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?

I recently went to Roxham Road. I think I can say that when a person comes through, the first point of contact is the RCMP.

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?

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

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

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

Is this a new practice, issuing the acknowledgement of claim?

No.

When does the asylum seeker get what is known as the “brown paper”, the refugee protection claimant document? 

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

Is that the current time period in which people will get that, two weeks later?

Yes, from what I saw when I did the visit, it was about a two-week period. Maybe it's a little bit less or more, depending, but it's approximately two weeks.

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 can 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 to seek employment. 

Is that the reality right now, where people are waiting that long to get that brown paper document? 

I think it would depend. Apologies for the complexities, but I think it would depend on whether 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.

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. 

In total, people are now faced with a 12- to 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?

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.

Yes, and could the committee get the information on what is the actual delay, not just from your visit, but in actuality in terms of the practice? This is because on the ground, if a refugee centre that's dealing with claimants day in and day out is regularly seeing this significant shift in timelines, which is causing huge problems for people, it would be good to get the data on what is the delay and the process for each step and how long it's taking. 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 this. 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 if it 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 on reinstating that exemption?

In light of the negotiations being bilateral negotiations, I don't want to get into what could be or could 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.

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 that 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 safe third country agreements should be, at a minimum, suspended, if not eliminated. The government should be taking that action.

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.

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

I'll turn to Michèle Kingsley for this one.

Thank you, Chair.

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

I'm sorry. Could I get the entire process? 

How long is it taking for someone to go through IRB processing and for it to be completed? What's the average processing time?

I believe the deputy indicated earlier that right now, on average, it's taking 26 months.

That would be a question to pose to the IRB.

Could the officials provide us with all the data or 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?

Yes. We can definitely provide that.

Could you also further break down the information on rejections on the basis...that are gender-based claims?

Yes.

Okay.

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? Could you list what those countries might be?

Yes, we can do that. 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—

Yes. I'm aware of that. 

The government engages in these bilateral discussions. Has the government at any point in time raised the issue of suspending the safe third country agreement? 

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.

Well, maybe I'll ask the minister, because the government uses the term “modernizing”. I think “modernizing” is actually euphemistic. We've seen that the Liberal government has actually extended the application of the safe third country agreement to Five Eye countries. 

To that end, on the Five Eye countries, how many people have tried to make a claim to Canada through that process?

Within Five Eyes countries, how many of them have claimed asylum in this country?

Yes. How many have tried to and then been rejected because of the safe third country agreement?

I will check. I'm not sure.

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 with people who are faced with displacement and are forcibly displaced in their country of origin. Canada's 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, hence the safe third country agreement.

Given the numbers relative to the rest of the globe in the face of this crisis, Canada is not as impacted as some of the other countries are by literally millions of people crossing over to seek safety, 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. It subjects them to exploitation, to smugglers and to other dangers as they are making this journey, whether they 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 them to actually make their claims through a regular entry?

I'm sorry, but did you say “regular” or “irregular” at the end of your comment, Ms. Kwan?

It was for them to 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.

Thank you. I understand the question.

With enormous respect, I think we probably agree on the outcomes we want to foster, which are 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 that agreement would create the potential for more and more people to make the decision 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 up to interject.

The safe third country agreement, as the minister knows, predated the Trump administration. One might argue that during that period it was some of the worst 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 overnight, even with the Biden administration.

This is the reality right now. Really, some of these asylum seekers 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 from which they had been trying to flee.

Given that this is the reality, 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 even just suspending, if not doing away with, the safe third country agreement with the United States?

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're a party to the convention against torture and the refugee convention. Their policies and practices where this ongoing monitoring is particularly important are also considered, as well as the human rights record of a country. Because there is one particular policy that may be different from what Canada would like to see happen, it's not necessarily the case that that results in the automatic suspension of the agreement. We look at the sum total of these factors and make an assessment on a regular basis as to whether the country we're dealing with continues to meet that safe country standard.

Our government's view is that the United States, given the totality of these factors, continues to meet that standard, which is why we have not made any decision to suspend the safe third country agreement.

At their worst times, we have to remember what the U.S. was doing during the Trump administration. They dramatically expanded the authority to arrest, jail and deport migrants in the United States. We can never forget, with their anti-immigration and refugee policies, the image of children being put in cages, being separated, being torn away from their parents.

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

Look, some of the situations you described I was confronted with 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 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've travelled to the United States and have the potential to make a claim in the U.S., and 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 that even when some of these policies are initially adopted, the U.S. court system still has the ability to make decisions, where a given administration may run afoul of a particular rule, to actually undo some of those policies that would have caused a particular country—

I'm sorry for interrupting, Minister.

—to fall out of favour with the safe third country agreement.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One way to 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?

Are you talking about exemptions to the safe third country agreement?

Yes.

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.

Thank you, but I hope that the minister will agree that, at the very minimum, he should advance gender-based claims and other vulnerable classes of people to be exempt. I won't belabour all the reasons, but this is important. I hope the minister will agree.

Currently, there's a prolonged delay for asylum claimants 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 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 supports.

On a point of clarity, I agree with the member that we need to continue to make investments to speed up the process. We put $1.3 billion towards the asylum system 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 already taking steps to try to improve the quality of some of these circumstances you've raised.

Yes, the two things, that's—

I'm 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. You will have four minutes for your round of questioning.