Citizenship and Immigration committee  To answer your question as best I can about who would be penalized, in my opinion this would re-enter the port-of-entry note type of problem into the system. People who could be very vulnerable, unable to talk about their experiences, would then have some notes that followed them

Citizenship and Immigration committee  In any case, as we have said, we see no justification in doing away with the possibility of making claims on humanitarian grounds. If it was really necessary, it would at least be better to open the door to those who have abandoned their refugee claims. In any case, we cannot see

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Absolutely. We have nothing against public servants, but we believe that the pool of candidates should not be limited to them. Furthermore, it should be merit-based, whether we are talking about an official, a community worker, a lawyer or an academic. It should be completely bas

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I would definitely agree. I have to say, frankly, that it's hard to imagine that the system, as it's presented, could work. There are just so many question marks that we have. What is the purpose of the eight-day interview? How would it be done? But let's say it did go ahead. T

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think I understand your question better now. In terms of who would be penalized by the eight-day interview, there's been a whole experience over the years with what's called port-of-entry notes, where a refugee arrives at the border, or at the airport, and has a short interview

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'd like to say, even whether or not it's a point of order, that we do not know the purpose, so if that isn't it...

Citizenship and Immigration committee  If you're referring to the pre-removal risk assessment and to the H and C, the pre-removal risk assessment does not work very well. We certainly are much happier with a refugee appeal division that works than with the pre-removal risk assessment. That's an excellent trade-off in

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I don't think we quite understand the question.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  If there is a desire to streamline or to accelerate things, we think that access to an appeal is perhaps one of the worst ways. The refugee appeal division would be designed to correct errors, so it seems to make no sense to cut out a step that is there to correct errors and to e

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes, it is definitely vulnerable to abuse. We agree totally. We're not starting from the Garden of Eden here. The system does have problems, and they need to be addressed. One of them, as the government has pointed out, is the extremely long wait for refugee claims. The longer

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Do you mean the present reforms?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Well, there are some positive things. Since 2001, when IRPA was passed, we and many others have been saying that there should be a refugee appeal division. We congratulate the government for finally introducing that. In terms of the delays, we think eight days and 60 days are r

Citizenship and Immigration committee  A 28-day period seems reasonable to us, as I mentioned earlier. From my experience, it does not suit everyone but it is nevertheless reasonable. We cannot understand what was behind the idea of one week. As far as the hearing is concerned, I think that some people are ready withi

Citizenship and Immigration committee  As a starting point, by default, yes. I think that most claimants and rights advocate groups would be very satisfied with such a timeframe. We know some Haitians, for example, who wait two years before getting a hearing, whereas their family is in the street in Port-au-Prince. A

Citizenship and Immigration committee  It is not a bad idea, but at the end of the day, if the resources are not available, it will be a phantom timeframe.