Thank you, sir.
To continue with my appeal here about the safe country of origin, we believe the objective should be to prevent the problem of unfounded refugee claims before they are filed, by developing a pre-screening procedure. Safe country designation is simply not a solution. We believe that each applicant should be given equal right to access the law and be treated equally, regardless of the country of origin.
On the refugee appeal division, if an asylum claim is denied, most clients will be eligible to appeal the decision to the new refugee appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Appeals will be decided by the governing council appointees at the Immigration and Refugee Board. This appeal will review the original decision and in certain cases any new evidence. Since the time to prepare for the information-gathering interview and for the hearing is so short, the refugee appeal division must review all documentation from the original hearing and must hear any new evidence the applicant has to present. It must not be just for certain cases but for all cases.
We agree that the new measures that will amend the existing system must be fast and cost-effective. However, they must be fair. Pre-removal risk assessments may be crucial and very important for some applicants whose cases are rejected, but this clause may overwhelm the current system and cost more for taxpayers. That is not a well-designed solution.
Thank you, sir. I especially appreciate your giving us extra time.
Thank you, committee members.