Canada has a crying need for a revamped refugee-determination system, and it is to the credit of the Conservative government that in a minority Parliament it has crafted a bold set of proposals that are fair and respect due process, while also seeking to deter those who would play this country for fools.
It is ludicrous that the average period to hear a claim and send a failed claimant home is 4.5 years. It is a not very funny joke that one failed claimant, Harjit Singh of India, managed to stay 17 years after his claim was rejected, while his many appeals were heard. It is absurd that democratic countries such as the United States, Costa Rica and Hungary regularly make it among the top 10 source countries for refugee claimants – even as refugees languish in United Nations-designated camps, unable to benefit from Canada's protection.
The main thrust of the proposed law is sensible. A full hearing within a short time; a tougher line on claimants from democracies; the creation of a professional corps of adjudicators; a delay in some appeal rights; and a carrot worth up to $2,000 in relocation support (paid through an agency in the homeland) to persuade failed claimants to take the hint. On top of all that, resettling an extra 2,500 people mostly from refugee camps, bringing the total in this category to 14,500 a year, ensures that more of the desperately needy can get a fresh start in Canada.
People from democracies do not need the elaborate appeals that give legitimate refugees a bad name, and which invite economic migrants to try to get a foot in the back door, rather than queue up in the immigration line. (They will still be entitled to ask for judicial review at Federal Court; they won't benefit from a separate level of appeal, to the refugee board's appeal division.) Much of Europe uses similar limits on safe-country claimants. Canada needs to ensure, though, that the rules around safe countries are flexible enough to take into account rapidly changing conditions and the position of vulnerable minorities. It appears inclined to do so.
The proposed new system's success will depend on whether the bureaucracy at all stages of the process is prepared to make it work. Will the bureaucrats delay or evade decisions, as they are wont to do? Judges, too, could derail the changes; they should keep in mind that their decisions will have enormous financial consequences for taxpayers and that no perfect system is achievable.
Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney may yet need to go further to deter abusers and tighten appeal procedures. No doubt individuals who would abuse Canadian generosity will dig out new ways to do so. The government will need to respond quickly, as holes are poked in the new system.
It has long been a truism that the Supreme Court's 1985 decision in the Singh case – that claimants are entitled to a hearing, and to know the government's case against them – forever yoked this country to a costly and unworkable system. Costly it will still be, but Mr. Kenney should be congratulated for trying to prove the truism wrong.
