Good evening. My name is Sohabe Hashmi. I would like to describe a case that relates to the importance of providing claimants with appropriate legal counsel. I would like to bring to this committee's attention an extract from a report from the Canadian Council for Refugees:
Marie arrived in Canada with little formal education, unable to speak English or French. At her refugee hearing, she was confused by the questions and gave unsatisfactory answers. She was found not credible and her claim was denied. The full story only came out after the hearing. Marie had been gang-raped for three days in police detention in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The experience left her traumatized and terrified of people in authority. Her feelings of shame made her reluctant to discuss her experience of sexual violence. Marie was able to talk freely only after her lawyer had spent many hours gaining her trust. She had also by then begun counselling and had the support of a friend. Marie has applied for humanitarian and compassionate consideration and is waiting for a decision.
I would like to move to the subject that I'm bothered about in Bill C-11, which is the idea of the so-called safe country and unsafe country. By denying failed refugee claimants the ability for pre-removal risk assessment or humanitarian relief, we would be subjecting many refugees to potential danger, death, and other risks. Sweeping a problem under the rug for convenience is not the Canadian way. As Canadians we should never look for the easy way out. If Rashida or Noorunissa were sent back to India, they would have been subjected to possibly deadly violence, but definitely violence.
A so-called safe country may be safe indeed for the average Joe or Jane, but for the refugee claimant it isn't safe at all. Otherwise, they would not be applying as a refugee.