Good evening.
We have proposed six recommendations that pertain to four areas of concern in the bill. Our concerns pertain to the following areas: unequal treatment based on origin, access to fair and equitable procedures that take into account the difficulties encountered by refugee claimants, and access to humanitarian and compassionate applications.
The bill provides for the creation of a list of “safe countries of origin”. Nationals of these countries will have no right to appeal a negative decision by the Refugee Protection Division.
Implementation of this policy is particularly problematic, as the concept of “safe third country” leads to different treatment of the refugee protection claim based on the claimant's geographic origin. That is contrary to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which requires that states parties not discriminate on the basis of race, religion or country of origin.
In fact, the British courts have condemned decisions made by the government because of violations of the principle of non-refoulement, the right to family life or privacy. They have further stated that the Home Secretary could not rely on the mere fact that the third party has signed the Geneva Convention as a basis for finding it safe: he must make sure that the country is acting in good faith and compliance with its international obligations.
Given the time, I will cut my presentation short. My first recommendation is that clause 109.1, which pertains to designated countries of origin, be removed from the bill.
I wish to raise another point. The bill provides that the first interview is to be conducted by public servants. Under subclause 169.1(2) in the bill, the members of the Refugee Protection Division are appointed under the Public Service Employment Act. Again, this is an amendment modelled on the British system, where immigration officers conduct the initial interview, which is a crucial stage at which claims are screened. These officials do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality, and this is a source of concern in view of the government's political objectives. In the United Kingdom, some observers have expressed their concerns regarding the qualifications and training of these officers and the broad powers they are given.
This is why we are recommending that subclause 169.1(2) in the bill be replaced with a new subclause that will provide that the members of the Refugee Protection Division are appointed by the chair of the IRB from a pool of highly-qualified candidates, based on the recommendations of a selection committee and in accordance with the criteria provided in the act. We are recommending that it also be specified that the members may be public servants.