HuffPost Social Reading

Tories Move To Curb 'Bogus' Refugees

Jason Kenney Refugee Bogus Claimants Bill

First Posted: 02/15/2012 9:19 pm Updated: 02/20/2012 4:27 am


New, tougher reforms to refugee legislation that hasn't yet come into force are already drawing fire from critics who say they give Canada's immigration minister too much power and risk the lives of claimants.


Bill C-31, introduced Thursday by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, toughens the measures taken in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, a compromise bill passed under a Conservative minority government. That earlier bill has yet to be implemented. It was due to be up and running by June 29.


Kenney says he wants the new bill passed by that date and implemented sometime next fall.


The bill will implement long-planned biometric identification — including fingerprints and photos — for people who apply for visas to visit Canada, and allow the minister to select which countries are "safe," known as a designated country of origin.


Speaking to Evan Solomon, host of CBC's Power & Politics, Kenney said the information would eventually be purged but didn't know after how long. He said his department is working with Canada's privacy commissioner to develop the system.


Under the new bill:


- The immigration minister would have the power to place countries on the safe country list without benefit of a committee that was to include human-rights experts. The committee would be scrapped.


- Claimants from countries on the safe country list whose claims are rejected would no longer be allowed to appeal the decision to a new appeals body within the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).


- Claimants from countries on the safe country list would have to wait a full year to apply for humanitarian and compassionate consideration to become permanent residents, which would take into account issues of personal hardship. In the interim, they could be deported.


- Claimants from countries on the safe country list would be allowed to ask for a judicial review by the Federal Court, but there would be no stay of their deportation pending a decision. That means failed applicants could be deported before the court rules on their case.


Canadians have no tolerance for "bogus refugees" and a growing number of claimants from European Union democracies, Kenney said Thursday as he introduced the bill.


Canada gets more refugee claims from Europe than from Africa or Asia, he said, with 23 per cent of all refugee claims made in Canada last year by nationals from the EU. At the same time, he said, over 95 per cent of EU claims were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected over the past few years.


But rolling back those compromises means a rejection of good, sound legislation, NDP immigration critic Don Davies said Thursday.


Davies said the new bill rejects the compromise reached with the government, one Kenney said at the time was stronger than the initial bill he'd tabled.


And, Davies said, it "once again puts too much power in the hands of the minister."


Kenney had said he's willing to look at amendments to the bill, but Davies wouldn't say whether he's preparing any.


Roma claims spike


A source familiar with the new bill said the government is grappling with a spike in claims from the ethnic Roma communities of eastern Europe. In particular, there was a doubling of claims from Hungary in 2011 to 4,900, up from 2,400 the year before. The current acceptance rate for claims from Hungary is about two per cent.


The Czech Republic is currently under visa restrictions due to a similar influx of Roma claimants. Poland and Romania are seeing an outflow of Roma refugee claimants as well.


"We have to keep bogus claimants out," the source said. "How is it the U.S. had 47 claims in 2009 and 2010 while Canada had 4,700 claims in the same time period?"


In his interview with Solomon, Kenney said the bill isn't targeting the Roma.


"Obviously the Roma community in Europe has always faced difficulty, there's no doubt about that," he said. But whether it reaches the level of persecution is another question, Kenney added.


Refugee experts warn that the new bill could put lives at stake by giving the minister too much authority over the safe country list while eliminating an appeal process.


"Safe country is a very dangerous concept in the world of law," Peter Showler, a former chair of the IRB and an expert in refugee law at the University of Ottawa, told CBC News. "From virtually every country there are some people who are safe and some people who are not. If the minister removes [the advisory committee] then the danger is of arbitrary placement on the list and particularly for political reasons."


Safe country lists need checks, balances


Safe country lists can work, but only when there are adequate checks and balances, including the right to an appeal and adequate time to prepare a claim, Showler said.


"To remove that appeal for any category of person is highly objectionable. You're taking the risk that they're going to be sent back to persecution," he said.


The new bill may also seek to change the amount of time claimants from safe countries have to prepare their claim. Under the bill passed in 2010, they would get 60 days to complete their claims (claimants not on the designated list get 90 days). Sources familiar with the new bill suggest that time frame may be narrowed even further, possibly through regulation, once the bill is passed.


The new bill would allow Canada to get out of sticky diplomatic situations that have led to visas being imposed on trading partners. In 2009 Prime Minister Stephen Harper travelled to Mexico to announce visa restrictions would be imposed while his government worked to "fix" a flawed refugee system at home.


Three years later the visa restriction is still in place, creating an irritant in the relationship between the two countries. Similarly, sources close to the bill say the government is reluctant to impose visa restrictions on Hungary while EU trade talks evolve, and is hankering to lift the visa restriction on the Czech Republic for the same reason.


The idea of placing Mexico on the safe list bothers most refugee experts including Showler, who notes claimants from the country have a 10 per cent acceptance rate in Canada, "and that's after the minister has put considerable pressure on the board not to accept claims from Mexico."


"If anything we've seen in the past year push-back from not only refugee board members but also from the Federal Court acknowledging that Mexico is a dangerous place and that there are many legitimate claimants from that country," Showler said. "It would be a travesty if Mexico were put on the designated list."


Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

New, tougher reforms to refugee legislation that hasn't yet come into force are already drawing fire from critics who say they give Canada's immigration minister too much power and risk t...
New, tougher reforms to refugee legislation that hasn't yet come into force are already drawing fire from critics who say they give Canada's immigration minister too much power and risk t...
Filed by Brodie Fenlon  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 34
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
SamEasy
You really don`t want to know.
10:33 PM on 02/16/2012
'time to show them the door'..........which is how many of us feel about the REFORM party that is currently running our country (into the ground).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:39 PM on 02/16/2012
the reality is Minister Kenney is "bogus"
03:37 PM on 02/16/2012
Tamils coming from Sri Lanka by the boat loads as the first couple ships were accepted @ Vancouver and granted refugee status. I am sure more will be coming, their healthcare coverage is better than our own tax payers. News report also suggest that these ships were especially planned to carry large amount of people for illegal immigration.
02:09 PM on 02/16/2012
I don't like the idea of giving this one guy the power to say which countries are "safe" sometimes people need to flea from countries that by large wouldn't be considered unsafe. I think the committee should stay in tact to make those kinds of decisions. You give one person too much power and the next thing you know, the whole thing goes array.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr e MaN
Political Athiest
12:57 PM on 02/16/2012
Not sure about the exact details but I would suggest the vast majority agree with the intent. I am sooo notwith the HARPER government on any other issue but this one we need the system is crazy. Look at the criminal in LAI 12 years and we are still not rid of him.
11:34 AM on 02/16/2012
the odious nature of tory legislation seems to be directly proportional to the amount of time spent on the airwaves to sell it
11:28 AM on 02/16/2012
dont let us down jason--------we're waiting for the -

"you are either with us or you are with the illegals crashing our borders"
10:47 AM on 02/16/2012
Why is HuffPo allowed to take this story in its entirety from the CBC (without any attribution, I may add)?
11:22 AM on 02/16/2012
Aside from the CBC.ca and logo at the VERY TOP OF THE ARTICLE!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr e MaN
Political Athiest
12:53 PM on 02/16/2012
ha ha that was a smack down. Without attribution
02:34 PM on 02/16/2012
Um, by attribution I mean the author. The byline. Not the link or logo. Also, with the entire article reproduced, who is going to go to the CBC site to give them the clickthroughs, etc., link or no link?
10:31 AM on 02/16/2012
We can't afford to put everyone who enters the country illegally on the Canadian tax payers dime. Not to mention the strain on our over burdened health care. I wonder how many people who support talking everyone in who shows up at the door would be willing to take them home and feed and cloth them out of their own pockets. Don't know what the solution is but we are going to end up like Greece or worse if we don't get our fiscal house in order.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnanimation
03:44 PM on 02/16/2012
Hyperbole is always the icing on the uninformed cake.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sdgreen
09:45 AM on 02/16/2012
Good! We have way too many so called refugees from illegitimate claims.
11:36 AM on 02/16/2012
the debate is over how to weed them out ------there are two approaches the right way and the tory way
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnanimation
03:45 PM on 02/16/2012
And you know this because Mr. Kenney told you so?
09:41 AM on 02/16/2012
Yes Yes Yes ... tiem to ship the bogus refugees and immigrants out!
Tighten the laws to keep them out.

What shall we do about immigration advisors and lawyers, eh?
Time for them to shut their doors.
09:37 AM on 02/16/2012
shut the doors until the world economy gets back to "normal".
08:53 AM on 02/16/2012
So let me get this straight “That earlier bill — which passed a minority Parliament in June, 2010, after several concessions were made to the opposition — has yet to be implemented. It was due to be up and running by June 29 of this year. Sources familiar with the bill say it will reverse some fundamental compromises the government made to get it approved by opposition MPs.â€

A bill that was put together with democratically elected MPs from across Canada will now be re-written so it on serves the Conservative ideology, and not that of the majority of Canadians. Canadians elected MPs to represent them and create bills in Parliament; this bill was a collaborative effort.

Doesn’t that go against Democracy?

How many minority government bills that were put together by working with MPs from all parties are going to be re-written to serve ONLY the conservatives and not the MAJORITY of Canadians?

The conservatives likes to throw the term “All Canadians†to push their ideas, well more Canadians worked on the previous workings of bills like these. ONLY conservatives are changing them.

The longer the conservatives are in government more of our laws will be re-written and more of our freedoms will be taken away slowly. This is EXACTLY what the Bush/Cheney did during their eight years, Slowly suspend the rights of people until they could no longer recognize which laws suspended their liberties and which ones protected them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
10:20 AM on 02/16/2012
I thought the present government did win a majority. In the next election a new opportunity will be given for those not represented. As for the present bill it is now reflecting the majority. It has been changed by elected MPs just like the last bill which was written by elected MPs. You seem to be hung up on the word Conservative which has nothing to do with the majority bill. The focus is majority which is more consistent of a bill most Canadians want rather than a mix of thoughts generated by a minority government in which a true consensus cannot be achieved.
okgranny
Egalitarian by birth
11:51 AM on 02/16/2012
The present government did not win a "majority", it won a plurality.
11:59 AM on 02/16/2012
The House of Commons is comprised of 308 seats, 165 of which belong to the Conservatives. That represents 53% of the house, yet only 40% of Canadians voted Conservative in the previous election. So, to say that the Conservative Party represents ‘Most Canadians’ is really stretching the truth. The Conservatives make up a Majority in the HoC, but do not reflect the opinion of ‘Most Canadians’.
Furthermore, if members from all parties in the previous minority worked together to come up with a fair bill that reflected what ‘Most Canadians’ really wanted, then that is fair and the democratic system working for Canadians. But, to change the bill after it has been agreed upon, to satisfy only 40% of the population….. well, that seems undemocratic to me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnanimation
03:48 PM on 02/16/2012
When they say 'all' Canadians they are referring to those residing between the borders of BC and Saskatchewan.
08:38 AM on 02/16/2012
Get rid of the comittee with human rights experts on the panel? What sense does that make? It's already been shown by the online surveilance bill that they don't have a clear grasp on reality. Why would we ever want to give that power to a lone politician. The comittee was a way to make sure a ministers bias or racism isn't alllowed to make the decision.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
10:22 AM on 02/16/2012
There will always be bias no matter who is doing it. Some bias is more acceptable than others. Those that have the majority have less bias since there. Are fewer people to express descent.
11:03 AM on 02/16/2012
What do you mean by this? Which biases or prejudices are more acceptable, and acceptable to whom? Saying that majorities have less bias because there are fewer people to express dissent (that's the word you want) makes little sense and just means that it's easier to oppress minorities. The reason that we have separation of the government and the judiciary, and try to maintain an impartial civil service, is to protect minorities from the prejudices or biases of the majority.
07:45 AM on 02/16/2012
We have to keep bogus claimants out," the source said. "How is it the U.S. had 47 claims in 2009 and 2010 while Canada had 4,700 claims in the same time period?"

""" Over 95 per cent of these claimants abandon or withdraw their own claims."""

if they withdraw their claims -----isnt that an admission inviting automatic deportation