Thank you.
Mr. Boulakia and I chatted, but I didn't have an opportunity to talk to Ms. Taub before she came in. What I'm going to do is talk in general about the principles and Mr. Boulakia is going to have some specific comments.
The issue of refugee determination and having a fair system has been debated and I've been part of the debate since 1977, that I can remember. I guess I'm revealing a little bit about my age at this point.
I think it's important to go back to basic principles. The fundamental principle that any fair refugee determination system must have in Canada is that determinations must be made by independent members. I highlight this because there's some talk about having immigration officers make determinations at the border quickly. I would have very grave concerns about whether that would be acceptable under the charter, and it certainly wouldn't be acceptable as a basic principle of fairness.
The system has to be fair. There has to be some kind of independent review, and it has to be efficient. We know there have been serious criticisms about the efficiency of the current refugee determination system, which I'll address briefly, and I think Mr. Boulakia will have more comments.
The refugee appeal division was included in the legislation as a result of many years of complaints that the Federal Court was not a satisfactory review mechanism. The Federal Court is the court that sits on judicial review, and anyone who knows administrative law will understand the concept of deference, which is a legal conference that the Supreme Court of Canada has written huge amounts about. Based on that concept, a court sitting on judicial review owes deference to the tribunal below and can only intervene if the tribunal makes very obvious errors with respect to findings or has made clear errors of law.
Those of us who work in refugee determination are convinced that the Federal Court is not an adequate review mechanism, and it was for that reason we lobbied very hard for the creation of the refugee appeal division. The appeal division--and I know I've had extensive conversations with Peter Showler, who was the chair at the time when IRPA was introduced--can produce efficient and adequate review within a few months. Therefore the concern that it would add a layer and unreasonably extend the process is not, in my view, well founded.
Moreover, if we had a refugee appeal division, as was stated at the time, the fact that there is now an automatic stay of deportation while the Federal Court reviews the case could be reconsidered, because once there is a review on the merits by a second review panel at the refugee appeal division, having had two different reviews, one could argue that there is no need for there to be an automatic stay. It would still be open to the Federal Court to grant a stay if they thought it was necessary, but when the refugee appeal division was contemplated, that was part of the package that was going to go forward.
So by eliminating the automatic stay at the Federal Court and replacing it by a refugee appeal division, in essence, you're creating a process that is not going to be longer. The difficulties we've had to date with IRPA and the backlogs, in my view, are to a very large extent problems with respect to understaffing at the board.
To conclude my opening remarks, I want to emphasize that in my view the refugee appeal division, if it were implemented, would not unduly extend the process and it would create a fairer refugee determination system.
Importantly, there are other things that can be done without massive amendments to the law that would also create a fairer process. If the government today is concerned about efficiency, there are suggestions that many different people have made over time--and Mr. Boulakia is going to be talking about some of them--that could create a fairer system.
For example, just to give you one idea, we now have a PRRA, which is a very time-consuming process that uses a large amount of resources. A recent report suggested that we could do away with the PRRA and replace it with the refugee appeal division, the RAD. We introduced the PRRA because there is often a year or two between rejections and removals, and removals require reviews. But if the RAD had the power to reopen cases on fresh evidence, you could get rid of the PRRA, save a lot of money, and have a more efficient refugee determination process over the long term.