The Canadian Arab Federation is the national organization serving Arab Canadians. Since 1967, we've advocated on a wide range of topics. However, our 500,000 Arab Canadians have a special interest in Bill C-11.
We come from a part of the world that is generating a lot of refugees and we have a special interest in this legislation. There are six areas that I want to touch on with regard to the specific concerns we have about Bill C-11.
We would point out that not all aspects of the proposed changes are negative. For example, the Canadian Arab Federation applauds the inclusion of provisions for appeals on the basis of merit and also more timely hearings for refugees.
However, there are also very disturbing changes embedded in the legislation. As the lives of refugees are at stake, these aspects require special attention today.
Of the six points to touch on, the first is with regard to the interview at the Immigration and Refugee Board. A fair and expeditious process for assessing the refugee claimants is a common goal; however, “fair” and “expeditious” are not alternative choices.
The requirement for refugee claimants to give details of their claim at an information gathering interview within eight days of a claim being referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board is insufficient and prejudicial to legitimate claimants.
Refugees undergo traumatic and gruelling processes to arrive in Canada. They will understandably require more time than is contemplated in the legislation just to recover from their odyssey. In addition, they legitimately need to consult legal counsel prior to presenting their narrative. Legal aid certificates often require longer than the eight-day period allotted just to be issued.
The initial interview requirement undermines due process, so we say that the initial interview should be deleted from the legislation.
The second point is with regard to the hearing date scheduling. The present scheduling of hearings is profoundly problematic. Refugee claimants should not have to wait years to have their claim adjudicated; however, many refugees will necessarily require more than the 60 days allotted under the legislated to prepare their case.
Evidence of persecution may be difficult to obtain from dysfunctional parts of the world. States that generate larger numbers of refugees are often the very states that are most oppressive and chaotic. In addition, even evidence gathered in Canada, such as medical or psychological assessments and reports, may take much longer to be produced than the 60 days being contemplated in the legislation.
The right to an expeditious hearing should be clearly stated in the legislation. However, hearings should generally be scheduled on the basis of when they are ready to proceed, with long-term time limits setting out maximum time limits.
The third item is with regard to the first instance decision-makers. The move away from an Immigration and Refugee Board that is uploaded with political appointees is a welcome measure; however, limiting the decision-makers of first instance to civil servants will undermine the objectivity of the refugee process. A process that handles appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board without political interference or partisan consideration would be a welcome measure. Decision-makers should be appointed for fixed terms and qualified candidates, both from inside and from outside the civil service, should be considered for this role.
Number four is with regard to designated countries of origin. Provisions under the legislation that would enable the minister to designate countries of origin would unnecessarily politicize and undermine the integrity of the refugee determination process. Such determinations also violate international law by discriminating on the basis of country of origin.