Such determinations also violate international law by discriminating on the basis of country of origin.
In addition, they carry with them the real spectre of endangering legitimate refugees by leaving undefined the terms of “safe countries of origin” and “safe” itself . Indeed, the criteria on which a country of origin could be listed as safe by the minister are non-existent. We understood from the earlier witnesses that this might be something to be defined very shortly through the regulations, but it is still not available to us at present.
Ultimately, the provision establishes a two-tiered refugee determination process. The designated countries of origin provision should be deleted from the legislation.
Fifth, the establishment of a refugee appeal division is a welcome measure. A genuine appeal process that allows for the inclusion of new evidence is long overdue. Indeed, the primary concern lies in the definition of “new” evidence. Historically, evidence that could be added to the record has been limited to “evidence not reasonably available” at the time of the hearing or initial adjudication.
This can be remedied by generalizing the concept of what new evidence can be added to the record on appeal. To achieve this objective, the legislation should be changed to make clear that all relevant additional evidence may be presented by a refugee claimant at an appeal.
Sixth, the barring of anyone from a pre-removal risk assessment unnecessarily creates a risk to refugee claimants. The Immigration and Refugee Board--not the office of the minister--is the correct venue for determinations as to whether or not a person can be removed without risk.
The legislation does not contemplate changing circumstances that could legitimately raise new issues of risk beyond those that existed at the time of initial adjudication. The pre-removal risk assessment restrictions should be removed and authority for administration of this provision should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
I should say finally, regarding the humanitarian and compassionate applications, that definitions of who is a refugee are narrowly defined and restricted in international and domestic law. Refugee claimant cases and situations are usually complex. There is often no simple way to compartmentalize legitimate refugees from persons who may also have legitimate cases that raise genuine humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
For example, a legitimate refugee claimant case may also independently raise issues of what is in the best interests of a child. Such a consideration would not be relevant to a refugee adjudication, but would be central to a humanitarian and compassionate application.
The arbitrary barring of refugee claimants from also accessing the humanitarian and compassionate application process will undermine Canadian values and law. The provisions in the legislation that bar access to humanitarian and compassionate applications for refugee claimants should be deleted and the administration of these applications should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Subject to your questions, that is the formal submission of the Canadian Arab Federation.