Good afternoon. We want to thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for giving us the opportunity to share our concerns about Bill C-11, which is very important to people seeking asylum in Canada. We have only one presentation, but Mr. Bossin will speak on behalf of the Canadian Anglophone Section of Amnesty International and I will speak on behalf of the Canadian Francophone Section.
Our joint document will be submitted to you in a few days. Today, we want to talk about two points we are particularly concerned about: the designation of safe countries of origin and the rush to hear refugee claimants.
Under Bill C-11, a refugee claimant would be interviewed eight days after arriving, and the hearing would be held 60 days later.
We agree that refugee claimants currently wait too long for a hearing and a decision. But speed should not be the overriding concern in the amended act. What is needed is an equitable process, and we are afraid that speeding up the process, which is what Bill C-11 would do, will lead to incorrect negative decisions that could violate Canada's international obligations and put refugee claimants' lives at risk.
Under the current system, refugee claimants have the time to complete the personal information form including their narrative, information on their education and work experience, the names of their family members, previous places of residence and so on. Even more importantly, claimants will have the time to prepare a detailed account of why they are claiming refugee status, with the help of a competent legal advisor who knows the law and what constitutes evidence.
Often, claimants have to obtain medical, legal, police and other documents from their country of origin and have them authenticated. They must also have those documents translated here. Sometimes they have to find an expert witness. All that takes time. In addition, a very human factor has to be taken into account, and that is that claimants who have suffered rape, sexual abuse or torture will not feel comfortable confiding in a stranger they just met, if they are lucky enough to find an advisor quickly. Disorientation is another factor that has to be taken into consideration. Someone who has been here for just eight days and does not speak the language may not understand much. And more often than not, that person also needs an interpreter.
In addition to the short time frame, we are concerned that the bill does not clearly describe the purpose of this initial interview. Is it for information gathering only, or is it a substantive interview? And the parameters of the second interview—the hearing—are not set out in legislation, but in the regulations or even just in internal procedural rules.
Our concerns about the initial interviews apply to the hearing as well. Our concerns are set out in more detail in the document that is to come. We have three recommendations on this point: do away with the initial interview as described in the bill; keep the personal information form or change it to make it simpler; add the case to the IRB schedule when the person is ready to proceed or within six months of the case referral.
Now, Mr. Bossin will share his concerns about designating safe countries of origin.