force of these individuals?

Hon. Sean Fraser: Thank you for the question.

I don't want to use Canada's asylum system as our economic growth strategy. I want to use our economic migration system as our economic growth strategy and to continue to clear pathways for people to come through regular migration pathways to help fill key gaps in the labour force.

That said, there is a reality that we're living with that there are people who are crossing the border and making asylum claims and we have to deal with those challenging circumstances in a responsible and compassionate way. I don't view it to be appropriate to deny a person the ability to work when they have no other means to support themselves as they're hearing a claim as to whether they are so vulnerable that they're in need of Canada's protection. We have recently had a shift in policy to make sure that people are able to obtain work permits before their eligibility decision to apply for asylum is rendered which will shorten the period of time that people will go without the ability to work and support themselves.

We need to do that to remain compassionate towards people who are fleeing vulnerable circumstances, but not necessarily as a strategy to pursue economic growth because we know that our regular migration pathways for economic migrants are a more effective way to pursue economic growth.

We may do the same thing you've recommended for compassionate reasons, but not necessarily for the same motivation as we have other pathways to achieve those economic ends.

Mr. Shafqat Ali: Thank you, Minister.
Thank you for your compassion towards asylum seekers. You mentioned it in your statement as well and I truly appreciate
it.

My next question, given that we have the words “longest non-militarized border” with the U.S., closing Roxham Road—

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: J'invoque le Règlement, madame la présidente.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Madame la président, on me signale dans l'oreille gauche que le son est de mauvaise qualité pour l'interprétation de mon collègue du Parti libéral.

[English]

Mr. Shafqat Ali: Madam Clerk, can you hear me?

The Chair: Mr. Ali, can you please say a few words and let the clerk check.

Mr. Shafqat Ali: Madam Clerk, can you hear me clearly? How's the weather down there?

The Clerk: Yes, I can. Thank you.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Attendez. Est-ce que cela va pour les interprètes? OK.

[English]

The Chair: Is it good?

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Non, je disais OK à quelqu'un d'autre.

Si monsieur pouvait ralentir le débit et parler plus lentement, cela faciliterait le travail de nos amis interprètes.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ali, can you go a bit slower?

Mr. Shafqat Ali: Okay.

Minister, given we have the words “the longest non-militarized border” with the U.S., closing Roxham Road or suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement would not be a solution. It would just cause asylum seekers to make more dangerous crossings and put them at a greater risk of exploitation.

You have suggested modernizing the agreement to make it more sustainable. Could you share with us what modernizing the agreement might look like?

Hon. Sean Fraser: Thank you to my colleague for the question. I think you've made a key point.

A simple suspension of the Safe Third Country Agreement, in my view, would lead to a potentially significant number of people making claims in a different and perhaps less organized way that would exacerbate some of the challenges, that are very real, of dealing with large numbers of people who seek to come across our borders.

Despite the scale of our challenges, I should point out, as well, we sometimes forget we're blessed by geography
compared to many countries in the world, surrounded by three oceans and the United States to our southern border, which limits the number of people who seek to come in irregularly compared to other countries. That said, because we want to maintain this unmilitarized border with our largest and most important geopolitical partner, we need to work together to make sure the system works more effectively.

You'll forgive me if I don't go into the specifics of what a modernized agreements looks like, because, of course, we're having discussions in real time with the United States and it would betray the confidence they have shared with us as a result of these conversations being in an ongoing way. I won't share the details of those discussions on a open floor when they were promised in confidence to the United States. However, we're going to seek to make sure we continue to promote regular migration, discourage people from making perilous journeys and ensure that on both sides of the border people are treated with compassion and have a fair shot to have their asylum claim heard should they land in one country or the other and choose to make an asylum claim to seek safe haven.

(1425)

Mr. Shafqat Ali: Thank you, Minister.

Madam Chair—

The Chair: Thank you for your time. Mr. Ali, your time is up.

We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you will have six minutes. You can please begin.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Merci, madame la présidente.

Merci au ministre qui est très généreux de son temps. Il vient souvent au Comité. Je tiens à le souligner.

Monsieur le ministre, dans l'heure précédente, votre sous-ministre a dit que les prédictions du ministère, en matière d'entrées irrégulières pour l'année 2022 au complet, seraient de 50 000. Je viens de voir les chiffres d'octobre, venant tout juste de sortir, et on est à 31 000 entrées irrégulières pour le chemin Roxham.

Comment le ministère peut-il avoir une projection de 20 000 personnes supplémentaires pour novembre et décembre? Je ne suis pas certain que le ministère a les bons chiffres.

L’hon. Sean Fraser: Je m'excuse, mais il y n'a pas une si grande différence entre ces nombres. [English]
I think you had the number correct on the number of people who are seeking to come across Roxham Road, though the projection is between 84,000 and 94,000, I believe, for the total number of asylum claims that would be made regularly and irregularly.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Pardon, monsieur le ministre, je n'ai pas beaucoup de temps.

Je parlais des entrées irrégulières, du chiffre de 50 000 que la sous-ministre nous a donné. C'est bizarre comme projection quand on sait qu'il y en a 31 000 qui sont arrivés de janvier à octobre. Cela laisserait, en deux mois, 20 000...

Dites à vos gens, au ministère, de faire attention avec leurs projections, parce qu'ils sont payés pour cela et ce serait le fun qu'ils fassent les bonnes projections.

Parlant des gens de votre ministère, précédemment, on a appris que, de tous les gens qui étaient présents dans le panel,
aucune de ces personnes n'a pu me dire quel était le processus de demande d'asile avant la mise en place de l'Entente sur les tiers-pays sûrs en 2004.

Trouvez-vous que c'est normal, comme ministre, que votre équipe de fonctionnaires ne sache pas quel est le processus pour faire une demande d'asile au Canada, en venant des États‑Unis, avant la mise en place de l'Entente sur les tiers-pays sûrs?

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: There are a couple of points.

I want to push back on your assertion we need to have more accurate projections. The vast majority of irregular claimants in Canada have come across Roxham Road. I don't think there's an inconsistency based on our projections and the number of people who've crossed to date.

On the second question, I don't think it's unusual to have a question sprung upon an department official about what system may have existed 18 years ago without an opportunity to prepare. However, before the Safe Third Country Agreement, I would suggest it doesn't provide a particularly useful reference point as to what solutions may be appropriate going forward.

There has been an explosion, not just across the Canada-U.S. border but globally, in the number of people seeking asylum. We need to be adopting solutions that are going to apply to the challenges we're facing today, not the challenges that may have been—

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Merci, monsieur le ministre, vous avez répondu à la question. Vous trouvez cela normal que vos fonctionnaires ne sachent pas comment cela fonctionnait pour faire une demande d'asile avant la mise en place de l'Entente entre le Canada et les États-Unis sur les tiers pays sûrs. Je trouve cela absurde. Présentement, ces gens participent aux négociations pour moderniser l'Entente et ils ne sont pas au courant du mode de fonctionnement avant que l'Entente soit mise en place. Entre vous et moi, s'il y a des journalistes à l'écoute, ils seront contents d'apprendre cela, et je crois qu'il y en a.

Monsieur le ministre, parlons justement des négociations de l'Entente. C'est la plus belle ligne de votre parti depuis 2019. C'était même dans votre plateforme électorale en 2019, « moderniser l'Entente entre le Canada et les États-Unis sur les tiers pays sûrs ». Je veux juste rappeler à tout le monde qu'on est en 2022 et qu'il n'y a rien sur la table actuellement. Lorsque le ministre nous dit que ce n'est pas la bonne solution de suspendre ladite Entente, parce qu'il nous a carrément dit tantôt que les postes frontaliers réguliers sont moins bien organisés que le poste irrégulier du chemin Roxham, cela me fait halluciner que nos postes frontaliers réguliers, selon l'idée qu'IRCC s'en fait, soient moins bien organisés que le chemin Roxham.

Évidemment, c'est une autre chose publique aujourd'hui.

Combien y a-t-il eu de rencontres afin de moderniser l'Entente avec les Américains?

(1430)

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: Look, let me just correct the record first. There has been a few of instances—and I know that you're a thoughtful, intelligent and fair-minded person, my friend—where you've put your words in my mouth and I just want to be careful not to suggest to those journalists in the room that they adopt those quotes as being attributable to me. We can carry on in that conversation subsequently.

And look, in my effort to correct, I've lost track of what your actual question was, Alexis. If you don't mind just coming back to it, I would appreciate it very much.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Vous avez dit tantôt que si on suspendait l'Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs des gens passeraient par des endroits moins bien organisés pour les accueillir que ce qu'on voit présentement au chemin Roxham. Ces endroits dont vous parlez, ce sont les postes frontaliers réguliers canadiens. Vous avez dit, monsieur le ministre, que lesdits postes sont moins bien organisés qu'un poste irrégulier que la GRC appelle le poste frontalier Roxham, mais on sait très bien que c'est un poste irrégulier.

Vous bougez la tête en signe de dénégation, mais quels sont les endroits moins bien organisés? Si l’on suspend l'Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs, ils font pouvoir passer par le poste frontalier. Dites-vous que les postes frontaliers ne sont pas organisés dans le reste du Canada?

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: No, that's not the argument that I'm making, and to be fair to you, if the chair would like to add a minute to your questions and I could accommodate by staying an extra minute. That delay was on my part and I would be happy to accommodate.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Merci.

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: To be very clear, there's not just danger when people are crossing the border in an irregular way.

There is danger across the migration journey for somebody who decides they may seek to come into one country or another.

The suspension of the Safe Third Country Agreement could cause a large number of people to come across in both irregular and regular fashions, in different parts of the country, in ways that are not currently prepared to be dealing with large influxes of people coming in to seek asylum claims.

If there are more people migrating throughout the course of their journey as a result of a pull factor that would be created by us saying that we're no longer going to have a Safe Third Country Agreement, there would potentially be thousands upon thousands of people choosing to put themselves in danger. Not just between the Canada-U.S. border, but at other points of their journey along the way. That's not a danger that I want to promote.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Monsieur le ministre, attendez. Vous venez de me dire que les gens sont peut-être plus en danger...

[English]

The Chair: [Inaudible]

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Attendez, attendez, il m'a mangé une minute tantôt. Ce qu'on a su, c'est qu'il y a des passeurs professionnels qui...

[English]

The Chair: I gave that, so the clock is at seven minutes. We gave that extra minute. We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have six minutes. You can, please, begin.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the minister for appearing before our committee.

He just said in his comments that, globally, there is a crisis, really, with people who are faced with displacement
forcefully, displaced in their country of origin. Canada, by geography, is such that we are actually quite sheltered from the impact of that.

The one exception, of course, would be the U.S. border, and so hence the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Given that the numbers, really, relative to the rest of the globe in the face of this crisis, Canada is not as impacted as some of the other countries...literally, by the millions of people crossing over to seek safety. But yet, Canada has chosen to put a Safe Third Country Agreement in place, even though the minister admitted that people try to seek safety, not because it's fun, but because they really need to do so. They enter into this perilous journey to get to safety.

The Safe Third Country Agreement puts them into this dangerous situation, subjects them into exploitation, subjects them to smugglers and subjects them to other dangers as they are making this journey, whether it be weather related or otherwise.

Why not do away with the Safe Third Country Agreement so that people are not subjected to that, and then allow for them to actually make their claims through a regular entry.

(1435)

Hon. Sean Fraser: Sorry, did you say a regular or irregular at the end of your comments, Ms. Kwan?

Ms. Jenny Kwan: For them to make the entry through a regular port of entry. So that they can make their claim through a regular port of entry. Right now if they do with the Safe Third Country Agreement they will automatically be rejected.

Hon. Sean Fraser: Thank you. I understand the question.

With enormous respect, I think we probably agree on the outcomes we want to foster, which is safer regular migration pathways, but disagree a little bit on the impact of suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement. It's my view that a suspension of the Safe Third Country Agreement would create the potential for more and more people to make the decision to not to leave their country. People are choosing to leave their country because they are fleeing vulnerable circumstances, but to continue their journey on until they get to Canada specifically. My view is that we should promote the principle of people choosing to make an asylum claim in the first place, where they are safe to limit the number of people who are further putting themselves in danger by continuing on a potentially perilous journey.

I see you've put your hand in to interject.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Yes.

With the Safe Third Country Agreement as the Minister knows, it predated the Trump administration. One might argue that during that period it was some of the worse times for people trying to get to safety in the United States. It predated the Trump administration. The U.S. has a mandatory detention policy upon arrival for asylum seekers. That was also in place prior to the Trump administration. The practice of detention for asylum seekers is deeply rooted in the core system of the U.S. immigration and refugee system. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the culture that they built up with ICE there is not going to go away over night, even with the Biden administration.

This is the reality right now. Really, for some of these asylum seekers they are faced with an impossible situation. There are people who are faced with detention. There are people who are being sent back to the country of origin to face the dangers to which they had been trying to flee from.

Given that is the reality, if the government says, if the Minister says, he wants to address the issue and he's sympathetic and compassionate, is it his view that he will never raise the question of suspending, even just suspending, if not doing away with the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States?

Hon. Sean Fraser: There's a big difference between not suspending and never raising the potential to suspend. One of the things that we're actually required to do under the Safe Third Country Agreement is to monitor compliance with policies that protect human rights and treat refugees and asylum seekers with fairness and compassion.

We do this on an ongoing basis. The factors that we consider as to whether a country could be designated as a safe country for the purpose of the Safe Third Country Agreement, include whether they are a party to Convention Against Torture, the Refugee Convention, their policies and practices where this ongoing monitoring is particularly important as well as the human rights record of a country. It's not necessarily the case that because there is one particular policy that may be different than what Canada would like to see happen, that that results in the automatic suspension of the agreement. When we look at the sum total of these factors, we make an assessment on a regular basis as to whether the country we're dealing with continues to meet that standard as a safe country.

It's our government's view that the United States, given the totality of these factors, continues to meet that standard.

Which is why we have not made any decisions to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Yes, the U.S. even at its worst times, you know we have to remember during the Trump administration what were they doing? They dramatically expanded the authority to arrest, jail and deport migrants in the United States. We can never forget the image of children being put in cages, being separated, being torn away from their parent with their anti- immigration and refugee policies.

They outright reject gender-based claims, outright reject it. That's the reality. Even in those circumstances, the government says, oh well, but the U.S. is still a safe country. Really?

How?

(1440)

Hon. Sean Fraser: Look, some of the situations you described when I was confronted with those as a member of Parliament long before I held these positions, I took it upon myself with certain colleagues to reach out to representatives from the United States to voice my concern about some of the images that I had been seeing. I actually published a statement through social media at the time to voice some of my concern as someone who cared deeply about the well-being and fair treatment of people.

However, we still need to look at the totality of the factors and to determine whether the United States actually still has a functioning asylum system that allows people to make a fair claim. We're not just dealing with the folks who are making asylum claims along the southern border, but people who have travelled to the United States and have the potential to make a claim in the U.S. who may instead choose to come to Canada.

We constantly reassess the situation to determine whether they meet the standards of the Safe Third Country. I would point out as well, even when some of these policies are initially adopted the U.S. court systems still has the ability to make decisions where a given administration may run afoul of a particular rule to actually undue some of those policies that would have caused a particular country—

The Chair: Sorry for interrupting, Minister.

Hon. Sean Fraser: —to fall out of favour with the Safe Third Country Agreement. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Sorry for interrupting, time is up for Ms. Kwan. We will now proceed to Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd, you will have five minutes for your round of questioning, you can please begin.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Point of order, Chair, it's Mr. Paul-Hus for the Conservatives.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Paul-Hus will take the next round. Mr. Paul-Hus, you have five minutes, you can please begin.

[Français]

M. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, PCC): Merci, madame la présidente. Bonjour, monsieur le ministre.

J'aimerais comprendre. Je suis impliqué dans le dossier du chemin Roxham, avec ma collègue, Mme Rempel Garner, depuis le début, en 2017, au moment où M. Trudeau a fait son fameux gazouillis. La situation a commencé de façon intense par la migration illégale. Il y a deux volets.

J'ai écouté attentivement votre discours. Vous avez une position. Lorsque nous vous écoutons, nous entendons ce que vous dites comme ministre. Votre position est claire relativement à l'Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs et à une intention de contrôler. Vous avez dit que l'Entente existait pour avoir un traitement ordonné de l'immigration au Canada. Je suis d'accord avec vous.

Par contre, actuellement, les questions des collègues libéraux autour de la table vont dans l'autre sens. On dirait qu'on normalise l'entrée par le chemin Roxham et que c'est une façon d'immigrer au Canada qui est normalisée et qu'on encourage. D'un côté, on dit qu'il ne faut pas rentrer au Canada de façon illégale ou irrégulière et, de l'autre côté, on dit que c'est une bonne façon, et on parle même de donner la résidence permanente et d'accélérer les processus.

Où se situe-t-on vraiment?

Ce que demande le NPD et le Bloc québécois n'a pas de sens. Je suis d'accord sur l'Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs et sur le fait que nous devons régler les problèmes que nous avons. Par contre, comme ministre, ce que vous avez dit dans votre discours, est-ce la bonne façon? Ce que vos collègues libéraux demandent et la position des fonctionnaires avant vous disaient que c'est quasiment une pratique bienvenue au Canada et que c'est une façon d'immigrer chez nous. Quelle est la vraie position?

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: There is no logical inconsistency with promoting regular migration pathways and still demonstrating compassion towards some of the world's most vulnerable people who are coming to our country.
With respect to your commentary around the Prime Minister issuing a tweet a number of years ago, I would point out that people don't flee their home country because of a welcoming tweet from a country's leader, they flee their country because they are seeking to escape violence, war, and persecution.

It's my belief, and I hold this firmly as a minister and as a human, that—

[Français]

M. Pierre Paul-Hus: Je le comprends, monsieur le ministre. Je vais vous interrompre là-dessus. Je comprends très bien.

Il y a des centaines de millions de personnes sur la planète qui vivent dans des pays où les conditions et les situations sont très difficiles. C'est pour cette raison qu'on a, dans les cibles d'immigration, de la place pour les réfugiés. On a accueilli des millions de réfugiés au Canada dans les dernières années. On a accueilli des Syriens, des Afghans et des Ukrainiens. On accueille des réfugiés de façon ordonnée au Canada. Ces gens ont leur place. On les invite, on les accueille et l'on s'en occupe.

Par contre, le passage par le chemin Roxham, pour moi, c'est une façon d'immigrer qui est problématique. Justement, une personne qui vient d'un autre pays et qui veut tenter sa chance pour immigrer au Canada, elle arrive aux États‑Unis, elle se rend ensuite au chemin Roxham et elle espère que le Canada l'accueillera. Actuellement, je crois que le taux d'acceptation est à 50 %. L'autre 50 % de ces gens, qui sont refusés et qui ont tout laissé derrière eux, sont encore plus mal pris qu'avant. Au contraire, ces gens, qui souhaitent améliorer leur sort, se ramasseront-ils avec encore plus de problèmes?

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: One of the things that's very important for committee members to understand, is that when an individual crosses the border in an irregular way and makes an asylum claim, the merits of their case are considered on a case-by-case basis based on the particular vulnerabilities that they have. If they qualify to make an asylum claim, they will be granted an asylum in Canada in accordance with our domestic and legal obligations which form part of our migration framework in Canada.

If someone comes who does not qualify because of their—

(1445)

[Français]

M. Pierre Paul-Hus: Je le sais, monsieur le ministre. Les personnes sont refusées...

[English]

The Chair: One person at a time.

Can I please ask all the members to let the other person answer the question, because if you speak over the interpreters will not be able to translate. Therefore for translation purposes, one person should speak at a time. Once members ask the question, please allow the minister to answer.

Thank you.

[Français]

M. Pierre Paul-Hus: Merci.

Je comprends le processus, monsieur le ministre. Nous allons en parler justement.

Jules Richer du Journal de Montréal nous a appris, en début d'année, que 25 804 personnes, qui avaient traversé la frontière irrégulièrement, ont été refusées, et, maintenant, elles ont disparu. Elles sont au Canada, mais on ne sait pas où.

Elles n'ont aucun statut. Elles ont totalement disparu.

Pouvez-vous nous dire, en date d'aujourd'hui, combien de personnes sont recherchées par les services frontaliers ou combien de personnes ont tout simplement disparu au pays?

Si vous ne le savez pas, Mme Fox ou quelqu'un de votre équipe pourrait répondre.

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: I don't have a specific number of people who have made a failed asylum claim and are still within Canada. We don't monitor the number of people who exit Canada voluntarily.

Deputy Minister Fox, if you have any specific data, I would be happy to yield the floor.

Ms. Christiane Fox: We don't have that specific data, but we can see what CBSA could provide to the committee, so I'll take a [Inaudible] back with them and go back.

As you said, no exit tracking.

[Français]

M. Pierre Paul-Hus: Vous dites que les services frontaliers voudront bien nous envoyer cela, mais il s'agit de l'information qui est disponible.

Mme Christiane Fox: Je vais vérifier avec eux pour voir si cela est offert et pour voir quelles sortes de niveaux d'information ils peuvent donner.

M. Pierre Paul-Hus: Le système a coupé. Je n'ai pas entendu votre réponse.

Mme Christiane Fox: Je suis désolée.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Fox, can you repeat the last answer you gave?

[Français]

Mme Christiane Fox: Parfaitement, je voulais juste dire que je ne suis pas exactement certaine des sortes de données et du niveau de détails, mais je vais faire le suivi avec l'agence. Nous vous reviendrons avec ce qu'ils peuvent donner comme information.

M. Pierre Paul-Hus: La question concernait les faits depuis .

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Paul-Hus, your time is up.

We will now proceed to Mr. El-Khoury.

Mr. El-Khoury, you will have five minutes. Please begin.

[Français]

M. Fayçal El-Khoury: Merci, madame la présidente. Merci, monsieur le ministre.

Merci de toujours être très généreux d'accepter nos invitations et de venir partager vos idées avec nous sur la manière d'améliorer le système dans votre ministère et de répondre à nos questions.

Avant tout, permettez-moi d'assurer à mon collègue, M. Paul‑Hus, que les questions de ce côté de la table vont dans le vrai sens, et pas dans le sens opposé.

M. Pierre Paul-Hus: Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire?

M. Fayçal El-Khoury: Vous avez dit que nous posons des questions dans le sens opposé. Non, nous posons des questions dans le vrai sens, monsieur Paul‑Hus.

Monsieur le ministre, pouvez-vous préciser pour nous votre vision de l'avenir quant aux enjeux reliés aux conditions dans lesquelles se trouvent les demandeurs d'asile sur le chemin Roxham Road?

Nous voulons entendre cela pour que ce soit clair pour tout le monde, monsieur le ministre.

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: When a person enters irregularly though Roxham Road they are given a document acknowledging they've made their claim for asylum. They are able to start to seek access to certain services.

Let's not pretend that this reality is without challenges. There are very real challenges for our provincial partners in Quebec in this instance, for municipal partners. That's why we've actually developed programs to cover the cost of health care, to contribute to the cost of housing. We've set up facilities through leasing arrangements with temporary accommodations on site and continue to work with communities at a provincial and municipal level to ensure the capacity of their shelter system, for example, is not overrun.

We need to make sure we continue to treat people with compassion to uphold our reputation as a welcoming and compassionate country in the world, but also to make sure we don't simply have the costs of this very real-world challenge simply downloaded onto provincial and local levels of government. These are not easy challenges to sort through, but t's our responsibility as a government to meet the domestic and international legal obligations that we have, which include to treat people with respect and compassion and to provide a fair and fast and final resolution of asylum claims that are made when a person comes to Canada and seeks to remain on the basis of persecution they may be fleeing.

(1450)

[Français]

M. Fayçal El-Khoury: Merci, monsieur le ministre.

Monsieur le ministre, même si vous n'étiez pas en fonction à cette époque, êtes-vous en mesure de développerr l'aide de 500 millions de dollars accordés entre 2017 et 2020 afin de réduire la pression sur la province de Québec?

Hon. Sean Fraser: Merci, cher collègue, de la question.

C'est très important de comprendre que le gouvernement fédéral a fait des contributions pour améliorer la qualité de vie des personnes qui sont dans notre pays.

[English]

It's really important and I'm trying to dig out these specific figures in front of me just to make sure that your number is the same as my number.

What we end up doing is essentially working to understand the capacity that different governments will have. We do this in particular with Quebec as a result of the influx of irregular asylum seekers to make sure they have the capacity to cover many of the costs associated with housing and that we cover much of the costs associated with health care.

The kinds of resources we're talking about between I think you said 2017 and 2020—I have in front of me between 2017 and 2022—just with respect to Roxham Road contributions to the tune of $269 million towards accommodation, security, health and transportation costs.

We're going to continue to manage the challenges associated with large numbers of people until we can reach a permanent solution that will allow us to respect both Canadian and international legal obligations that we have and also continue to treat people in a fair and compassionate way.

There are difficult problems that come with irregular migration, but we all know that difficult problems are a part of our professional choice when we put our names on the ballot and to continue to work with others who have done the same at provincial and municipal levels of government to serve the interest of communities is something we will continue to do.

[Français]

M. Fayçal El-Khoury: Monsieur le ministre...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. El-Khoury, your time is up. We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you will have two and a half minutes. You can begin, please.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Merci.

J'ai juste deux minutes et demie, donc je vais essayer de poser des questions courtes pour avoir des réponses courtes. Si vous voulez moderniser l'entente, monsieur le ministre, c'est donc dire qu'elle n'est pas adéquate à l'heure actuelle.

Sinon, pourquoi voudrait-on la renégocier?

Je ne veux pas perdre de temps, madame la présidente.

L’hon. Sean Fraser: Il y a un problème avec l'interprétation. J'entends deux voix.

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: D'accord.

Nous allons arranger cela et recommencer du début.

Votre microphone est en mode sourdine, madame la présidente.

[English]

The Chair: I think there is some translation issue. I have stopped the clock. Madam Clerk, can you please check.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, can you say a few sentences so we can check.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: « 1, 2, 3, nous irons aux bois; 4, 5, 6, cueillir des cerises; 7, 8, 9, dans un panier neuf; 10, 11, 12, elles seront toutes rouges. »

[English]

The Clerk: Sounds good. Thank you.

The Chair: Is it good all? Okay.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: C'est bon.

Nous allons recommencer du début, par contre, madame la présidente. D'accord? Merci.
J'ai une petite question courte et j'aimerais que vous me donniez une réponse courte, monsieur le ministre. Si vous voulez moderniser l'entente, c'est donc dire qu'elle est inadéquate à l'heure actuelle. Sinon, pourquoi voudrait-on la renégocier?

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: I think it needs to be improved and modernized. Yes.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Donc, vous nous dites que cela fait quatre ans que vous êtes en négociation de l'entente, c'est-à-dire depuis 2018, et nous sommes en 2022.

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: It's not me personally, but our governments have been working together to identify a path forward for several years.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Donc, vous nous dites que cela fait quatre ans que l'on vit avec une entente qui est inadéquate en ce qui a trait aux demandeurs d'asile au Canada.

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: Look, just to be clear, having an agreement that is imperfect is far better than not having an agreement at all, but we should constantly be searching for ways to better the quality of agreements that we have with our international partners.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Donc, cela fait quatre ans que l'on vit avec une entente qui est imparfaite et on n'arrive pas à trouver de solutions. C'est fantastique. Avez-vous entendu parler des passeurs qui profitent des migrants et des demandeurs d'asile?

Il y a eu des reportages à Radio‑Canada, entre autres, faits par notre collègue, le journaliste Romain Schué, dans lesquels on a vu que des passeurs venaient et profitaient carrément des gens en soutirant de 600 $ jusqu'à, parfois, 10 000 $ par personne. Avez-vous l'intention de demander une enquête pour faire lumière sur ces réseaux de passeurs?

(1455)

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: I think we constantly need to monitor the treatment of people who are seeking to come to Canada, but I want to be clear that I would not attribute illegal behaviour in the United States for the presence of a Safe Third Country Agreement. In some ways it's possible that the absence of the agreement could exacerbate that kind of illicit behaviour.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Est-ce que vous avez des discussions avec les Américains sur ces autres passeurs?

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: It's part of what we do within the context of the safe third country agreement is to monitor the treatment of people who are coming to seek asylum. This is one of the kinds of things that we can monitor, but certainly not the only thing.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: Il n'y a donc aucune action prise par rapport à ce crime. Je vous rappelle que c'est un crime de trafic de personnes, un des crimes les plus graves au monde. Aucune mesure n'est prise par le gouvernement du Canada qui dit vouloir accueillir ces personnes...

[English]

The Chair: [Inaudible] Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Français]

M. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: OK. Merci.

[English]

Hon. Sean Fraser: That is not my characterization.

We're out of time. I'll look forward to question period next week.

The Chair: We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have two and a half minutes, please proceed.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: One way to actually address that issue, of course, is to get rid of the safe third country agreement, but anyway, the minister is not going to do that.

Given everything that we know about the safe third country agreement, will the minister consider broadening public policy exemptions under article 6 to include gender-based claims of vulnerable classes of people?

Hon. Sean Fraser: Are you talking about exemptions to the safe third country agreement?

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Yes.

Hon. Sean Fraser: Well, as we seek to modernize it, there are a number of different items we would consider, but I don't want to get into the specifics of what conversations I have had confidentially with the United States. This is the kind of thing that we need to respect happens privately between sovereign nations.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Well thank you, but I hope that the minister will agree that, at the very minimum, he should advance gender-based claims and for other vulnerable classes of people to be exempt. I won't belabour all the reasons why, and it is an important one, I hope the minister will agree.

Currently, there's a prolonged delay for asylum claimants with their processing. I know that the minister wants to try to move this quickly, including the policy on allowing people to get an open work permit, but the reality on the ground is that people are not moving this through quickly, and we've been advised through a submission by a witness that the process has now added another 12 to 24 months before a claimant can even get their identification document, which is hugely problematic. My question to the minister is: Will he ensure that refugee protection claimant documents and open work permits are issued upon arrival so people can quickly move forward? This will also support municipalities and provinces as well, because otherwise, if people can't get these services and get that document, they won't be able to work and they will have to go on for example income assistance and rely heavily on provincial governments and municipal governments for support.

Hon. Sean Fraser: One point of clarity, I agree with the member that we need to continue to make investments to speed up the process, we actually put $1.3 billion towards the asylum in the last federal budget. We recently made a change to expedite the timelines on which a person can receive a work permit by allowing them to make it prior to receiving an eligibility decision and we also have the ability for individuals to access services upon the document acknowledging their claim, which happens much earlier in the process. It is imperfect, we need to speed things up, but we are taking steps already to try to improve the quality of some of these circumstances you've raised.

Ms. Jenny Kwan: Yes, the two things, that's—

The Chair: Sorry for interrupting, Ms. Kwan, your time is up.

I've checked and the minister can stay until 3:07, so we will have four minutes for Mr. Redekopp and then end the panel with Mr. Dhaliwal for four minutes.

Mr. Redekopp you are up next, and you will have four minutes for your round of questioning.

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC): Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being here.
I want to come back...you talked about how the migrants don't come to Canada because of our administrative procedures or because of the timing of the border and so on, and I understand that. It's not necessarily that there are illegal activities going on, but we have entrepreneurs who are very cagey and they understand that they can make a dollar here if they can help these migrants come to Canada. We've heard testimony, too, that there is a whole industry being built around bringing people to the border through the Roxham Road crossing. My question to you is what are you and your government doing to maybe discourage some of these activities and to prevent this whole industry from taking hold and essentially taking
advantage of the situation in a completely legal way?

(1500)

Hon. Sean Fraser: Just to clarify, I think every member of all parties on this committee would condemn human
trafficking and people smuggling and it's not something that we want to see by any means. What we try to do is to share good information about the process of making asylum claims in Canada and to work with our international partners, in this case, the United States, to let them know when we hear of trends that are happening within their borders that are not within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. Of course, we can't send the RCMP into the United States to start busting human trafficking rings that are taking place outside of our own borders, but we need to continue to work with our international partners and to provide good information.

On the issue of the safe third country agreement, though this is not necessarily your perspective, it's come up in other members' questions, removing the safe third country agreement could result in an increase in the number of people who are seeking to come to Canada through irregular ways and making an asylum claim when they arrive, and that's something we want to protect against.

Mr. Brad Redekopp: I would agree with you on that, but I do want to circle back.

Ministers before you have actually taken efforts to go to the United States. You speak about talking to the government, and I get that. But most entrepreneurs aren't looking at government websites to see what government-to-government discussions are. They're looking at what's out there in the social media and in different news.

Specifically, what efforts are you taking to talk to more grassroots people about discouraging them from doing this, and preventing them from making a dollar by supposedly helping people to come to Roxham Road?

Hon. Sean Fraser: We have different elements of our response, and we have a very limited time so I will try to go fast, to combat smuggling, whether it happens by road, air or sea—

Mr. Brad Redekopp: Minister, I'm not talking about smuggling. These are not illegitimate businesses.

These are entrepreneurs who see an opportunity. They're not smuggling people. They're helping people, but it's also exacerbating the problem, making it worse. What are you doing to discourage that?

Hon. Sean Fraser: Are you talking about bringing people to the border for the purpose of making an asylum claim?

Mr. Brad Redekopp: Yes.

Hon. Sean Fraser: I view that to be very dangerous and sometimes, on the ground, in those social circles, it can in fact involve human smuggling. I think we should be very clear that there's very dangerous behaviour that forms part of this.

When we're dealing with behaviour and conduct that's taking place in another country's borders, we need to work with the government of those other countries. I don't think it would be the best use of my time to personally infiltrate the social circles of organizations or entrepreneurs, to use your lingo, to try to interrupt that kind of flow of people who are trying to make, in some instances, asylum claims that are potentially not justified.

We need to make sure that we have clarity in the rules and that we broadcast them through local governments. If we can find stakeholder organizations through partners with those organizations that allow us to get that message out there more forcefully, then we would do so.

I sense that we are running out of time, Madam Chair, and I don't want to talk out the clock on my colleague here. Is there additional time?

The Chair: No, the time is up for Mr. Redekopp.

Now we will end our panel with Mr. Dhaliwal. Mr. Dhaliwal, you will have four minutes. Please begin.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: Thank you, minister for coming and for being accessible.

I am going to carry on with Brad's question on the safe third country agreement. It is my understanding that there have been over 2.5 million individuals who have crossed into the U.S. via the U.S.-Mexico border in the past 12 months. Without the safe third country agreement, how would that potentially affect Canada?

Hon. Sean Fraser: It is not just tied to folks who have come through the American border, but the likelihood is that we would see a significant further increase in the number of people who seek to come to Canada for the purpose of making an asylum claim.

For people who wish to come to Canada, we want to encourage them to use regular migration pathways and discourage them from making an asylum claim, unless they must. We really do abide by the principle where we encourage people to make an asylum claim in the first country where they are safe, because travelling through a country without status, though you may not be in a particular danger, is still not always a safe thing to do for individuals for families.

I expect simply suspending the safe third country agreement would result in a significant increase of people making, in many instances, very dangerous journeys, not just through the United States by the way, but through many other countries on a potential pathway to Canada.

(1505)

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: Minister, do you have any thoughts you want to share before I go to my next question?

Hon. Sean Fraser: I would rather deal with your questions, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: Thank you.

You have already mentioned that you don't want to see people using the asylum seeker avenue to gain immigration into Canada, but there are many cases that have failed the refugee claim. They have been in Canada for many years, and they are working. I already asked Ms. Fox, your deputy minister, the same question.

The only avenue left after the refugee claim, the asylum claim has failed is the H and C. How would you see these people who have been working for so long, if we are not going to let them use any of the avenues to get into the mainstream?

Hon. Sean Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal, for the question.

There are a significant number of people who are here; who have been here for many years; in many instances who have children who are Canadian; and who have been working and making a difference and contribution to our communities. We tried a few things over the past couple of years to provide status for certain individuals who currently don't have status. I'm thinking about the Guardian Angels program, which allowed frontline health care workers to become regularized to recognize the contribution that they've made. I'm thinking about the pilot program for out-of-status construction workers in the GTA and Hamilton which has allowed more people to come out of the shadows and to work in a regular way where they're now contributing, paying taxes and are not afraid to seek basic services such as health care.

We're looking for ways right now to make good on the mandate letter commitment that the Prime Minister has assigned to me: to expand on those pathways; to provide more regularization opportunities for individuals who are here making contributions and have deep connections to Canada; and to allow them to live in dignity with a permanent residency status.

This is not an easy issue to sort through. It requires serious consultation with different stakeholders and provincial and territorial governments as well. We're going to continue to do our policy work to identify opportunities to provide pathways to permanent residency for some of those individuals you've referenced.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: Minister, I have met with people from Quebec in the same situation. Most of them are in the trucking industry. I hope that you pay attention to that particular field as well.

It seems like my time is going to be up. Please add your final comments, if you have any.

Hon. Sean Fraser: Since you mentioned the trucking industry, though it's not on the question of asylum, I'd point out that just a couple of days ago we launched a revision to the National Occupation Classification codes that we've had in place, and truckers are now actually eligible to come to Canada through our express entry system. We've now created a regular migration pathway for people who might want to come to Canada through federal economic streams, which may potentially further discourage people coming in in an irregular way.

We need to continue to be a compassionate country. We need to continue to abide by our domestic and our international legal obligations, and we need to continue to welcome people in regular ways, while we respect the laws that bind us for those who are seeking here to escape vulnerable circumstances.

It's been a pleasure to be with you all. I thank members of the committee and the chair for having me. I'll look very much forward to our next opportunity to engage.

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks a lot, Minister.

On behalf of all the members of this committee, I really want to thank you for all the work that you do on behalf of all Canadians. Thank you for appearing before the committee to provide your testimony in this important study.

Thank you to everyone. I hope all of you will have a great weekend. With that, the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

IRCC’s Summary Report –IRCC’s Minister Appearance at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) meeting of November 18, 2022

Meeting Information

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM)
Meeting No. 42 – Conditions Faced by Asylum-Seekers
November 18, 2022 from 1:03 p.m. to 3:09 p.m.

Committee Members

BQ	Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, QC)
NDP	Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, BC)
CPC	Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, AB) Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, SK) Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, AB) Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, MB) Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland) Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles)
LPC	Salma Zahid (Chair) (Scarborough Centre, ON) Marie-France Lalonde (Orléans, ON) Shafqat Ali (Brampton Centre, ON) Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, BC) Arielle Kayabaga (London West, ON) Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, QC) Ya’ara Saks (York Centre)

Witnesses Present

1:03pm to 3:09pm

Christiane Fox, Deputy Minister
Scott Harris, Associate Deputy Minister
Michèle Kingsley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations
Jason Hollmann, Acting Director General, Asylum Policy

2:07pm to 3:09pm

Hon. Sean Fraser, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Takeaways

Discussions focused on the STCA in its current state and plans for its modernization as well as processing times, safety and security and refusal rates for asylum claimants.
19 total undertakings arose from this appearance, with main topics being the STCA (MPs Maguire, Brunelle-Duceppe, Kwan) and Processing for asylum claimants (MPs Brunelle-Duceppe, Kwan, Lloyd). Full list below.

Summary

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) Officials and the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, provided two separate opening statements, respectively at 1:03p.m. and 2:07.p.m.

In the first opening remarks, IRCC spoke of 2022 admissions, indicating that they are expected to pass 2021 in most immigration programs, including permanent residency, student visas, refugees, and family reunifications. It highlighted the interdepartmental efforts with the Immigration Refugee Board (IRB), Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to welcome and process the new volumes of irregular migrants. IRCC recognized the challenges posed by the current situation at Roxham road and reiterated how it has taken measures with federal as well as provincial and municipal partners to address the situation.

During the second opening remarks, the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of IRCC noted that there were unprecedented levels of migration worldwide. In Canada, individuals can expect a fair assessment of their claims, during which, they receive the protection of the country. Both the IRB and CBSA work collaboratively with IRCC to ensure that cases are processed as quickly and effectively as possible. The government is also investing new resources in the asylum system to increase capacity and timely processing. IRCC is also working closely with American counterparts to discuss the modernization of the STCA, an important collaboration tool to ensure the orderly processing of border crossings. Supporting asylum-seekers is a shared responsibility and the federal government assists provinces in the delivery of services to asylum seekers. One of these ways is by providing provincial and municipal partners with support for temporary housing mainly through the interim housing assistance program.

Questions and interventions by committee members focused on the following topics:

Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA)

MP Maguire (CPC) indicated that the United States of America (USA) is also a Safe Third Country where asylum claimants could also remain and enquired whether IRCC had made efforts to amend the STCA so that individuals cannot walk across the border. He further mentioned that the Minister Goodale expressed his intent to negotiate with the government of the USA to amend the STCA in 2018. IRCC agreed to that statement. MP Maguire highlighted that number of irregular border crossings were higher than in 2017. IRCC agreed to that statement, adding that its forecast for both irregular and regular border crossings for 2022 is between 84,000 and 94,000.
MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) Enquired about the negotiations with the USA regarding the STCA. He requested what is IRCC expecting in terms of irregular border crossings for 2023. IRCC indicated that this number would be around 50,000
MP Rempel Garner (CPC) asked whether IRCC had provided advice to the federal government regarding its posture towards the STCA. IRCC indicated that it has been preparing for several situations
MP Rempel Garner (CPC) asked whether the federal government affirmed that the STCA was constitutional. The Minister indicated that it was their view, as upheld by the recent federal court of appeal decision, however since matters are still before the courts, IRCC will respect the final decision.
MP Rempel Garner (CPC) asked whether the government affirmed the international law stating that asylum seekers should make their claim for asylum in the first safe country they reach. The Minister indicated that we do not want to encourage migrants to take perilous journeys to reach a country, a principle supported by the UNHCR.
MP Ali (LPC) asked what a modernized agreement on the STCA would look like. The Minister indicated that a simple suspension of the STCA would potentially lead to significant number of people making claims in a different way that would exacerbate current challenges.
MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) asked why is the federal government is working to modernize the STCA if it says that it is adequate. The Minister indicates that having an agreement that isn’t perfect is better than having no agreement at all and that the government should be constantly be looking for ways to improve the quality of the agreements with international partners.
MP Dhaliwal (LPC) asked what would happen with border crossings, should the STCA be suspended. The Minister indicated that Canada would likely see a significant increase in number of individuals coming to Canada illegally.

Processing of asylum seekers

MP Dhaliwal (LPC) enquired whether IRCC had additional comments regarding their opening statements. IRCC spoke of the importance of processing asylum claims in a humane fashion and reiterated the importance of working closely with the USA. IRCC Highlighted the importance of Work Permit issuance for asylum seekers as they wait for their processing. MP Dhaliwal asked for numbers for government’s budget towards asylum processing. IRCC indicated that 1.3 billion dollars over 5 years to support the influx of migrants. MP Dhaliwal enquired what were the alternative solutions to integrate failed claimants or undocumented workers in Canada. IRCC indicated that they are actively seeking solutions to process such vulnerable individuals in Canada, naming the Guardian Angel program, providing a permanent residence pathway for such individuals working in patient care
MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) asked what were the delays for work permit issuance. IRCC indicated that the processing times are expected to diminish from 18 months to 1 month total processing time.
MP Kwan (NDP) asked what was the first document refugee claimants were issued after entering Canada. IRCC indicated that this first document is the Acknowledgement of Claim. MP Kwan further enquired at which point after entering Canada their Refugee Protection document. IRCC indicated it was at their first meeting at the IRCC processing office, approximately two weeks after entering. MP Kwan deplored processing times, indicating some refugees may have to wait 12 to 24 months for obtaining this document. IRCC indicated that these delays depend on the specific case, adding that there are several services offered for asylum seekers as soon as they enter Canada, such as housing and support.
MP Lloyd (CPC) enquired if deterring asylum claimants was a priority of this government. IRCC indicated that the ideal situation would be to have asylum claimants coming to official border crossings in Canada.
MP Saks (LPC) enquired as to which measures are available for the vulnerable migrants. IRCC replied that we need to offer housing, access to education and work permits to these individuals to allow them to contribute to the economy.
MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) enquired about the policy that would reduce work permit processing from 18 to 1 month and whether IRCC was expecting an increase in number of asylum seekers. IRCC indicated that it was expecting very high numbers for this year.
MP Kwan (NDP) asked what was the processing times for asylum seekers entering illegally in Canada. IRCC indicated that this depends on the process, however IRB would be better placed to answer this information.
MP El-Khoury (LPC) mentioned that a previous witness noted that Canada’s processing numbers were high. IRCC agreed and continued by saying this country has a fair and humane system that prioritizes the protection of refugees. IRCC collaborates with other departments and provincial government to create a system that benefits refugees and vulnerable individuals at every step.
MP Rempel Garner (CPC) asked whether the government affirms that asylum seekers who first reach the USA should make a claim in this country, as opposed to seeking to irregularly enter Canada. The Minister noted that even under the STCA, there are unique exceptions and that IRCC is always making a case-by-case assessment on the claims. He however recognized that the principles of the current STCA indicate it would be preferable that asylum seekers made their claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
MP Rempel Garner (CPC) asked whether the government affirm that economic migrants should apply within Canada via regular migration streams instead of making inland asylum claims. The Minister responded by saying that it’s the government’s view that people coming for economic reasons should use the economic streams and that Canada promotes regular immigration paths for migrants.
MP Ali (LPC) asked what steps can Canada take to process asylum seekers and move them from temporary to permanent residents. The Minister replied by indicating that IRCC needs to increase its immigration ambitions.
MP Kwan (NDP) asked whether the Minister will consider broadening public policy exemptions to include gender-based claims for other classes of vulnerable people. The Minister replied that confidential conversations were happening with US counterparts but could not comment on it.

Roxham Road

MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) asked for the refusal rate for asylum-seekers in Roxham road. He further enquired about the distribution of asylum-seekers throughout Canada’s biggest cities, including in Québec. IRCC indicated that about 90% of asylum requests came through Roxham road, and advised that in average, asylum requests would usually be processed in 26months for the IRB.
MP Saks (LPC) enquired whether closing Roxham road would be a safe solution to stopping irregular border crossing. IRCC indicated that there is a need for a safe system to protect irregular migrants, where the Canadian points of entry are the safest way to process asylum claimants
MP Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) mentioned that the IRCC forecast for irregular border crossings for 2023 are inaccurate and mentioned that IRCC could provide more accurate numbers. The Minister pushed back on the assertion that projections were inaccurate based on numbers of people who have crossed in Roxham road to date.

Safety and Security

MP Kwan (NDP) stated that the STCA currently places the asylum seekers in dangerous situations, such as human trafficking by allowing them to make asylum claims via irregular border crossings. The Minister replied that he and the MP were in agreement that safer and regular pathways to migration were the desired outcome, but mentioned that the suspension of the STCA would create the potential for more migrants to make the decision to come to Canada
MP Paul-Hus (CPC) mentioned that Canada already has some set immigration targets, however the immigration route via Roxham road leads to more precarious situations for migrants, where rejected migrants get rejected get in a further fragilized situation. The Minister replied that individuals asylum claims are considered on a case-by-case basis, where individuals qualifying will be granted asylum
MP Brunelle-Duceppe asked about smugglers asking exorbitant prices to cross from the USA to Canada and whether IRCC was having discussions with this country regarding the matter. The Minister advised that monitoring this situation was part of the discussion regarding the modernization of the STCA.
MP Redekopp (CPC) asked what is the government are doing to discourage or prevent activities taking advantage of vulnerable asylum seekers. The Minister mentioned that IRCC is sharing good information with the USA or international partners of what is happening within their borders.
MP Rempel Garner (CPC) asked if the federal government affirms that Canada’s obligation to provide effective protection and to ensure protection is provided in countries to which Canada transfers refugees is being met. The Minister indicated that the USA does indeed meet the standard to be a safe country under the STCA.

Other

MP Paul-Hus (CPC) asked how many individuals are currently sought by the CBSA or have disappeared in Canada. The Minister undertook to provide numbers on individuals who made a failed asylum claim and are still within Canada, noting that CBSA does not track voluntary exits from Canada.

Follow-ups (To be checked against transcript. Official tasking to follow.)

CIMM 42.1 provide any IRCC-issued statements or press releases from the past 12 months that unequivocally states that according to the STCA, individuals in the USA should file an asylum claim there rather than illegally cross the Canadian border
CIMM 42.2 find whether IRCC has reports or analyses on which sections of the STCA would be needed to amend it so that individuals would be banned from walking across the Canadian border
CIMM 42.3 provide any memos, documents or reports that IRCC conducted to determine the flow of irregular migration after efforts to encourage other countries to use regular border crossing
CIMM 42.4 provide all evidence of IRCC monitoring media and relevant information regarding irregular border crossings
CIMM 42.5 provide refusal rates for migrants via Roxham road
CIMM 42.6 provide the distribution of asylum-seekers throughout Canada’s biggest cities, including in Québec
CIMM 42.7 provide the steps to process asylum requests for migrants arriving from the USA prior to 2004 and the STCA
CIMM 42.8 provide information on the current processing time to obtain the Entry for Further Processing document
CIMM 42.9 provide numbers on how much money is dedicated on reducing the IRB wait times
CIMM 42.10 provide information on additional resources put towards reducing asylum claim processing times as well as how many full-time equivalents have been hired to reduce the processing times
CIMM 42.11 provide how many meetings have occurred since 2019 on the modernization of the STCA
CIMM 42.12 provide the processing timelines for asylum seekers entering illegally in Canada
CIMM 42.13 provide numbers on which are the top countries of origin from which asylum seekers have had their claim refused
CIMM 42.14 provide numbers on rejection on the basis of gender-based claims
CIMM 42.15 provide numbers on how many individuals have been refused with applications from countries that are deemed unsafe, and the list of these countries
CIMM 42.16 provide numbers on how many individuals from the five-eyes countries have made an asylum request and have been refused.
CIMM 42.17 provide which advice IRCC gave to the Government regarding the modernizing of the STCA
CIMM 42.18 provide the total number of persons making inland asylum claims after irregularly entering Canada since November 2015 that have been removed from Canada after having their claims denied, while breaking down the decision by category of inadmissibility and country of origin
CIMM 42.19 reach out to CBSA to obtain the number of individuals who made a failed asylum claim and are still within Canada.

IRCC’s Summary Report –Meeting of November 22, 2022, with stakeholders.

Meeting information

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM)
Meeting No. 43 – Conditions Faced by Asylum-Seekers (first hour and a half) and Committee Business (final 15 minutes)
November 22, 2022 from 3:55 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Committee Members

BQ	Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, QC)
NDP	Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, BC)
CPC	Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, SK) Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, AB) Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, AB) Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, MB)
LPC	Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, ON) Marie-France Lalonde (Orléans, ON) Shafqat Ali (Brampton Centre, ON) Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, BC) Arielle Kayabaga (London West, ON) Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, QC)

Witnesses Present

3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Comité d’action des personnes sans statut

Frantz André, Spokesperson and Coordinator

The Refugee Centre

Abdulla Daoud, Executive Director
Pierre-Luc Bouchard, Refugee Lawyer and Head of Legal Department

Unis pour une Intégration Consciente au Canada

Eva-Gazelle Rududura, Vice-President

4:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.
Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers

Maureen Silcoff, Lawyer and Past President

Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association

Ms. Perla Abou-Jaoudé, Lawyer
Mr. Vincent Desbiens, Lawyer

Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes

Stephan Reichhold, Director General

Takeaways

Discussions focused on ending the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), the “brown paper” documentation issued to asylum seekers, lack of safety for refugees in the United States, and expanding entry points into Canada.

Summary

Comité d’action des personnes sans statut spoke of Haitian migrant situation as many of those who arrive at Roxham road are from Haiti. They highlighted the various health and financial struggles they face, one of which being finding a lawyer. Recommendations:

Canada must have a foreign policy that does not exacerbate the conflict and welcome migrants in a respectful manner.

The Refugee Centre focused on the “brown paper” and refugee protectant claim, explaining that it Initially took 36 weeks, now its over 12 months from time of entry until appointment.

Standardizing issuance of brown paper or open work permit on arrival of refugee, or temporary photo id for refugee claimants allows them to apply for open work permit; and
Extend extension of brown paper validity from 2 to 4 years.

Unis pour une Intégration Consciente au Canada (UNICC) explained that people at Roxham road were welcomed warmly, She spoke on the valuable exchange between asylum seekers and Canada.

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) discussed the importance of ending the STCA for various reasons, including that acceptance rates don’t vary much between regular vs irregular refugees, ending STCA disperses refugees, the department will still work with ebbs and flows, and it means irregular and undetected entry, Reccomendations:

End STCA or;
Re-instate Article 6 which allows for policy exemptions, to exempt classes of people on policy grounds, to help vulnerable people.

Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI) supports abolishing STCA and to better distribute asylum seekers throughout Canada. They explained that asylum seekers come to border to be protected but then once they have everything (lawyers, settlement services, etc) it becomes difficult to move around so a better work permit system is needed. Some cant be dealt with in the fashion they deserve. There is a need to equitably distribute resources. Lastly, he explained that losing Roxham would be more devastating on status quo and could prevent them from coming to Canada.

Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes (TCRI) focused on dealing with humanitarian organizations, looking at social and health aspects, that help asylum seekers. He explained that regardless of regular vs irregular channels, none of settlement networks have the capacity for the status quo.
Recommendations:

Putting up shelters because its almost impossible to find housing for these people and they’re in homeless shelters but they don’t have documents.

Questions and interventions by committee members focused on the following topics:

Processing in the United States vs Canada

MP Rempel Garner spoke of the US extended temporary protected status for Haitian nationals who are making asylum claims and how there’s a lot of uncertainty still. She asked if the American legislative framework for being able to evaluate ongoing emergent issues allows for flexibility in extending additional protection to asylum claimants. Mr. Andre, from Comité d’action des personnes sans statut responded saying no, that Haitian nationals prefer to file claims in Canada instead of US, with US designation status, and in many cases there a lot of Haitians deported so they come to Canada. MP Rempel followed up asking if they had they not gone through any process whatsoever in Canada. To which, Andre responded saying no, there’s a hearing set up and there’s a fear of being deported. MP Rempel asked if the government should seek to strengthen the review processes to ensure there isn’t discrimination against persons from any country. Andre responded that there is a need to reassess STCA and what happens at the border.
MP Dhaliwal asked why the U.S. isn’t safe for immigrants. Mr. Andre said that people who arrive at Roxham road risk being modern slaves.
MP Kwan asked if the U.S. is safe for asylum seekers and Mr. Andre responded saying no.
MP Kayabaga asked why people are not seeing the US as safe country. Ms. Silcoff responded that the law is so restrictive so they have a want to come to Canada, theres also a one year bar to make your claim in the U.S.
MP Kwan asked why the US is not safe. Ms. Silcoff explained that there’s people who don’t make claim right away because they cant do it, but they have to do it within a year, so people might not make their claim and then if they show up at border and are rejected then they’re turned back to US, its unsafe because they cant access asylum system. Also detention system is unsafe.

Roxham Road

MP Kayabaga asked why Burundians go the Roxham route, and does the danger they’re facing in the original country encourage them to go through Roxham, and asked if the road should be shut down. Ms. Rudurdura from UNICC agreed about the danger in the original country and that if Roxham is shut down, they’ll find another way to get through since they’re fleeing something.
MP Brunelle-Duceppe asked about criminal smugglers bringing in migrants. Mr. Andre responded that yes, he had heard stories about how people are paid between $8000-$35000 to do so, and that people need to be treated with dignity and respect.
MP Redekopp asked how many clients are received from Roxham, and if they stay in government sponsored hotels and for how long. Ms. Jaoude, from AQAADI responded that they deal with them everyday, hundreds, but don’t know the exact number as they aren’t distinguished from coming from elsewhere; and that they do stay in government sponsored hotels but were unsure of for how long.

Access Points Outside of Roxham Road

MP Brunelle Duceppe asked if immigrants should have more access points. Ms. Rududura said yes, any possibility for safer services. Mr. Andre agreed that more entry points helps with less condensed and more dispersed services.

Brown Paper

MP Kayabaga asked what to do in Canada do to ensure people are safe. Mr. Andre explained that at the border, they need brown paper including access to social assistance and work permit and become citizens as soon as possible.
MP Kwan asked if Brown Paper’s should be issued upon arrival. Mr. Douad, Mr. Andre and Ms. Jaoude agreed.
MP Redekopp asked about an ideal wait time for the Brown Paper, and meeting with the IRB. Ms. Jaoude said 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Ms. Jaoude later explained that the wait time for the IRB isn’t necessarily the problem, rather, the access to legal justice and representation is problematic.

Ending the STCA

MP Brunelle-Duceppe asked if the STCA should be suspended, and can Canada do this unilaterally without asking the permission of anyone else. Mr. Andre expressed support for the idea, and the need to open up regular passing.
MP Kwan asked if the government should suspend the STCA. Mr. Daoudad from The Refugee Centre agreed, in order to regulate and service migrants correctly. Mr. Andre also agreed as it is a far less fearful way of welcoming refugees.
MP Kwan further asked about how the government has sneakily expanded the STCA in a hidden way through Bill C-97, which applies to the 5 eyes, which automatically turns people away if they seek asylum in Canada. Mr. Daoud agreed that its not right and creates danger. Mr. Andre said it adds restrictions and makes the system more closed off.
MP Dhaliwal asked that if more people want to come to Canada, and the STCA is canceled, and they don’t have this in place, people can’t exactly move into Canada. Mr. Andre responded that if Canada can’t afford to receive people with dignity, one must not forgot that Canada is linked to certain country policies so why can’t we support them.
MP Brunelle-Duceppe stated that if the STCA is scrapped, there’s likely to be an increase of migrants, and wanted to know the benefits of the STCA. Ms. Silcoff, from CARL, responded that it shares responsibility, and additionally, there is no concrete evidence, only concerns, that there’s likely to be an increase of migrants.
MP Kayabaga asked how Quebec conforms to STCA and would Quebec prefer a more restrictive approach to Roxham, if stricter control of borders or more open way to allow people to arrive at St Bernard de la coulle. Mr Reichhold from TCRI explained thatit isn’t in Quebec’s jurisdiction, and that if STCA was ended things would be done in a more controlled fashion and people would be spread out in more parts of Canada, I’d suppose people enter at all Canadian border entry points.
MP Kwan asked about gender violence, and if people try to make a claim in Canada and are turned away to gender violence countries, the STCA is putting people further at risk. Ms. Silcoff agreed, and echoed her support for reinstating Article 6.

Providing Services to Migrants

MP Brunelle-Duceppe asked about community organizations not being able to provide essential services to migrants, and if that’s due to people coming from the same place or places being overwhelmed. Mr. Andre responded saying yes, but with the numbers being faced, even a welcoming center at the border and IRCC would break down – everything is dysfunctional.

MP Brunelle Duceppe asked if ending the STCA would defuse pressure over large area so less pressure on legal system in Quebec. Ms. Jaoude agreed that if we suspend agreement asylum seekers will be spread out and will have better access to lawyers which could defend/present their case, diminish pressure on Quebec system. It wont diminish number of demand.

Requirements & Exemptions

MP Kwan asked about the new requirement that, for entry, allows the government to conduct further examination. Mr. Daoud said that they’ve always had the right to do so, but it’s been added within the last 12-24 months.
MP Kwan explained that Canada used to have exemptions in the STCA which exempted those faced with unsafeconditions- should it be reinstated? Mr. Andre and Ms. Rududura responded saying yes.

Committee Overview with Committee Member Bios

About the Committee

Mandate

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) studies matters related to immigration and citizenship policy. The committee has oversight of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

Studies

An overview of the committee's studies and reports in the 44th Parliament can be found here.

Appearance Background

Background

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) adopted a motion on October 28, 2022 to begin a study on the situation at Roxham Road as soon as possible. The motion is as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(b), the Committee undertake a study as soon as possible on the conditions faced by asylum-seekers using the irregular administrative path maintained by the Safe Third Country Agreement; that the Committee consider the safety, security and health of people and families of migrants who cross the Canada–United States border at Roxham Road in particular; that the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to appear; that the committee hold no more than four meetings to hear witnesses; that the Committee it report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

The Committee invited the IRB’s Chairperson to deliver a 5-minute opening statement, followed by rounds of questioning from committee members. The IRB is expected to attend alongside CBSA and RCMP officials.

The following IRB’s officials are expected to appear to support the Chair’s appearance:

Roula Eatrides, Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division
Gary Dukeshire, Senior Counsel

Environmental Scan

Key topics and possible lines of questioning surrounding Roxham Road include:

Recent investments in IRB
Processing times of asylum seekers, specifically of irregular border crossing claims
Acceptance and refusal rates for irregular border crosser claims
Gender considerations and other initiatives put in place by the IRB to address vulnerabilities
Safe Third Country Agreement

Committee Membership

Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, ON)
Chair of CIMM
Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, SK)
Vice-Chair of CIMM; Associate Shadow Minister for Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship since October 2022
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, QC)
Second Vice-Chair of CIMM; Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights; Critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and Human Rights
Shafqat Ali (Brampton Centre, ON)
Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey-Newton, BC)
Chair of the former Special Committee on Afghanistan
Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, QC)
Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
Arielle Kayabaga (London West, ON)
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, AB)
Shadow Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship since October 2022; Member of the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship
Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, BC)
Caucus Chair; Long-standing Critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; Critic for Housing
Marie-France Lalonde (Orléans, ON)
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Larry Maguire (Brandon-Souris, MB)
Former Associate Shadow Minister for Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship; Returning CIMM member
Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, AB)
Former Shadow Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; returning CIMM member

Conservative Party of Canada

Top Party Issues

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) has criticized the government for what it perceives as inaction on irregular migrants crossing at Roxham Road.

The party has voiced concerns over the Roxham Road access point, the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States, and with what the CPC alleges are broader strains on the immigration system as a result of administrative burdens incurred through operations at Roxham Road.

CIMM Members

Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, SK)

Vice-Chair of CIMM; Associate Shadow Minister for Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship

Topics of interest

Family reunification and welcoming newcomers
Temporary Foreign Workers Program
Backlogs and delayed processing times

Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, AB) Shadow Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Requested technical briefing from IRCC and IRB on our respective processes to be delivered end of Nov/early Dec. 2022 (date TBC)

Larry Maguire (Brandon-Souris, MB) Former Associate Shadow Minister for Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, AB) Former Shadow Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Other Active Members

Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles, QC)

Former Shadow Cabinet Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Recent Party Activity

Oct 19 – Oral Question: Inquiring about the identity of the owner of the land at Roxham Road and how much the contract is worth (Paul-Hus).
Oct 18 – Debate: Compared current Roxham Road border crossing to border crossing enforcement when CPC was in power with no need to spend a lot of money (Viersen).
Sept 27 – Oral Question: Stated that the Liberals have falsely claimed that the immigration system is both fair and delivering value for money when considering the longest immigration backlog in Canadian history and the management of Roxham Road (Rempel Garner).
Sep 20 – Member Statement: Stated that immigrants “should not be permitted to enter Canada [randomly] at Roxham Road” (Paul-Hus).
Jun 21 – Private Members' Business: Mentioned that the Government of Quebec is seeing an incredible strain on its social services from the illegal or irregular crossings and increase in problems at Roxham Road (McCauley).
May 16 – HUMA: Suggested there is no plan or support in place for the steady stream of people coming in through Roxham Road (Gladu).

New Democratic Party

Top Party Issues

The New Democratic Party (NDP) commitments include working with Canadians to support refugees in building successful lives and new homes in Canada while ensuring the industry is regulated by the government.

The party has criticized the government for the backlog of asylum seekers and ongoing problems at the Roxham Road border crossing as the world experiences an unprecedented refugee crisis.

CIMM Member

Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, BC)

Caucus Chair; Long-standing Critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; Critic for Housing

Topics of interest

Withdrawal from the Safe Third Country Agreement and Roxham Road
Rights, safety and precariousness of Caregivers and other migrant workers
Processing capacity and backlogs
Extending the definition of family for reunification

Other Active Members

Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, QC)

Randall Garrison (Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke, BC)

Recent Party Activity

Oct 18 – Oral Question: Inquired about the Liberal Party secretly spending $28 million to lease land near Roxham Road rather than suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement (Boulerice).
Dec 13, 2021 – Oral Question: Stated that migrants seeking refuge in Canada are “not illegal, just desperate”. Argued that rather than withdrawing from the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States, the Liberals are encouraging leased land near Roxham Road to house asylum seekers (Boulerice).
Feb 17, 2021 – CIMM: Spoke on the issue of asylum, stating there is basically no asylum measure since people cannot apply for asylum unless they are in Canada (Kwan).
Feb 6, 2020 – Debates: Indicated that it is never illegal for refugees who are in fear of their lives to make a claim in Canada, however the safe third country agreement says refugees cannot do so at border crossings and therefore suggested the solution of terminating the agreement with the United States (Garrison).

Bloc Québécois

Top Party Issues

Bloc Québécois (BQ) has been extremely interested in the situation at Roxham Road, and the government’s decisions and management of the border crossing.

The party, supported by Conservative and New Democratic Party MPs, introduced the motion to investigate the use of public funds to build facilities near Roxham Road at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI). After one meeting, ETHI adjourned the study.

CIMM Member

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean)

Second Vice-Chair of CIMM; Critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Human Rights

Topics of Interest

Processing delays and family reunification
Suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement and irregular migration at Roxham Road
Francophone immigration, including international students from French-speaking countries in Africa
Quebec interests and protection of the French language

Other Active Members

Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, QC)

Leader of the BQ

Alain Therrien (La Prairie, QC)

House Leader of BQ

Kristina Michaud(Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC)

Critic for Climate Change, Youth, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Recent Party Activity

Oct 27 – Oral Questions: Inquired about the U.S. Secretary of State’s visit being used to push for the suspension of the Safe Third Country Agreement (Brunelle-Duceppe)
Oct 19 – Oral Questions: Criticized the government for its handling of Roxham Road, alleged that a Liberal Party donor received a contract for leased land near Roxham Road, argued that funds should be allocated to IRCC to process asylum seekers at regular crossings (Blanchet).
Oct 18 – Oral Questions: Stated the Liberal donor who received the Roxham Road contracts disclosed in committee that it was the government that insisted the contract clauses remain confidential (Therrien).
Oct 7 – Oral Questions: Urged the government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement in relation to Roxham Road, accused the government of fighting refugee advocacy groups in the Supreme Court over issues stemming from Roxham Road (Brunelle-Duceppe).
Oct 6 – Oral Questions: Advocated for more immigration powers to be granted to Quebec due to circumstances at Roxham Road (Brunelle-Duceppe).
Oct 6 – Oral Questions: Demanded a “tabling of complete, unredacted versions of all the contracts awarded in relation to Roxham Road since 2017” (Blanchet).
Oct 6 – Oral Questions: Argued that in 2022 alone, the RCMP intercepted 23,196 asylum seekers at Roxham Road when customs officers at regular land border crossings have dealt with 499 refugee claims (Michaud).
Oct 5 – Oral Questions: Stated what is happening at Roxham Road is a humanitarian issue and the humanitarian thing to do would be to have migrants come in through regular border crossings (Blanchet)

Liberal Party of Canada

Top Party Issues

The Liberal Party of Canada commitments include strengthening family reunification and reducing processing times to increase immigration levels and build a fairer system and believe immigration is important for economic growth.

Their current focus is modernizing the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States in order to provide a safe passage and access for asylum seekers.

CIMM Members

Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, ON)

Re-elected Chair of CIMM; Member of the former Special Committee on Afghanistan

Topics of Interest

Health and safety protocols regarding COVID-19
Gender equality
Advocate for Muslim women

Shafqat Ali (Brampton Centre, ON)

Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey–Newton, BC)

Chair of the former Special Committee on Afghanistan

Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, QC)

Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees; Member of former Special Committee on Afghanistan

Arielle Kayabaga (London West, ON)

Member of Standing Committee on Official Languages

Marie-France Lalonde (Orléans, ON)

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Recent Party Activity

Oct 27 – Oral Questions: Stated closing Roxham Road is not the solution, but the government is focusing on modernizing the agreement (Lalonde).
Oct 19 – Oral Question: Stated the contracts pertaining to Roxham Road were awarded by public servants according to our principles and all the rules in place (Trudeau).
Oct 7 – Debates: Debated that closing Roxham Road is not a good solution as it would move the problem elsewhere and the focus is on modernizing the agreement with the United States (Fraser).
Oct 6 – Debates: Stated the attention is on working with the United States on a permanent, sustainable solution (Fraser).
Oct 5 – Debates: When people come to Canada, the government makes sure to follow the rules and protect them at the same time, while supporting Quebec in their work with Roxham Road (Trudeau).
Oct 4 – Debates: Roxham Road gives officials an opportunity to obtain identification documents from these asylum claimants and prevent dangerous crossings (Lalonde).
Oct 3 – ETHI: Indicated that Canada proudly makes space for those who need refuge and it is an issue of concern that they have safe passage and safe access in ways that both protect them and make sure the border services are doing the job they need to (Saks).
Sep 29 – Debates: The refugees are helping alleviate the labour shortage across Canada and have many examples of positive contributions made by refugees which contribute to investing in the necessary resources to resolve the situation at Roxham Road (Mendicino).

System Health and Operational Awareness

Intake, Wait Times, Inventory and Budget

Key messages

Between September 2016 and March 2020, the Board experienced an unprecedented intake of refugee claims with intake significantly exceeding funded processing capacity, leading to the largest backlog and longest wait times in the history of the Board.
Significant temporary investments of over $600M from Budgets 2018-2021 coupled with new initiatives introduced at the IRB slowed the growth of the backlog and wait times. Those investments to the IRB made since Budget 2018 have resulted in a refugee claim inventory that today is less than half of what it would otherwise be (70k vs 140k) and wait times that are approximately one quarter of what they would otherwise be (16 months vs 64 months).
While the objective of those investments was to slow the growth of inventories and wait times, COVID-19 related border restrictions, coupled with the IRB’s pivot to becoming a digital organization and holding hearings remotely during the pandemic, allowed the IRB to reduce it inventory of refugee claims from 92k in May 2020 to 54k in April 2022 (a 41% reduction).
Budget 2022 makes permanent the temporary funding thereby allowing the IRB to finalize up to 50,000 refugee claims per year. Incremental temporary funding for an additional 10,000 over two years was also earmarked in the Budget.
Since the border’s reopening in Fall 2021, claim intake has returned to pre-pandemic levels and is expected to exceed processing capacity for the foreseeable future.
Monthly referrals to the IRB have increased steadily since the border reopening, averaging 4,300 new claims per month for the 12 months ending in October 2022, but 5,500 over the most recent 6 months and 6,200 over the most recent 3 months.
Based on current intake trends, and with no additional investments, the IRB can anticipate intake levels to remain in the order of 50% above its processing capacity and for wait time to grow on annual basis by approximately 6 months per year. At this rate, by March 2024, the IRB will return to pre-pandemic inventory levels and wait times (~100k pending claims, wait time of 2+ years for new claims).
In order to maintain current inventory levels and wait times, in the face of continued high intake levels, the IRB would require an additional investment of approximately $45-50M/year for every additional 10,000 claims to be processed above currently funded levels.

Intake – Recent Trends and Projections

Since November 2021, asylum intake at IRCC/CBSA has averaged over 7.2 k claims per month at IRCC/CBSA and it is expected to continue to increase into 2023.
Due to a growing eligibility decision backlog (34.1k as of end of October 2022), referrals to the RPD have not yet kept pace with that increase but are trending upwards and exceeded 6.7k in October 2022 (150% of stabilized funded levels).
While exact timing remains uncertain, if 2022 year-to-date intake levels persist, they equate to approximately 20,000 claims per year above stabilized funding levels (70k vs. 50k, or 140k claims over 2 years).
Intake at the RAD has returned to normal levels since full RPD operations resumed in January 2021.

Inventory and Wait Times – Recent Trends and Projections

RPD: As of November 1, 2022, the RPD had more than 66,000 claims in its inventory, down 29% from a peak of 93,000 in May 2020, but up from a low of 54,000 in March 2022.
Projected wait times were approximately 16 months for new refugee claims and 20 months for all refugee claims.

Without B2018 to B2020 funding, inventory would now exceed 150k pending refugee claims rather than 66,000 with wait times for new claims approaching 6 years (or approximately 70 months) rather than 16 months. Thanks to those investments, the inventory is now less than half the size and wait times are about one quarter of what they would otherwise be.

If the intake trends described above persist, it is expected that the inventory will return to pre-pandemic levels (93k) by March 2024, with a similar increase in wait times (to 22 months).
RAD: As of November 1, 2022, the inventory of pending appeals was at 5,150, down 50% from its peak of 10,400 in September 2019.
Projected wait times at the RAD are approximately 6 months.
The RAD is resourced to match RPD output and as a result, inventory and wait times can normally be expected to remain stable. However, current GIC member vacancies (29% in November 2022) could result in larger inventories and longer wait times until those vacancies are filled.

Funding – Recent Trends and Projections

Based on permanent funding announced in Budget 2022, the IRB will be stabilized to adjudicate 50,000 claims per year.

The temporary top-up funding also announced ($87.5M) provides the Board with the flexibility to hear an additional 10,000 claims over a two-year period.

This budget stabilizes a series of temporary investments between 2018 and 2021 that prevented the system from breaking down.

It is estimated (based on PBO analysis as part of the 2018 report Costing Irregular Migration across Canada’s Southern Border) that the cost avoidance associated with recent investments is in the order of $450M over 4 years.

This is calculated based on the excess inventory we would have had without the additional funding for each year, at a cost of 5,314$ per claim per year (as per PBO 2018 estimates).

Acknowledging the significant investments made to date, the Board will still have limited capacity to address surges in intake.

At current funding levels (50,000 / year), every additional 10,000 refugee claims received in excess of funded capacity adds approximately 2.5 months to projected wait time.

To stabilize wait times under sustained pressure of 10,000 claims above funded levels (i.e. annual intake of 60,000 vs 50,000), the Board would require an investment of approximately $44 million annually.

Note: the stabilization cost is lower than the one-time backlog reduction cost due to one-time start-up costs (e.g., training and ramp-up time for new members; PSPC accommodations costs, SSC infrastructure and other fit up costs for office and IT equipment).

The IRB will continue to work with partners through the ASMB and other contingency planning committees to closely monitor intake volumes and develop a longer-term, more sustainable solution to meet surges and growth in refugee claims.
The IRB will also continue discussions with its partners and central agencies on a flexible funding model that could help address future surge scenarios.

Intake - Background

As the front-line organizations, IRCC and CBSA are best placed to respond to future intake projections, given that files are only referred to the IRB after an eligibility decision is completed.
- At the best of times, projecting future refugee claimant volumes is complicated given we do not control the demand of people seeking asylum in Canada
IRB intake volumes have varied by an average of over 25% from any given year to the next
Projections are even more difficult now than in 2019 due to several factors:
- Pandemic and evolving global health conditions;
- Potential influx of unknown pent-up demand associated with the easing of border restrictions;
- Increasingly more complex geo-political situation leading to significant migration of people; and
- Uncertainty around STCA challenge.
- Note: worldwide forced displacement now exceeds 100 million people with an 8% increase over last 12 months according to the UNHCR 2021 Global Trends Report.
The following table shows actual intake in previous years and projected intake based on the projected intake of 140k claims over two years.

Fiscal Year	Intake	Variance in Intake (year over year)	Decisions	Variance in Decisions (year over year)
2012-2013	17,148	-	26,602	-
2013-2014	11,590	-32%	21,515	-19%
2014-2015	14,678	27%	19,544	-9%
2015-2016	18,327	25%	15,296	-22%
2016-2017	26,708	46%	17,463	14%
2017-2018	52,075	95%	26,704	53%
2018-2019	56,084	8%	34,814	30%
2019-2020	59,643	6%	42,491	22%
2020-2021	8,133	-86%	29,705	-30%
2021-2022	32,312	297%	48,054	62%
2022-2023 (projected)*	70,000	117%	50,000	4%
2023-2024 (projected)	70,000	0%	50,000	0%
2024-2025 (projected)	70,000	0%	50,000	0%

*Budget 2022 also provided funds for an additional 10,000 finalizations over two years

Inventory and Wait Times - Background

Pending by: Year - Quarter	Claims Pending at end of period	Quarterly Growth
2017-18 Q1	30,801	12%
2017-18 Q2	40,743	32%
2017-18 Q3	48,335	19%
2017-18 Q4	52,948	10%
2018-19 Q1	58,467	10%
2018-19 Q2	66,030	13%
2018-19 Q3	73,090	11%
2018-19 Q4	74,219	2%
2019-20 Q1	75,598	2%
2019-20 Q2	82,325	9%
2019-20 Q3	88,464	7%
2019-20 Q4	91,371	3%
2020-21 Q1	91,698	0%
2020-21 Q2	87,258	-5%
2020-21 Q3	81,226	-7%
2020-21 Q4	69,799	-14%
2021-22 Q1	65,097	-7%
2021-22 Q2	61,092	-6%
2021-22 Q3	57,041	-7%
2021-22 Q4	54,061	-5%
2022-23 Q1	54,681	1%
2022-23 Q2	62,993	15%

What is the trends analysis of growth/slowing of inventory and wait times since the beginning of the pandemic (March 2020)?

The RPD inventory grew by an average of 1,500 per month from January 2018 to May 2020, when it peaked at over 92,000 claims.
Between May 2020 and April 2022, the trend was reversed, and the inventory was reduced by an average of 1,500 cases per month.

Actual wait times over the past two years have been held in check at less than 24 months.
Since April 2022, wait times for new claims have been significantly reduced but are now increasing at 16 months.
The actual average processing time of 24 months over the past 2 years reflects a case management approach that focused on processing older claims first. As intake levels grow and the RPD processes an increasing proportion of newer cases, average processing times are projected to decline through the current fiscal year until they reflect the 19 month wait times for new claims forecasted for April 2023.

At the RAD, the inventory grew at a monthly average rate of 5% from 3,800 in January 2018 to a peak of 10,400 in September 2019.
Investments at the RAD have since led to a decrease of more than 50% to 5,150 appeals at the end of August 2022.
Wait times have been reduced to 6 months.

RPD Annex

Text Version

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

Asylum inventory, wait time and decision volume trends, October 2022

Refugee protection division (RPD)
Pending vs wait time
	Actual						Projected
As of end of March	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Inventory	27,570	52,939	74,215	91,370	69,795	54,049	78,000	95,500	108,000
Wait time - new claims	13	19	22	22	17	13	19	22	23
Non-actionable inventory						14,871	27,000	33,000	36,500
Actionable inventory	27,570	52,939	74,215	91,370	69,795	40,207	51,000	62,500	71,500

Annual decisions
	Actual						Projected
As of end of March	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Inventory	27,570	26,500¹	35,000	42,500	29,500²	48,000³	50,000	55,000	57,500

¹ Low
² Impact of COVID-19 pandemic
³ High

Key takeaways

The surge in refugee claim intake between 2017 and 2019 resulted in the largest backlogs and longest wait times for refugee claims and appeals in the Board’s 30-year history.

Temporary funding through budgets 2018-2020 enabled the IRB to transform its operations and significantly scale up its capacity by doubling its workforce. This funding has now been stabilized through Budget 2022.
The transition to a “virtual by default” hearing model in FY 2020-21 allowed the RPD to continue hearing and finalizing claims despite disruptions caused by the pandemic.

The RPD finalized 48,000 claims in FY 2021-22, the most in any fiscal year in its history, within the performance target range of 45-50k. This productivity, along with reduced claim intake due to pandemic-related border restrictions, allowed the RPD to significantly reduce its inventory and wait times.

As of the end of October 2022, the RPD inventory comprised 66,000 claims, down 29% from a peak of 93,000 in May 2020. That represents approximately 26 months of processing capacity down from nearly 2 years at its peak. As such, wait times for new claims decreased during the same period from 22 months to approximately 16 months.

RPD cases are not actionable for an average of 2 to 4 months after referral due to pending security screening and other upstream processes. Non-actionable cases currently account for about one third of the current RPD inventory and wait times.

Asylum intake is forecasted to exceed processing capacity for the foreseeable future, which could result in inventories and wait times exceeding pre-pandemic levels by March 2024 and doubling current level by March 2025.

RAD Annex

Text Version

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

Asylum inventory, wait time and decision volume trends, October 2022

Refugee appeal division (RAD) Pending vs wait time
	Actual						Projected
As of end of March	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Inventory	2,128	4,594	7,644	8,465	4,980	4,831	5,400	6,750	6,750
Wait time - new claims	5	8	10	9	5	6	6	6	6
Non-actionable inventory						900	1,340	1,350	1,350
Actionable inventory	2,128	4,594	7,644	8,465	4,980	3,931	4,060	5,400	5,400

Annual decisions
	Actual						Projected
As of end of March	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Inventory	3,089¹	3,276	5,297	10,861	9,841²	11,149³	11,000	11,675	13,500

¹ Low
² Impact of COVID-19 pandemic
³ High

Key takeaways

The RAD finalized 11,200 appeals in FY 2021-22, a record high for any fiscal year in its history and falling within the performance target range of 10-13.5k.
Strong results in FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22, along with reduced appeal intake in both years, allowed the RAD to reduce its inventory and wait times by more than half.
As of the end of October 2022, the RAD inventory consisted of 5,150 appeals, down 50% from its peak of 10,400 in September 2019. Wait times for new appeals have decreased during the same period from approximately 12 months to approximately 6 months.
Since the RAD is resourced to match RPD output, wait times at the RAD can be expected to remain at 6 months or less (subject to the timeliness of GIC appointments).
RAD cases are not actionable for an average of 1 month after the appeal is initially filed. Non-actionable cases currently account about 23% of the current RAD inventory and wait times.

21 November 2022

RPD Statistics

Overall

Regular Claims
12-month period ending
	Dec 31, 2018	Dec 31, 2019	Dec 31, 2020	Dec 31,2021	Jan 1-Oct 31, 2022
Received	35,100	43,000	15,100	23,200	32,000
Finalized	23,800	28,300	17,200	34,200	30,700
Pending	43,800	58,500	56,400	45,500	46,800

Irregular Claims
12-month period ending
	Dec 31, 2018	Dec 31, 2019	Dec 31, 2020	Dec 31,2021	Jan 1-Oct 31, 2022
Received	20,600	16,200	4,100	1,600	15,600
Finalized	7,100	15,600	9,300	14,800	7,800
Pending	29,300	29,900	24,800	11,500	19,300

All Claims
12-month period ending
	Dec 31, 2018	Dec 31, 2019	Dec 31, 2020	Dec 31,2021	Jan 1-Oct 31, 2022
Received	55,700	59,200	19,200	24,800	47,600
Finalized	31,000	43,900	26,500	49,000	38,500
Pending	73,100	88,500	81,200	57,000	66,100

Between January 2022 to October 2022, the RPD received an intake of approximately 47,600 cases, 150% more than the same period last year. Over this same period, irregular intake increased almost 18-fold while regular intake increased by 175%. This increase can be explained with the border reopening in the fall of 2021, and referral intake is expected to continue to grow year over year.

From January to October 2022, the RPD finalized 38,600 cases, an annualized rate of 46,300 finalizations per year.

Inventory

Growth: At the end of October 2022, the pending inventory comprised 66,000 claims, an increase of more than 6,600 claims in a year and more than 27,000 claims (a decrease of 29%) since its peak of 93,000 claims in May 2020. Forecasted intake shows that inventory is likely to return to this pre-pandemic level by the end of next fiscal year (2023-24), with over 67,000 referrals expected to be received at the IRB in 2022-23.

Status: as of the end of October 2022, 32% of pending claims were already heard or on the schedule, and 31% were non-actionable due to pending security or documents. The balance remaining to be scheduled represent 37% (or approximately 5 to 6 months of work).

Age: 81% of pending claims were less than 2 years old (received between October 2020 and October 2022).

65% of cases were received in 2022
16% of cases were received in 2021
6% of cases were received in 2020
13% of cases were received prior to 2020

Region: 45% of the inventory was in Eastern (Montreal) region, 44% was in Central (Toronto) region, and 10% was in Western (Vancouver) region.

Country Make-up:
All Claims Source Country	Total Claims Pending	% of Inventory
Top 10 Countries	44,199	67%
Mexico	9,220	14%
Haiti	8,478	13%
India	7,211	11%
Colombia	5,111	8%
Türkiye	4,363	7%
Iran	3,198	5%
Nigeria	2,012	3%
Congo, Democratic Republic of the	1,774	3%
Pakistan	1,613	2%
China	1,219	2%
Other 158 Countries	21,896	33%

Top 10 Regular Claims
Regular Claims Source Country	Total Claims Pending	% of Inventory
Top 10 Counhries	30,248	65%
Mexico	9,140	20%
India	7,118	15%
Iran	3,192	7%
Colombia	2,779	6%
Türkiye	2,502	5%
Haiti	1,539	3%
China	1,204	3%
Pakistan	1,052	2%
Nigeria	882	2%
Lebanon	840	2%
Other 155 Countries	16,523	35%

Top 10 Irregular Claims*
Irregular Claims Source Country	Total Claims Pending	% of Inventory
Top 10 Countries	15,367	80%
Haiti	6,939	36%
Colombia	2,332	12%
Türkiye	1,861	10%
Nigeria	1,130	6%
Congo, Democratic Republic of the	1,095	6%
Angola	607	3%
Pakistan	561	3%
Venezuela	451	2%
Yemen	198	1%
Sudan	193	1%
Other 105 Countries	3,957	20%

* Since 2017, acceptance rates for irregular claimants at RPD has been approximately 54%, versus 64% for regular claimants.

Wait Times

Average processing time for claims finalized to date in 2022 (Jan to October) was 23 months.

Projected wait time for new claims received as of November 2022 is 16 months. Based on 2022 year-to-date refugee claim intake trends, the IRB forecasts that its inventory at the end of the fiscal year will reach approximately 78,000 pending refugee claims, with a wait time for all claims, regular and irregular, of 18 to 19 months.

Text Version

The majority of the inventory is less than 24 months, or 2 years old
Less than 24 months	81%
24 months and older	19%

Diverse inventory with almost half of the inventory concentrated in 5 source countries
Top 5 countries	52%
Other 163 countries	48%

Irregular claims now make up close to 30% of pending inventory, up from a low of 20% in December 2021
Regular	71%
IBC	29%

Text Version

RPD inventory weekly dashboard - week ending Thursday, November 17, 2022

Total RPD inventory by week
Weeks	Non-actionable inventory	Actionable inventory	Non-actionable forecast based on 13-week trends	Total forecast based on 13-week trends
1	15,775	38,370	-	-
2	15,654	38,594	-	-
3	15,532	38,817	-	-
4	15,411	39,041	-	-
5	15,289	39,264	-	-
6	15,168	39,490	-	-
7	15,046	39,689	-	-
8	15,046	39,767	-	-
9	15,239	39,681	-	-
10	15,432	39,649	-	-
11	15,687	39,681	-	-
12	15,430	40,279	-	-
13	15,173	41,320	-	-
14	15,093	41,367	-	-
15	15,012	42,035	-	-
16	15,033	42,027	-	-
17	15,665	41,739	-	-
18	15,538	42,317	-	-
19	15,123	43,135	-	-
20	15,254	43,325	-	-
21	15,621	43,512	-	-
22	16,118	43,656	-	-
23	16,894	43,612	-	-
24	16,938	44,081	-	-
25	17,431	44,111	-	-
26	17,982	44,294	-	-
27	19,116	43,847	-	-
28	19,283	44,254	-	-
29	19,701	44,458	-	-
30	19,991	44,889	-	-
31	20,906	45,396	-	-
32	21,009	45,878	-	-
33	20,976	46,562	-	-
34	-	-	21,305	68,105
35	-	-	21,634	68,672
36	-	-	21,964	69,240
37	-	-	22,293	69,807
38	-	-	22,622	70,374
39	-	-	22,951	70,941
40	-	-	23,265	71,508
41	-	-	23,579	72,075
42	-	-	23,893	72,642
43	-	-	24,207	73,209
44	-	-	24,521	73,776
45	-	-	24,835	74,344
46	-	-	25,149	74,911
47	-	-	25,463	75,478
48	-	-	25,777	76,045
49	-	-	26,091	76,612
50	-	-	26,405	77,179
51	-	-	26,719	77,747
52	-	-	27,033	77,973

	Time period	Inventory total cases	Change		Projected wait times for new claims (months)	Non-actionable cases			Actionable cases
	Time period	Inventory total cases	(#)	(%)	Projected wait times for new claims (months)	Inventory	% of total inventory	Months of work	Inventory	% of total inventory	Months of work
Inventory to date	Today	67,538	-	-	16	20,976	31%	5	46,562	69%	11
	A week ago	66,887	651	1%	16	21,009	31%	5	45,878	69%	11
	4 weeks ago	64,880	2,658	4%	16	19,991	31%	5	44,889	69%	11
	13 weeks ago	60,506	7,032	12%	15	16,894	28%	4	43,612	72%	10
	Beginning of the fiscal year (as of April 1st, 2022)	54,145	13,393	25%	13	15,775	29%	4	38,370	71%	9

	Time period	Inventory total cases	Projected change from beginning of the fiscal year		Projected wait times for new claims (months)	Non-actionable cases			Actionable cases
	Time period	Inventory total cases	(#)	(%)	Projected wait times for new claims (months)	Inventory	% of total inventory	Months of work	Inventory	% of total inventory	Months of work
Projected inventory*	End of the month	68,559	14,414	27%	16	21,569	31%	5	46,990	69%	11
	End of the quarter	70,941	16,796	31%	17	22,951	32%	6	47,989	68%	12
	End of the fiscal year	77,973	23,828	44%	19	27,033	35%	6	50,939	65%	12

* Projected inventory is a forecast based on the past 13 weeks intake to output ratio

Non-actionable inventory for RPD is defined as cases that have not been scheduled/heard that meet one of the following criteria:

Cases included in IRCC’s health care workers initiative
Suspended cases
First instance cases where front-end security clearance is not yet received
Case is processed by the Integrated Claim Analysis Centre (ICAC) program and the schedule-ready package (SRP) is not yet received
Basis of claim (BOC) form is not yet received

RAD Statistics

Overall

Total Appeals
	Dec 31, 2018	Dec 31, 2019	Dec 31, 2020	Dec 31,2021	Jan 1-October 31, 2022
	12-month period ending
Received	7,300	11,900	6,900	10,000	9,500
Finalized	4,400	8,700	9,600	12,300	9,200
Pending	6,600	9,700	7,100	4,800	5,150

Regular Appeals
	Dec 31, 2018	Dec 31, 2019	Dec 31, 2020	Dec 31,2021	Jan 1-October 31, 2022
	12-month period ending
Received	4,700	5,700	3,900	7,100	7,700
Finalized	3,500	4,800	5,300	7,500	7,000
Pending	4,400	5,200	3,900	3,400	4,120

Irregular Appeals
	Dec 31, 2018	Dec 31, 2019	Dec 31, 2020	Dec 31,2021	Jan 1-October 31, 2022
	12-month period ending
Received	2,600	6,200	3,000	2,900	1,800
Finalized	900	3,900	4,300	4,800	2,200
Pending	2,200	4,500	3,200	1,400	1,030

Between January 1, 2022, and October 31, 2022, the RAD received intake of 7,700 appeals. Over that period, irregular intake comprised 24% of appeals. Intake, from January to October 2022, has averaged 20% of Refugee Protection Division finalizations.

The RAD finalized 11,300 appeals in the 12-month period ending in October 2022 – a 2% decrease over the previous 12-month period.

Inventory

Growth: At the end of October 2022, the RAD inventory comprised 5,150 appeals, stable in the past 12 months but less than half its peak of 10,400 in September 2019.

Age: 96% of pending appeals were less than 1 year old (received between November 2021 and October 2022)

Region: 55% of the inventory was in Central (Toronto) region, 32% was in Eastern (Montreal) region, and 13% was in Western (Vancouver) region.

Country Make-up (as of the end of October 2022):
All Appeals Source Country	Total Appeals Pending	% of Inventory
Top 10 Countries	3831	74%
India	1,851	36%
Mexico	739	14%
Nigeria	335	7%
Colombia	223	4%
China	165	3%
Congo, Democratic Republic of the	130	3%
Angola	116	2%
Pakistan	102	2%
Haiti	92	2%
Bangladesh	78	2%
Other 105 Countries	1,319	26%

Top 10 Regular Appeals
Regular Appeals Source Country	Regular Appeals Pending	% of Regular Inventory
Top 10 Countries	3,162	77%
India	1,844	45%
Mexico	737	18%
China	156	4%
Nigeria	92	2%
Colombia	85	2%
Viet Nam	54	1%
Algeria	52	1%
Bangladesh	51	1%
Sri Lanka	46	1%
Pakistan	45	1%
Other 99 Countries	956	23%

Top 10 Irregular Appeals
Irregular Appeals Source Country	Irregular Appeals Pending	% of Irregular Inventory
Top 10 Countries	3,162	77%
Nigeria	243	24%
Colombia	138	13%
Angola	106	10%
Congo, Democratic Republic of the	94	9%
Pakistan	57	6%
Haiti	53	5%
Bangladesh	27	3%
Sri Lanka	25	2%
El Salvador	--¹	2%
Brazil	--¹	1%
Other 53 Countries	257	25%

*Since 2017, acceptance rates for both irregular and regular appellants at the RAD has been approximately 6% (of total claims).

¹ Due to privacy considerations, some values in these tables have been suppressed and replaced with the notation "--". As a result, components may not be a sum of the total indicated. In general, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada suppresses values greater than 0 but less than 20.
See protecting privacy when releasing statistical information: small value suppression to learn more about how the Board approaches small value suppression.

Wait Times

Average processing time for appeals finalized to date in 2022 (January to October) was 6 months.

Projected wait time for new appeals filed as of October 2022 is 5 to 6 months.

Based on 2022 year-to-date finalizations at the RPD and RAD capacity, the IRB forecasts that its inventory of refugee appeals at the end of the fiscal year will reach approximately 5,400 refugee appeals, with a wait time of 5 to 6 months for both regular and irregular claims.

Text Version

The majority of appeals are less than a year old
0-90 days	45%
3-12 months	51%
12+ months	4%

Diverse inventory with high concentration in 5 source countries
Top 5 countries	64%
Other 113 Countries	36%

Irregular appeals make up less than a quarter of the pending inventory
Regular	20%
Irregular	80%

Text Version - RAD Inventory Weekly Dashboard 18.11.2022

RAD inventory weekly dashboard - week ending Thursday, November 17, 2022

Total RAD inventory by week
Weeks	Non-actionable inventory	Actionable inventory	Non-actionable forecast based on 13-week trends	Total forecast based on 13-week trends
1	1,544	3,287	-	-
2	1,496	3,383	-	-
3	1,449	3,479	-	-
4	1,401	3,574	-	-
5	1,353	3,671	-	-
6	1,387	3,677	-	-
7	1,421	3,683	-	-
8	1,455	3,689	-	-
9	1,489	3,695	-	-
10	1,433	3,791	-	-
11	1,377	3,856	-	-
12	1,320	3,920	-	-
13	1,264	3,984	-	-
14	1,237	4,021	-	-
15	1,211	4,068	-	-
16	1,184	4,114	-	-
17	1,157	4,161	-	-
18	1,151	4,188	-	-
19	1,145	4,186	-	-
20	1,140	4,183	-	-
21	1,134	4,175	-	-
22	1,128	4,152	-	-
23	1,131	4,147	-	-
24	1,134	4,171	-	-
25	1,136	3,287	-	-
26	1,139	3,383	-	-
27	1,142	3,479	-	-
28	1,148	3,574	-	-
29	1,154	3,671	-	-
30	1,140	3,677	-	-
31	1,199	3,683	-	-
32	1,211	3,689	-	-
33	1,231	3,695	-	-
34	-	-	1,239	5,329
35	-	-	1,247	5,332
36	-	-	1,255	5,334
37	-	-	1,263	5,336
38	-	-	1,271	5,339
39	-	-	1,279	5,341
40	-	-	1,287	5,343
41	-	-	1,295	5,345
42	-	-	1,303	5,347
43	-	-	1,310	5,349
44	-	-	1,318	5,351
45	-	-	1,326	5,353
46	-	-	1,333	5,356
47	-	-	1,341	5,358
48	-	-	1,349	5,360
49	-	-	1,356	5,362
50	-	-	1,364	5,364
51	-	-	1,372	5,366
52	-	-	1,379	5,369

	Time period	Inventory total cases	Change		Projected wait times for new appeals (months)	Non-actionable cases			Actionable cases
	Time period	Inventory total cases	(#)	(%)	Projected wait times for new appeals (months)	Inventory	% of total inventory	Months of work	Inventory	% of total inventory	Months of work
Inventory to date	Today	5,327	-	-	6	1,231	23%	1	4,096	77%	5
	A week ago	5,304	23	0%	6	1,211	23%	1	4,093	77%	5
	4 weeks ago	5,096	231	5%	6	1,088	21%	1	4,008	79%	5
	13 weeks ago	5,299	28	1%	6	1,131	21%	1	4,168	79%	5
	Beginning of the fiscal year (as of April 1st, 2022)	4,831	496	10%	6	1,449	30%	2	3,382	70%	4

	Time period	Inventory total cases	Projected change from beginning of the fiscal year		Projected wait times for new appeals (months)	Non-actionable cases			Actionable cases
	Time period	Inventory total cases	(#)	(%)	Projected wait times for new appeals (months)	Inventory	% of total inventory	Months of work	Inventory	% of total inventory	Months of work
Projected inventory*	End of the month	5,331	500	10%	6	1,246	23%	1	4,086	77%	5
	End of the quarter	5,341	510	11%	6	1,279	24%	2	4,061	76%	5
	End of the fiscal year	5,369	538	11%	6	1,379	26%	2	3,989	74%	5

* Projected inventory is a forecast based on the past 13 weeks intake to output ratio

Non-actionable inventory for RAD is defined as cases that have not been scheduled/heard that meet one of the following criteria:

Cases that are not perfected

RPD Scheduling

Key Messages

The RPD has implemented a balanced approach to scheduling that promotes the principles in IRPA including fairness (oldest cases); case processing efficiencies (less complex); and system integrity (interventions).
The RPD has scheduled irregular claims in proportion to its share of the claim inventory, currently at approximately [29].
Within this approach, the Division prioritizes certain claims to be scheduled and heard on a priority basis to ensure the Division is providing timely access to justice to those most vulnerable, such as claims identified in Chairperson Guideline 6, including those involving unaccompanied minors and detainees, and less complex.
As of September 2022, the RPD is on track to meet its target of 45,000 to 50,000 claims and its system-wide strategic case management objectives.

Background

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is funded to decide up to 50,000 claims annually.
In response to the pandemic, the RPD shifted to a virtual by default hearing operating model in January 2021 and leveraged Board-wide digital initiatives, such as electronic files, to adopt a national case management approach for hearing and deciding refugee claims.
Under this approach, the RPD allocates claims throughout the country depending on specialization of its members (e.g., country and claim type) and capacity, rather than region in which the claim was made. This approach provides the Division with greater flexibility to hear claims faster.
The RPD has implemented a balanced approach to scheduling that promotes the principles in IRPA including fairness (oldest cases); case processing efficiencies (less complex); and system integrity (interventions).
The Division also prioritizes certain claims to be scheduled and heard on a priority basis to ensure the Division is providing timely access to justice to those most vulnerable, including:

Claims identified in Chairperson Guideline 6: Scheduling and Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding, including those involving unaccompanied minors, detainees, and vulnerable persons; and
Other scheduling priorities designated by the Chairperson (Afghanistan, Ukraine).

Current Status

For 2022-23, the RPD has established the following objectives to support timely adjudication of refugee claims:

ID#	Indicator	Type	2022-23 Target
1	Annual finalizations	Public commitment (DRF)	45,000 to 50,000
3	% of inventory pending over 3 years	Public commitment (DRF)	At most 5%
2.	Average processing time (APT)	B2020 TB Sub commitments	At most 2 years

As part of the IRB’s balanced approach to scheduling consistent with the principles identified in IRPA, and to help align referrals with IRB’s scheduling approach to optimize its case management objectives, targets have been shared with the Asylum System Management Board to help achieve system wide alignment:

ID#	Indicator	Type	2022-23 Target
1	Oldest claims (before April 2020)	Case Management Priorities for Processing Refugee Claims	15,000 to 18,000
2	Less complex claims		5,000 to 7,500
3	Minister’s Interventions		2,000 to 4,000
4	Cessation / vacation cases		500 to 1,500
5	ICAC cases		1,000 to 4,000
6	Irregular Border Crossers		7,000 to 10,000

As of September 2022, the RPD is on track to meet its target of 45,000 to 50,000 claims and system-wide case management objectives.

Projected Status at Year-End 2022-23

Based on 2022 year-to-date refugee claim intake trends, the IRB forecasts that its inventory at the end of the fiscal year will reach approximately 78,000 pending refugee claims, with a wait time for all claims, regular and irregular, of 18 to 19 months.

Proportion of IBC claims in inventory is also expected to increase from 27% at the end of October to at least 33%, or 26,000 IBC claims in inventory at the end of the fiscal year (up from over 19,000 at the end of October).

RAD Scheduling Strategy

Key Messages

Since 2018/19 the RAD has been working with a digitized case load of files allowing it to assign electronic files to decision makers—the majority of whom were working remotely prior to the pandemic.
During the pandemic, RAD continued to assess appeals but mailing of decisions was delayed until after the IRB offices reopened.
The RAD has now eliminated its backlog and seen average processing time and wait times decline to less than six months from nine months prior to the pandemic.
The division continues to balance the proportion of finalized irregular border crosser (IBC) files with the percentage of IBC files in its inventory.

Background

The RAD began digitizing its inventory of appeals in 2018/19 in order to harness the efficiencies of assigning appeals according to the availability of members, irrespective of which IRB office the appeal was submitted. Prior to Covid-19, almost 99% of appeals were decided without a hearing. When the pandemic closed IRB offices, the RAD was ready to continue with electronic file assignment allowing the assessment of appeals to continue subject to the well-being of decision makers and their families.
Since 2018/2019, the Division has implemented a balanced approach to file assignment that considers the age of the pending appeal, case processing efficiencies and concerns related to system integrity. In line with the processing of irregular border crosser (IBC) claims at the Refugee Protection Division, the RAD strives to finalize IBC cases to match their proportion in the RAD inventory.

Current Status

Recent budgets have provided the RAD with additional funding for more members thereby expanding its decision-making capacity. Since March 2020, it has finalized 10,000 or more appeals annually — dipping slightly below 10,000 during FY20/21 when provincial lockdowns disrupted IRB registry and mail operations. For FY22/23, more than 10,000 finalized appeals are forecasted, based on its current member complement.
The RAD is on target to meet its other case management strategies:
Finalizations of irregular border crosser files stand at 22% of decisions—in line with their share of the RAD inventory.
Approximately, less than 1% of appeals are pending over 18 months: the majority of cases awaiting consideration under IRCC’s temporary public policy to facilitate the granting of permanent residence for certain refugee claimants working in the health care sector during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The RAD is also well under its 10% target of appeals pending over 12 months having only 3% of appeals pending longer than 12 months.

Projected Status at Year-End 2022-23

Based on 2022 year-to-date finalizations at the RPD and RAD capacity, the IRB forecasts that its inventory of refugee appeals at the end of the fiscal year will reach approximately 5,400 refugee appeals, with a wait time of 5 to 6 months for both regular and irregular claims.
The proportion of IBC appeals in its inventory is also expected to increase from 20% at the end of October to at least 24%, or 1,300 IBC refugee appeals in inventory at the end of the fiscal year (up from approximately 1,000 at the end of October).

Irregular Border Crossers

Key Messages

For IRB purposes, the distinction between “regular” and “irregular” claimants is inconsequential. For adjudication purposes, a claim is a claim. The Board adjudicates all claims based on the law and the evidence presented.
That said, the IRB monitors the data and trends.
Since 2017, the IRB received approximately 72,500 “irregular” claimants, representing about one-third of all claims referred to the Board over this time.
As of November 1, 2022 “irregular” claimants constitute [29% / 19,300] of RPD’s inventory and [20% / 1,030] of RAD’s inventory.
Approximately 75% (55,000) of all “irregular” claims received by the IRB since 2017 have been decided at the RPD/RAD. Over 90% of all “irregular” claims referred to the IRB before the re-opening of the border in fall 2021 have been finalized.
Since 2017, acceptance rates for irregular claimants at RPD has been approximately 54%, versus 64% for regular claimants.
To date, approximately 20,500 have been rejected across the continuum and are subject to the removal process.
Average processing times in FY 2022-23 for regular versus irregular claimants are similar due to the IRB approach of proportionality of finalizations, at 20 months and 16 months for new claims.
Top 5 countries for irregular claims have traditionally been: Nigeria, Haiti, Columbia, Türkiye, Pakistan – together representing the majority of all irregular claims to date. This is expected to remain as such based on eligibility inventory.
The Board schedules claims in a balanced manner consistent with objectives of IRPA, namely: fairness, efficiency, program integrity and public safety. This has resulted in “irregular” claims being scheduled over the years roughly in proportion to the volume they represent in the claims inventory. As “irregular” intake is concentrated across a smaller number of countries, the caseload lends itself to streamlined processing, and specialization, promoting efficiency.
Looking ahead, IRB has put in place advance plans – including updating research products, training and interpreters – to help address the expected surge of irregular border claims given our understanding of the current eligibility inventory at IRCC/CBSA.

Background

Since 2017, the IRB experienced an influx of approximately 72,500 refugee claimants crossing the Canada-United States border between ports of entry (“irregular border crossings”), with an additional 17,800 awaiting a decision on their eligibility before being referred. Like other refugee protection claimants, irregular border crossers are referred to the IRB’s Refugee Protection Division (RPD) after IRCC or CBSA makes a determination of their eligibility.
The IRB remains committed to administering an efficient asylum determination system that is impartial and just, while remaining responsive to the evolving environment and operating context.
The IRB schedules proceedings based on principles of fairness, efficiency, public safety and program integrity articulated in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
In general, the following claims are prioritized for scheduling by the RPD:

Older claims are scheduled and heard before more recent claims.
Claims identified in Chairperson Guideline 6: Scheduling including those involving unaccompanied minors, detainees, and vulnerable persons.
Claims identified as less complex.

The RPD is also able to balance these priorities with other case management objectives to meet its obligations under IRPA. In 2018, the Board implemented a case management objective of a proportionate approach to the finalization of IBC claims in the inventory, to ensure program integrity and efficiency given concentrated number of countries and volumes.
Since 2020, the Board has focussed on processing oldest and less complex claims first, many of which are irregular border crosser claims. This approach continues to allow the Board to process a significant number of irregular border crosser claims annually roughly in proportion to their percentage of the inventory.
For adjudicators, there is no distinction between a claim from an irregular border crosser and any other refugee protection claimant. The same legal test and approach applies in all cases of refugee determination, regardless of the method of entry into Canada.

IBCs over time
	RPD Intake			RPD Inventory at the end of the period
Fiscal Year	IBC	Regular	Total	IBC #	IBC %	Regular #	Regular %
2017-2018	21,557	23,442	44,999	20,114	38%	32,818	62%
2018-2019	17,586	36,888	54,474	27,722	37%	46,492	63%
2019-2020	16,238	41,286	57,524	29,665	32%	61,688	68%
2020-2021	440	5,798	6,238	20,749	30%	49,024	70%
2021-2022	3,674	26,589	30,263	11,175	21%	42,884	79%
2022-2023 (YTD)	12,710	23,992	36,702	19,324	29%	46,771	71%
April 2017 to October 2022	72,205	157,995	230,200	-	-	-	-

Finalizations *
Fiscal Year	IBC Refusal Rate	IBC Acceptance Rate	Regular Refusal Rate	Regular Acceptance Rate
2017-2018	24%	76%	23%	77%
2018-2019	28%	72%	31%	69%
2019-2020	40%	60%	28%	72%
2020-2021	35%	65%	27%	73%
2021-2022	48%	52%	30%	70%
2022-2023 (YTD)	46%	54%	30%	70%
April 2017 to October 2022	40%	60%	30%	70%

* Refusal and Acceptance Rate are shown for cases finalized in each fiscal year in the refugee continuum (RPD, RAD, returns from Federal Court) - details in the table below

Acceptance Rate 2022 YTD	IBC	Regular	Total
RPD	44%	62%	58%
RAD	10%	8%	8%
Total	54%	70%	66%

Note: Less than 0.1% (representing less than 10 IBC claims) accepted following a return from the Federal Court.

Acceptance Rate 2017 to 2022 YTD	IBC	Regular	Total
RPD	54%	64%	61%
RAD	6%	6%	6%
Total	60%	70%	67%

Note: Less than 0.1% (representing less than 10 IBC claims) accepted following a return from the Federal Court.

Current Status

91% of irregular border crosser claims received before the reopening of the border in the fall 2021 have been finalized.
More than 55,000 irregular claims have been processed at the RPD, which represents 76% of the total irregular claims referred to the RPD.
52,000 are considered finalized across the asylum continuum
14,900 have had their appeals processed at the RAD.
1,000 are pending a decision at the RAD.
The approximately 20,300 remaining cases in inventory comprise approximately 29% of all pending cases (71,200 across the RPD and the RAD).
Since the reopening of the border in the fall of 2021, irregular border crosser intake has slowly increased and represents 35% of intake since the beginning of the fiscal year. While the RPD inventory as of November 1, 2022, is composed of 29% of irregular border crossers, this proportion is expected to increase based on partners’ data.
The top five countries (Nigeria – 16,800, Haiti – 14,600, Colombia – 5,200, Türkiye – 3,500, Pakistan – 2,900) have represented approximately 43,000 claims (60%) of all irregular border crosser intake to date, and these countries are expected to remain in the top five or 10 of irregular border claims at the Board.

IRB Measures Regarding Irregular Claimants

Scheduling – in proportion to inventory in order to promote efficiency; address any program integrity concerns; evolved with focus on fairness (FIFO) and efficiency (concentrated number of countries) to achieve same result.
Less Complex Task Force: established for all claims to optimize allocation of resources based on complexity of claim. A number of countries representing the “irregular” claimant cohort have been triaged to this task force for speedier resolution.
Changes to Practice Notices: Partial BOC and extension of timelines to submit BOC to IRB – applied to all claimants with influx in 2017 in Quebec. Still in force.
Training, research packages, interpreters for claimants from top countries from which irregular claimants come.
Government increases to Legal Aid – supports all claimants

Surge Planning

The IRB has put in place plans to address a surge of irregular border claims while taking into consideration the eligibility inventory of IRCC and the CBSA.
Specifically, the Board has:

identified the top irregular border crossers’ countries and has updated its research products to support members in timely decision making;
implemented measures to publish updated research products earlier than the formal update schedule to ensure members have access to the latest country condition information;
implemented adjudicative consistency committees for top countries to ensure greater consistency in decision making with higher volumes;
implemented measures to circulate decisions on top countries as additional jurisprudence becomes available on those countries to support decision making;
enhanced training programs and tools for members on top countries;
built up member specialist capacity and created specialist teams capable of handling higher volumes; and,
completed anticipatory staffing of interpreters in languages for the top countries.

The IRB has also shifted to a paperless environment with virtual hearings, making it more agile in transferring files and building specialist capacity anywhere in the country.
Going forward, the Board is exploring adjudicative tools, such as reasons of interest and jurisprudential guides, to facilitate efficient decision making.

Partners Eligibility Inventory

The delta between partners’ intake and referrals at the IRB contributes to the increase in the Asylum Eligibility backlog.

RPD referrals			Month	Partners intake*
IBC	Regular	Total	Month	IBC	Regular	Total
397	2,267	2,664	2021-Dec	2,869	3,382	6,251
536	2,090	2,626	2022-Jan	2,392	2,887	5,279
915	2,139	3,054	2022-Feb	2,546	3,516	6,062
1,252	2,631	3,883	2022-Mar	2,548	3,579	6,127
1,276	2,647	3,923	2022-Apr	2,780	3,340	6,120
1,488	2,907	4,395	2022-May	3,625	3,745	7,370
1,693	3,387	5,080	2022-Jun	3,105	3,964	7,069
1,456	3,254	4,710	2022-Jul	3,700	4,196	7,896
1,944	4,017	5,961	2022-Aug	3,299	4,488	7,787
2,144	3,829	5,973	2022-Sep	3,743	4,575	8,318
2,709	3,951	6,660	2022-Oct	3,710	5,165	8,875

* from OPP-DART bi-weekly report

Based on partners’ data as of October 31st, 2022, approximately 34.1k refugee claim applications are pending an eligibility decision

52% (approximately 17,700) of IRCC/CBSA eligibility decision inventory as of are irregular border crosser claims.
The top-five countries (Haiti, Türkiye, Colombia, Pakistan and Brazil) represent 66% of this IBC claims pending eligibility, or approximately 10,000 IBC claims.
About a third (5,000) of IBC claims pending eligibility are from countries historically yielding less-complex claims.

Background

What are the trends in terms of irregulars in the last few years?

At the RPD, the proportion of Irregular Border Crossers has increased to 31% of new intake since the reopening of the border and is expected to match or exceed the all-time high of 45% (in FY 2017-18), by the end of this fiscal year.
As this new intake has not yet made their way to the RAD, the proportion of IBC cases in RAD inventory has continued to decrease to 20%, but is also expected to increase by the end of the fiscal year, to approximately 30%
By finalizing IBCs in proportion with their numbers in the pending inventory, the percentage of IBCs in RPD and RAD inventories continues to be held in check:

Text Version

	2021			2022
	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May.	Jun.	Jul.	Aug.	Sep.	Oct.
RPD	22%	21%	20%	20%	20%	21%	21%	22%	24%	25%	26%	27%	29%
RAD	32%	30%	29%	28%	27%	24%	23%	23%	23%	22%	22%	21%	20%

What is the number of remaining irregular claims in the inventory and percent of remaining in inventory?

RPD

As of October 31, 2022, there was approximately 19,320 irregular claims remaining in the RPD inventory, which represents 29% of the total inventory.

RAD

As of October 31, 2022, approximately 1,030 irregular appeals remain in the RAD inventory, which represents 20% of the total appeals pending.

What is the average age inventory of irregulars vs. regular claims?

The average age of irregulars claims in RPD inventory is 11 months as opposed to 12 months for regular claims.
The average age of irregular appeals in RAD inventory is five months as opposed to four months for regular appeals.

What is the average IRB approval rate of irregular vs regular claims/appeals?

The overall acceptance rate across the refugee continuum is approximately 67%. This rate varies over different time periods and different cohorts. For example, IBCs have a slightly lower acceptance rate of approximately 60%.

Why are acceptance rates lower for irregular border crossers?

While all claims are determined based on their individual merits, slightly lower acceptance rates for these claims can likely be accounted for by a higher concentration among two source countries, namely Nigeria and Haiti.

Are you seeing any changes in the intake of claims and appeals made by irregular border crossers.

Since the reopening of the border in the fall of 2021, irregular border crosser intake has slowly increased and represents 35% of intake since the beginning of the fiscal year. While the RPD inventory as of November 1, 2022, is composed of 29% of irregular border crossers, this proportion is expected to increase based on partners’ data.
The overall acceptance rate has stabilized over time to reach 60% (compared to 70% for regular claims), reflective of a diverse caseload.
The make-up of the irregular inventory has changed overtime:

In 2017, when we first started tracking this cohort, the majority of cases were from Haiti and Nigeria, which together made up 58% of irregular intake.
In 2019, more countries were represented, with over half of irregular claims coming from six countries: Nigeria, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan, Haiti, and Sudan. Nigeria remained the largest, making up 20% of irregular intake, while the other six countries made up less than 10% each.
o Since the re-opening of the border in fall 2021, top-five countries represented 70% of IBC intake, coming from Haiti, Colombia, Türkiye, Nigeria and Pakistan.

Among all claims received by irregular border crossers, over 190 different countries of alleged persecution have been represented.

Key Issues Notes

Growth and Transformation Agenda

Key Messages

In response to rising intake and pressures at the IRB, the Board developed its Growth and Transformation Agenda in 2018-19 to address its operating context by growing the organization and reducing the gap between refugee claim intake and processing capacity, as well as transforming its operations across all divisions.
In Budget 2022 the Government announced permanent funding of $150 million annually, regularizing funds that had previously been provided on a temporary basis. With these funds, the IRB has more than doubled the size of its organization to over 2,300 employees since 2018, successfully increased its capacity to finalize up to 50,000 refugee claims and 13,500 refugee appeals annually, and has significantly reduced the backlog and wait times from where they would otherwise have been.
Budget 2022 also provided temporary funding of $87 million over two years, to process an additional 10,000 claims and 2,700 refugee appeals.
The Board has improved productivity in support of access to justice through a range of strategies all while maintaining its reputation for high quality and fair decisions.

Background

In response to rising intake and pressures at the IRB, the Board developed its Growth and Transformation Agenda beginning in 2018-19, a multi-year strategic plan that sets out to address its operating context by growing the organization and reducing the gap between refugee claim intake and processing capacity, as well as transforming its operations across all divisions.
Its transformation is centered around three strategic objectives:

(i) improved and sustained productivity;
(ii) enhanced quality and consistency in decision-making; and
(iii) strengthened management, with a focus on people management.

Together, the priorities are aimed at improving access to justice and strengthening public confidence in Canada’s refugee and immigration determination system, while supporting the Board’s vision of being a high-performing, competent and increasingly digital tribunal. See Tab 19a.

Status

Growth

In Budget 2022 the Government announced permanent funding of $150 million annually, regularizing funds that had previously been provided on a temporary basis. With these funds, the IRB has more than doubled the size of its organization to over 2,300 employees since 2018, successfully increased its capacity to finalize up to 50,000 refugee claims and 13,500 refugee appeals annually, and has significantly reduced the backlog and wait times from where they would otherwise have been. Budget 2022 also provided temporary funding of $87 million over two years, to process a forecasted rise in claim volumes of an additional 10,000 refugee claims and 2,700 refugee appeals.

Improved and sustained productivity

The Board has improved productivity in support of access to justice through a range of strategies, including:

embracing an organizational culture of operational awareness, performance and results;
working to maximize efficiencies from claim intake to issuance of decisions, including by working with both Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA);
reallocating staff and funds within and across divisions to maximize the use of resources;
standing up task forces to most effectively allocate resources based on case complexity and deciding claims based on specialization;
promoting the early resolution of claims, where possible; and,
using data and predictive analytics to better triage files for decision and, maximize scheduling practices. See Tabs 6b and 6c.

Enhanced quality and consistency in decision-making

The Board is also committed to enhanced quality and to maintaining its reputation for high quality and fair decisions. It has launched an ambitious quality agenda that emphasizes quality in the conduct of its hearings and decision‑making, an emphasis that is particularly important in the context of an organization that has undergone such significant growth over a short period of time. An IRB Quality Assurance Framework for Decision-Making was developed, which includes an overview of the activities, processes, strategies and structures that contribute to quality adjudicative decision-making. It provides a comprehensive range of activities that the Board has purposely identified and will, over time, individually strengthen as part of a strategic approach to support quality adjudicative decision‑making on an ongoing basis. An independent review of the Framework, completed in 2021, identified the Framework as an international best practice:

I carefully reviewed the IRB’s impressive Quality Assurance Framework. International best practice in administrative justice involves ensuring that tribunals are set up to get decisions right, set processes right and put errors right. The QAF puts in place high quality, robust processes to maximize decisional accuracy, prepare members to render accurate decisions through a fair procedure and to oversee potential errors in decision-making. I would have no hesitation in recommending that other administrative tribunals in Canada and further afield use the IRB’s QAF as a model to optimize their own processes.” - Dr. Paul Daly, University Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa

The Framework grounds the Board’s approach to a range of leading practices in support of quality decision‑making. Among other things, the Board has recently:

established quality centres of excellence at both the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division, mandated to monitor trends and address areas requiring attention;
strengthened the Board’s adjudication of gender‑based refugee protection claims by way of a dedicated task force of experienced and specially trained refugee decision-makers, and committed to publishing a revised Chairperson’s Guideline on gender-related cases and training all members on the new guideline; and,
implemented recommendations following a third‑party review of the IRB’s recently strengthened member complaint process.

Getting these initiatives right is critical to maintaining public confidence in the Board’s decision‑making, which is especially important as Canada’s largest administrative tribunal and given the nature and far‑reaching consequences of the decisions made. See Tab 19d.

Strengthened management, with a focus on people management

The Board has and will continue to strengthen management, with a focus on people management and organizational culture. At the portfolio level, an Asylum System Management Board (ASMB) committee structure was created in 2018 to help address gaps in horizontal coordination amongst asylum partners. Through the ASMB, the deputy heads of the IRB, IRCC and the CBSA have adopted a whole-of-system approach to managing the asylum system, while respecting the institutional and adjudicative independence of the Board.
The Board also continues its efforts to foster a healthy and results-oriented organizational culture that promotes civility, respect, diversity and inclusion, including by implementing the Board’s first Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan. The Board also implemented its Strategy for Psychological Safety and Mental Health in the IRB Workplace, as well as an accompanying performance management framework with clear goals and objectives for the Board.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the acceleration of the IRB’s digital transformation

Since 2020, the Board’s top management priority has been, and will continue to be, responding to the pandemic. The pandemic disrupted the Board’s ability to meet its operational plans in 2020-21, as in-person hearings – the vast majority of the Board’s proceedings – were quickly suspended in March 2020. In responding to the pandemic, the IRB moved to transform its operations and accelerated its plans to become a digital tribunal, guided by the dual objectives of protecting health and safety, while also ensuring meaningful access to justice. This approach allowed the Board to quickly resume critical functions while working to transform the organization and adapt to the new operational context.
As in-person hearings gradually resumed in summer 2020, the Board also piloted virtual hearings, a significant undertaking that required extensive technical and process changes to the Board’s operations. Virtual hearings were launched more widely in fall 2020 and by January 2021, in light of early concerns about potential new variants, the Board adopted a virtual-by-default hearings model, with nearly all hearings since then being held remotely. The Board’s approach to virtual hearings was confirmed to be highly effective by third‑party reviews, stakeholder feedback, and post‑hearing surveys. In September 2022, the Board published a Practice Notice general information on the scheduling of virtual, hybrid and in-person hearings at the Board and clear, division-specific instructions for requesting a hybrid or in-person hearing.
The Board’s progress towards becoming a digital organization also involved transforming from a paper-based tribunal to a predominantly digital one. The IRB digitized all new and existing case files across the four divisions, including close to 40,000 files for the Refugee Protection Division. Further to this, conducting virtual hearings allowed the Board to remain fully operational in a pandemic period, allocate files to capacity throughout the country, and provide access to justice to those appearing before the Board.

Guideline updates:

Guideline 4 - Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board

The IRB released a new G4 in July 2022. The revised Guideline 4 incorporates approaches and best-practices already well-established at the Board and which reflect expert advice, evidence-based developments in social science, and developments in law.
Key elements of the new guideline include:

a broadened gender-inclusive scope, while still recognizing that women, girls, and LGBTQ2I+ individuals are disproportionally impacted by gender inequality, discrimination, and gender-based violence.
explicit reference to the ongoing application of a trauma-informed and intersectional approach to proceedings involving gender considerations, consistent with the Board’s existing commitment to trauma-informed adjudication in all refugee and immigration cases involving individuals who have experienced trauma.
expanded substantive guidance on gender as a basis for persecution, state protection, internal flight alternatives and gender-specific considerations for detention reviews, admissibility hearings, and immigration appeals; and
an expanded application to also include the Immigration Division and the Immigration Appeal Division.

The revised Guideline 4 complements efforts by the Board to respond to the changing landscape of gender-based adjudication, including through innovative initiatives such as the recent creation of the Chairperson’s Gender-based Task Force. Comprehensive mandatory training for all decision-makers has now been delivered and updates will be provided on a regular basis to our members based on experience gathered with the application of the Guideline as well as input from our members and those appearing before the Board; key elements of the Board’s ongoing commitment to adjudicative quality and consistency.

Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics

The IRB released a revised G9 in December 2021. Guideline 9 was first introduced in 2017 to provide clear and consistent guidance on cases involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. Two years later, in the spring of 2019, we launched a review of the implementation of Guideline 9 to help identify areas for revision.

Following extensive internal and external consultations, the review of the implementation of Guideline 9: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression was completed, resulting in 11 recommendations which have been implemented.
Recommendations touch on a variety of issues: strengthening elements of the Guideline itself; enhancing training offered to IRB registry personnel, interpreters and designated representatives; ensuring more effective internal data capture; and implementing additional safeguards to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice in the hearings process.

The revised Guideline provides enhanced guidance to decision-makers on refugee and immigration cases involving SOGIESC individuals through updated and clarified terminology along with interpretive changes that will help members to identify their own biases and assumptions and to assess credibility.

Guideline 3 - Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues and Guideline 8 - Procedures with Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB

In an effort to ensure the relevancy and quality of adjudicative support instruments, the IRB is undertaking a review of G3 and G8 to ensure they provide decision-makers with updated guidance and support on how to approach to minors and vulnerable persons appearing before the Board.
The impetus for review comes from several elements:

How jurisprudence has developed in terms of the application of both guidelines;
Legislative changes (e.g. updates to IRPA since 1996);
Modern trauma and violence-informed practices;
Organizational changes in the IRB (e.g. the creation of the Refugee Appeal Division);
Clarification of the role of Designated Representatives.

To date, the IRB has conducted case law analyses of IRB decisions and analyses of higher court decisions involving Guidelines 3 and 8; environmental scans and analyses, including international and domestic policy reviews; and Internal and external consultations. The IRB is currently analyzing the results of the consultations to feed into the drafting of the updated guidelines.

Growth and Transformation Agenda Placemat

Text Version - Growth and Transformation Agenda

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

IRB growth and transformation agenda, October 2022

Growth

B2018 – B2020:
$600M / 4 years to April 2023

B2022:
$150M ongoing + $87M flexible funding over 2 years

Transformation

Productivity

Culture of performance and results
Efficiency measures from intake to recourse

Quality

Quality assurance framework
Chairperson’s guidelines
Gender-related task force

Management

System-wide approach
Managing COVID: respond, recover, re-imagine
Becoming digital
Organizational culture

Results

IRB: Doubling in size

Budget
2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
$138M	$173M	$230M	$295M	$296M	$307M

FTE
2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
1,050	1,250	1,600	1,800	2,100	2,250

IRB: A performing organization

2018 – 2020

Consistently met or exceeded performance commitments
Ç78% increase in finalizations1 with 67% increase in funding

	2018-19				2019-20
	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Commitment	24,750	26,500	29,250	32,000	34,450	36,200	37,950	40,700
Finalizations up to commitment	24,750	26,500	29,250	32,000	34,450	36,200	37,950	40,700
Finalizations above commitment	4,186	3,268	1,745	2,858	4,759	6,090	5,918	1,823

2020 – 2022

30% reduction in inventory since the pandemic
Lowest wait times since 2017

Date	Refugee claims and appeals inventory
May-20	101,485
Jun-20	100,267
Jul-20	98,415
Aug-20	96,837
Sep-20	94,639
Oct-20	92,646
Nov-20	90,612
Dec-20	88,343
Jan-21	84,988
Feb-21	80,588
Mar-21	74,805
Apr-21	73,812
May-21	72,952
Jun-21	70,644
Jul-21	69,240
Aug-21	67,833
Sep-21	66,560
Oct-21	65,701
Nov-21	63,182
Dec-21	61,897
Jan-22	61,102
Feb-22	60,172
Mar-22	58,853
Apr-22	59,689
May-22	60,258
Jun-22	61,769
Jul-22	63,368
Aug-22	65,750
Sep-22	68,269
Oct-22	71,245

IRB quality assurance framework: an international best practice

Plan Do Monitor Measure Adjust

IRB’s digital transformation

98% of hearings held remotely since January 2021
Over 75,000 hearings held virtually
96% satisfaction rate in refugee claim post-hearing survey

Outcomes

Improved access to justice and public confidence

1 Refugee claims and appeals
2 Refugee claims and appeals, as of November 1, 2022

November 21, 2022

Asylum System Management Board

Key Messages

The Asylum System Management Board is a senior, Deputy Minister level coordinating body established in 2018 following a recommendation in the Report of the Independent Review of the IRB (Yeates Report). It allows for improved horizontal coordination between partners, system-wide joint priority setting, trends analysis, performance management and monitoring.
The ASMB works to ensure joint situational awareness, joint strategic direction, timely and transparent decision making, and innovation.
The ASMB meets regularly and is effective. Most recently, the ASMB has identified joint targets and priorities for the asylum system, allowing the system to be more effective, productive and coordinated.
The ASMB has provided successful oversight and governance to important initiatives that are key to ensuring continued increases in system wide efficiencies, such as the Integrated Claims Analysis Centre and the Asylum Interoperability Project.

Background

The OAG audit referenced inadequate system oversight, and acknowledged the creation of the ASMB: “In early 2018, a deputy-level committee of the three organizations was established to improve oversight and coordination of asylum claims processing, including the development of performance and productivity expectations for key steps of the refugee determination process.”

The creation of this committee was one of the recommendations of the Yeates Report.

Objectives of the ASMB:

Joint Situational Awareness: All delivery organizations are aware of the same key developments related to the asylum system.
Joint Strategic Direction: The ASMB will undertake joint planning and priority setting to maximize the alignment of resources and will report on its operations, including emerging trends.
Timely and Transparent Decision Making: Decisions of one organization are available to the other delivery organizations, ahead of those decisions being implemented.
Innovation: Continual improvement is fostered through innovation.

Decisions at ASMB are based on joint situational awareness and consensus and cooperation among ASMB members.

Current Status

The ASMB committee is well established and meets quarterly or more frequently, as needed. This committee structure includes an improved governance model under the Deputy Minister level ASMB; providing opportunities for more frequent discussions at the Director General and Assistant Deputy Minister levels as well.

Recent discussions have focused on;

organizational budget needs and requests
a review of system wide performance targets,
system wide initiatives such as ICAC and AIP; and
the establishment of IRB refugee case processing priorities.

The IRB led a case inventory and management presentation to the ASMB in spring 2022 that set productivity expectations for the RPD based on detailed inventory and projected intake analysis. The IRB’s approach presented to ASMB will allow it to meet system-wide objectives. The IRB’s strategic case management approach is also consistent with IRPA’s guiding principles for fair, efficient processing that maintains the security of Canadian society and asylum system integrity.

This type of discussion at the ASMB directly addresses the OAG audit’s reference:

to the need for improved system oversight, and
to develop performance and productivity expectations for key steps of the refugee determination process.”

Additionally, the ASMB has established sub-committees focused on advancing the system’s digital agenda and addressing the operational impacts of the Covid-19 global pandemic in a coordinated manner as well as examining future of work models with an eye on keeping any innovations developed as a result of the pandemic (ex: paperless operations, sharing documents electronically with IRCC and CBSA, and virtual refugee claim hearings).

These ASMB discussions have resulted in stronger operational awareness, greater system coordination, and more consistent understanding of pain points and opportunities for efficiencies among the three organizations.

Safe Third-Country Agreement Issue Note

Key Messages

The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States, known as the Canada–U.S. STCA, came into effect in 2004 and provides for responsibility sharing in processing refugee claims from nationals of third countries.
The STCA applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S. at a land border port of entry. The STCA is a reciprocal agreement. It also applies to refugee claimants seeking to enter the U.S. from Canada.
The authority for the Canada–U.S. STCA stems from section 101(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which provides that a refugee claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if the claimant came to Canada from a country designated by the regulations.
Section 102 of the IRPA outlines the criteria that the Governor in Council must use to designate a country as a safe third country, and requires that the federal government continually review countries designated as safe third countries to ensure that the conditions leading to the original designation continue to be met.
In July 2020, the Federal Court of Canada found the legislative provisions implementing the STCA to be unconstitutional. However, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned that decision. Therefore, the STCA provisions remain in force.
An appeal made to the Supreme Court of Canada was heard in October 2022, but no decision has been issued yet.
In case of a repeal of the STCA, the IRB would carefully monitor the situation. The IRB might see an increase in refugee claimants coming to Canada via the U.S. because some claimants who are currently deterred by the STCA may decide to come to Canada if they can come to a regular port of entry. It would also mean that more claimants would have the right to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), since being admitted to Canada under an exception to the STCA is a bar to appeal.
• In 2019, Parliament amended the IRPA to make a claim ineligible to be referred to the RPD if the claimant previously made a claim in one of the “Five Eyes” countries (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, plus Canada). This new ground of ineligibility (s. 101(1)(c.1)) is different from the STCA ineligibility (s. 101(1)(e)).

Legal Framework and exceptions

The Canada–U.S. STCA came into effect in December 2004 and is implemented through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Regulations).
The exceptions are found in Article 4 of the STCA and section 159.5 of the Regulations and can be divided in four categories:

the unaccompanied minor exception;
family member exceptions, such as having a spouse or parent who is already a citizen or permanent resident;
document holder exceptions, such as having a valid work or study permit; and
public interest exceptions, such as facing the possibility of a death sentence in the U.S.

For refugee claimants entering Canada, qualifying under one or more of these exceptions simply means that Canada – rather than the U.S. – will assess the claim.
Refugee claimants coming to Canada under the STCA must still meet all other eligibility criteria set out in the IRPA.
The STCA applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S. at a land border port of entry. The STCA is a reciprocal agreement. It also applies to refugee claimants seeking to enter the U.S. from Canada.
The authority for the Canada–U.S. STCA stems from section 101(1)(e) of the IRPA, which provides that a claim is ineligible to be referred to the RPD if the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated in the regulations.
Section 102(2) sets out the factors that the Governor in Council must consider in designating a country as a safe third country. They are:

whether the country is a party to the Refugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture;
its policies and practices with respect to claims and obligations under these two conventions;
its human rights record; and
whether it is a party to an agreement with the Government of Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection.

Statistics

Based on partners’ data (OPP-DART) for the last 12 months, between 11% and 18% of regular claims made at a land border port of entry each month were deemed ineligible under STCA.
Since January 2017, intake at RPD includes approximately 8% of claims under STCA exceptions per month (some variations were seen during the period when the border was closed).

Most common reason for exemption is having a family member in Canada.

For that same period, (January 2017 to October 2022 inclusively), almost 10% of finalizations rendered at RPD were on cases identified as received under STCA exception (less than 0.2% of this 10% were IBC).
Based on partners (OPP-DART) data of regular port of entry claims rejected under STCA, it could be projected that intake level would increase between 3% to 5% overall if STCA was repelled (between 10% to 20% of forecasted regular port of entry claims).

Negotiations to modernize the STCA with the U.S.

In 2019, the Prime Minister mandated the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and other relevant ministers to continue working with the U.S. on a new Border Enforcement Strategy and on modernizing the STCA.
Negotiations are still ongoing.

Border Surge Planning

The ADM Contingency Planning Committee (IRB with IRCC and CBSA) meets weekly discuss the issue of irregular border crossers as a system wide initiative, including in relation to policy, funding, and operations initiatives.
The IRB has put in place plans to address a surge of irregular border claims while taking into consideration the eligibility inventory of IRCC and the CBSA.
The Board has identified the top irregular border crossers’ countries and has updated its research products; enhanced related training programs and tools on those countries; built up member specialist capacity; and is recruiting interpreters in those languages.
The IRB has also shifted to a paperless environment with virtual hearings, making it more agile in transferring files and building specialist capacity anywhere in the country.

Legal Challenges

Over the last 30 years, there were several legal challenges to the STCA.
In the most recent challenge, in July 2020, the Federal Court of Canada found the legislative provisions implementing the STCA to be unconstitutional based on the rights of all people in Canada to life, liberty and security of the person.
The Federal Court noted that asylum seekers whom Canada turns away because of the STCA are automatically imprisoned by U.S. authorities and treated in ways that cause both physical and psychological suffering.
The Federal Court decided that the STCA would cease to have effect in January 2021. However, this deadline was extended by the Federal Court of Appeal, pending an appeal by the federal government.
In April 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It found that it did not have sufficient evidence to adjudicate the issues raised, and the challenge was not properly framed as legislative provisions in an interrelated scheme cannot be selectively challenged. Therefore, the STCA remains in force.
An appeal was made to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was heard in October 2022; however, a decision has not yet been issued.

Ineligibility for STCA compared to ineligibility for prior claim in “Five-Eyes” country

For ineligibility to have a claim referred to the RPD because of the STCA (IRPA, s. 101(1)(e)), the claimant would be returned to the United States without an assessment of the merits of their refugee claim in Canada.
For ineligibility to have a claim referred to the RPD because of a previous refugee claim made in the United States or in another Five Eyes country (IRPA, s. 101(1)(c.1)), the claimant would be entitled to an assessment of the merits of the refugee claim at oral hearing by a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) Officer. In Seklani, 2020 FC 778 (July 23, 2020), the Federal Court held that s. 101(1)(c.1) was constitutional.

Safe Third-Country Agreement Information Sheet

Current Status

The Canada–U.S. STCA came into effect in December 2004 and stipulates that persons seeking refugee protection must make a claim in the first of the two countries they arrive in unless they qualify for an exception. The STCA is implemented through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Regulations).
To date, the U.S. is the only country that Canada has designated as a safe third country under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
The IRPA requires that the federal government continually review countries designated as safe third countries to ensure that the conditions leading to the original designation continue to be met.
According to the directives issued in June 2015, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship must review, on a continual basis, the factors listed in section 102(2) of IRPA with respect to the U.S.

Background

Concept of a safe third country in Canada’s legislative framework

In the late 1980s, the concept of a safe third country was introduced in the Immigration Act, 1976, through Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof. Bill C-55 also amended the former Immigration Act to establish the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The bill, originally, had proposed that, under the safe third country principle, refugees arriving in Canada be excluded from the determination procedure and expelled if they failed to come directly to Canada from their state of origin. However, amendments were introduced to “limit its application to persons who would actually be allowed to return to the intermediate country, or who would at least be allowed to have their refugee claims decided on the merits in the intermediate state.” (James C. Hathaway, “Postscript – Selective Concern: An Overview of Refugee Law in Canada,” McGill Law Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, 1989, p. 356.)
These amendments were to ensure Canada respects its international legal obligations towards refugees, including the principle of non-refoulement.
Bill C-55 came into force in January 1989, but for the concept of a safe third to take effect, the federal government had to list the countries considered safe in the regulations. It did not do this until 2004 when the Canada–U.S. STCA came into effect.

Negotiations to establish a STCA with the U.S.

In the 1990s, due to their geographical proximity and high level of interdependence, Canada and the U.S. started exploring the possibility of establishing a security perimeter around the two countries. The September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks on the U.S. accelerated these discussions, reinforced the importance of border security and highlighted the corresponding challenges of ensuring the efficient flow of people across the Canada–U.S. border.
In a December 2001 joint Canada–U.S. Statement on Common Security Priorities, the implementation of a safe third country agreement was highlighted as part of a commitment to border security.
To note, the STCA negotiations were delayed on both the American and Canadian side due to legislative changes to asylum law in the U.S. and to immigration and refugee law in Canada. In 1996, the U.S. adopted its Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Canada’s new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act received Royal Assent on 1 November 2001. Most of the provisions in the IRPA came into force on June 28, 2002.
At the time of the negotiations in the late 1990s and early 200s, the federal government was concerned by the number of refugee claimants coming to Canada from the U.S. It was noted that approximately one-third of all refugee claims in Canada from 1995 to 2001 were made by refugee claimants known to have arrived from or through the U.S.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) which accompanied the publication of the Regulations in the Canada Gazette in November 2004 included the following points:

This Safe Third Country Agreement and the Regulations implementing it reflect a widespread and growing international consensus that no refugee receiving country can, on its own, solve the refugee problems of the world.
International efforts, both bilateral and multilateral, are needed to share the responsibilities of protecting those in need.
By working collectively, states increase the effectiveness of their efforts in finding solutions for those entitled to protection. Regulations implementing the Safe Third Country Agreement are a necessary step towards international cooperation in the orderly handling of refugee claims.

Review of the implementation of the Canada–U.S. STCA

The STCA required that Canada and the U.S., in cooperation with the UNHCR, conduct a review of the agreement and its implementation no later than a year after its coming into force.
The UNHCR’s 2006 assessment of the STCA found that the U.S. sufficiently upholds its international obligations with respect to refugees, but recommended several improvements both to Canada and the U.S.
The Canadian federal government accepted, in whole or in part, 13 out of the 15 UNHCR recommendations. The other two were considered captured under the existing mechanisms which ensure a full and fair refugee determination process for all types of refugee claimants.

Comparison to ineligibility for prior claim in “Five-Eyes” country: IRPA, s. 101(1)(c.1)

In the Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1 (BIA), which received royal assent on June 21, 2019, Parliament enacted a new ineligibility provision, paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the IRPA.

This provision precludes refugee claimants from having their claim referred to the RPD if, before making their claim in Canada, they made a refugee claim in a country with which Canada has an information-sharing agreement. Those countries currently are: United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Together with Canada, they are known as the “Five Eyes” countries.
For ineligibility under paragraph 101(1)(e) of the IRPA because of the STCA, the claimant would be returned to the United States without an assessment of the merits of their refugee claim in Canada.
For ineligibility under paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the IRPA because of a previous refugee claim made in the United States, the claimant is entitled to an assessment of the merits of the refugee claim at a PRRA oral hearing. In Seklani, 2020 FC 778 (July 23, 2020), the Federal Court held that paragraph 101(1)(c.1) was not unconstitutional.
Some claimants who arrive in Canada from the U.S. are eligible to have their claims referred to the RPD, while others are not, depending on the date that they made a claim and on various other factors:
If the claimant made a previous claim in the claim in the U.S., the claimant is ineligible to have a claim referred to the RPD under paragraph 101(1)(c.1), regardless of whether the claimant arrived at a land border crossing, at any other port of entry, or as an irregular border crosser.
If the claimant did not make a previous claim, and arrived at a land border port of entry, the claimant is ineligible to have a claim referred to the RPD under paragraph 101(1)(e), unless the claimant comes within an exception to the STCA (e.g., close family member already in Canada).

Funding

Key Messages

Since 2018, the Government has made temporary investments of close to $600 million in the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB or the Board) through to 2022-23 to keep pace with growth in claim volumes.

The Board doubled in size and budget between 2017-18 and 2021-22, significantly reducing the inventory of refugee claims and appeals and associated wait times. However, due to the temporary nature of the investments, 50% of the Board’s workforce was of a temporary nature.

In Budget 2022, the Government announced permanent funding of $150 million annually, starting in 2023-24.

This permanent funding will allow the Board to continue to process up to 50,000 refugee claims annually and stabilize its work force, increasing its permanent complement to approximately 2,100 permanent full-time employees, while ensuring the stability and integrity of Canada’s asylum system.

In addition, Budget 2022 announced a further, temporary top up investment of $87.5M over two (2) years, which will allow the Board to hire over 300 temporary employees (including approximately 100 members), This additional top-up flexible funding is intended to help address the forecasted rise in asylum claims by funding up to 10,000 claims over a two-year period.

While this temporary funding helps with rising claims volumes in the next couple of years, a longer term permanent flexible funding model is being explored with central agencies and partners.

The purpose of the flexible funding model would be to provide the IRB with greater flexibility to hire decision makers and other staff and to access additional funding more quickly to better align processing capacity with quickly shifting volumes of claims received in a given year in order to avoid future growth in backlogs and wait times.

Background

The IRB has seen significant growth over the last few years – the largest in the Board’s 30-year history. The growth in the IRB’s budget and employee complement is substantial, with the Board essentially doubling in size and budget between 2017-18 and 2021-22. This had enabled the Board to more than double the number of decision makers at the Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Divisions and hire additional support staff so that the Board could process up to 50,000 refugee claims and 13,500 refugee appeals a year, significantly reducing the inventory of refugee claims and appeals and associated wait times from where they would otherwise be.
Budgets 2018 ($74M) and 2019 ($208M) provided $282 million in temporary funding through 2020-21, with Budget 2020 providing an additional $300M until 2023-24 ($150M in each of FY 2021-22 and 2022-23), representing the largest investment in the Board’s history.
Through Budget 2022, IRB and other government departments (such as IRCC and CBSA) will seek to access the following funding:

$1.3 billion over five years starting in 2022-23
$331.2 million per year ongoing, to support increased capacity for Canada’s asylum system

Budget 2022 included a significant and permanent increase to the Board’s salary and operating budget (i.e., ongoing funding of $150M/per year beginning in fiscal year 2023-24). That permanent funding will enable the IRB to finally stabilize its workforce and support the Board’s capacity to process up to 50,000 refugee claims and 13,500 refugee appeals a year.
In addition, Budget 2022 announced a further, temporary, investment of $87.5M over two (2) years, for the purpose of hiring additional staff (over 300 FTEs including 100 members) to process an additional 10,000 refugee claims over a two-year period (2,500 in year 1 and 7,500 in year 2).
Budget 2022 funds, which are earmarked within the Fiscal Framework, are expected to be approved by Parliament through the estimates process in the spring of 2023.

Flexible Funding Model Mechanism

Unlike many other parts of the immigration file which are managed through the immigration levels plan, refugee claim intake is not controlled, presenting challenges when claim intake exceeds projections, which has been a regular occurrence over the Board’s 30-year history. A more flexible funding model that enables the IRB [and other partners] to access funds more quickly upon claim intake exceeding funded processing capacity would best address this challenge.
This is supported by recommendation 1 from the OAG in its 2019 Report 2—Processing of Asylum Claims as well as by recommendation 8 in the 2018 Report of the Independent Review of the Immigration and Refugee Board: A Systems Management Approach to Asylum by Neil Yeates.
In the lead up to Budget 2022, IRB officials met with central agencies, including the Department of Finance, Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office, with a view to: (1) raising awareness of the current operating context of Canada’s asylum system, including case inventories and wait times for refugee claimants; (2) reinforcing the importance of stabilizing the organization and making permanent those funds which had previously been provided to the IRB through Budgets 2018-2021 on a temporary basis, and the impact of those funds otherwise sunsetting in fiscal year 2023-24; and (3) identifying implications associated with providing further flexibility with additional funds to account for increasing volumes of asylum claims at the IRB.
Specifically, the IRB continues to work with IRCC and CBSA on securing a flexible funding mechanism and to engage on a longer-term strategy with Central Agencies to further develop a mechanism that could include the following key elements:

Annual growth based on forecasted rise in refugee claim intake;
Access to a contingency fund that can be deposited into IRB reference levels in the event of:

an in-year refugee claim intake surge; OR
refugee claim intake exceeding forecasted projections, as monitored by ASMB and evidenced by number of claims received in a given year.

This engagement will be informed by experience with the temporary top up funding received this year.

Budget 2022
Stabilizing Asylum System Capacity	21-22	22-23	23-24	24-25	25-26	26-27	Total	Ongoing
IRCC	0.0	0.0	17.4	41.2	48.5	67.6	174.6	67.6
CBSA	0.0	0.0	74.5	112.7	112.7	112.7	412.6	112.3
CSIS	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.2	1.2	1.3	4.8	1.3
IRB	0.0	0.0	150.0	150.0	150.0	150.0	599.9	150.0
Total	0.0	0.0	242.8	305.1	312.5	331.5	1,191.9	331.2
Claim Processing Top-up
IRCC	0.0	15.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	15.7	0.0
CBSA	0.0	14.4	8.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	23.3	0.0
IRB	0.0	27.1	60.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	87.5	0.0
Total	0.0	57.2	69.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	126.5	0.0
TOTAL – ALL MEASURES	0.0	57.2	312.1	305.1	312.5	331.5	1,318.4	331.2