I come from the opposite point of view. I think the whole refugee system, as it stands today, as it was created in 2002, is completely dysfunctional and out of control. It has been an opening for abuse and a point of entry for many of the terrorist groups that have been well established in Canada.
I think the whole system has to be completely reformed. Just adding a refugee appeal division to a dysfunctional system will make a bad system worse.
Some of you are shaking your heads. By the way, half my practice is devoted to refugee claimants, and I do find that the Federal Court is more than adequate to deal with appeals. I've done well at the Federal Court, as you can see. My Federal Court decisions are in the biography that I provided.
My solution would be, number one, appoint more Federal Court judges who specialize in immigration matters. I have more faith in a Federal Court judge who has been vetted for his experience and expertise than in a patronage appointment to another appeal level.
There are already sufficient appeals for failed refugee claimants, as you can find on page 4 of my presentation. If a refugee claimant fails, he may go to the Federal Court. If he decides not to go to Federal Court, he will have a pre-removal risk assessment. If that is denied, he can go to Federal Court again.
At any time during this whole process, a refugee claimant can apply for permanent resident status from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and if that is denied, he can go back to Federal Court.
This can go on for years, as you've noticed from many notable cases of people who came as refugee claimants and did not depart from Canada. For example, there's the case of Mugusera. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada deemed Leon Mugusera, the exiled ethnic Hutu hard-liner, a war criminal and ordered him deported for helping incite the genocide that ravaged Rwanda. He was a failed refugee claimant from 1995, and guess where he still is? In Canada.
I have a list. I'm not going to read the names to you; you can see them for yourselves. These are failed refugee claimants who are either war criminals, terrorists, or criminals, who are still here years after they made their original refugee claim.
I would suggest that one of the major reforms that could be made is having a list of safe countries of origin whose citizens simply would not be allowed to have refugee claims—for example, the European Union. There are 27 countries. The European Union is much like the United States. Every citizen in each of those 27 countries has the right to work and live in one of the other 26 countries.
Let's take, for example, the Czech Roma. If they are having difficulties in the Czech Republic, they have a choice of 26 other countries in which to live or work. There is no need for Canada to accept any refugee claims—I don't mean “accept” as a positive decision, but to even process them—from the European Union. Or how about Switzerland? Or the United States? There should be a list of safe countries of origin.
Would you like to continue doing that, sir? It's rather impolite.
I would also suggest that a refugee protection officer be at every hearing to vet all the cases beforehand. I believe that is important. And if there is a problem with fairness or lack of consistency at the refugee board, perhaps the government should have civil servants rather than patronage appointments. Patronage appointments don't always ensure that you have the best person on the refugee board.
That's all I have to say for now. Thank you.