Thank you, Rivka.
Although the Table de concertation adds its voice to stakeholders such as the Canadian Council for Refugees, which feels that Bill C-31 is so flawed as to require replacement with more balanced legislation, in order to be constructive we will be focusing on the Refugee Appeal Division and post-claim recourses, and providing our observations and recommendations on that.
First of all, the importance of a Refugee Appeal Division has long been recognized. When Parliament adopted the IRPA in 2001, it contained a Refugee Appeal Division, which was supposed to be accessible to all. In Bill C-11, this was adopted. Of course the IRPA RAD was never implemented. It's also important to bear in mind that a number of international human rights agencies have pointed out the pertinence of a Refugee Appeal Division. Quoting from page 2 of our brief:
UNHCR considers an appeal procedure to be a fundamental, necessary part of any refugee status determination process. It allows errors to be corrected, and can also help to ensure consistency in decision-making. Canada, Italy, and Portugal are the only industrialized countries which do not allow rejected asylum seekers the possibility to have first-instance decisions reviewed on points of fact as well as points of law. In the past, a measure of safeguard was provided by the fact that determinations could be made by a two-member panel, with the benefit of the doubt going to the applicant in case of a split decision. With the implementation of IRPA on June 28th, 2002, this important safeguard will be lost.
Likewise, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has stated:
Given that even the best decision-makers may err in passing judgment, and given the potential risk to life which may result from such an error, an appeal on the merits of a negative determination constitutes a necessary element of international protection.
I'm going to look now at the restrictions on the RAD under Bill C-31. There are four major restrictions, which I'll look at in turn.
First of all, let's consider asylum seekers from designated countries of origin. These claimants will have super-fast-tracked hearings to be held as soon as 30 days after their arrival. This will make it difficult or impossible for them to prepare their case adequately, get documentary proof of persecution, obtain identity documents, or even to secure legal counsel, not to mention overcoming the trauma of rape, sexual assault, or whatever else they may have been through. So the risks of human error in this situation are extremely high.
Second, there is the matter of arriving in Canada as part of an irregular arrival. This has no relation whatever to the merits of a refugee claim. In fact, from certain countries the only way to get out is with false documents. Passport offices may not be functioning or a genuine refugee may not get a passport. If two or more such persons arrive together, if any group arrives together with the assistance of a smuggler, they can be designated an “irregular arrival”. “Group” is not defined in the act, so it could be as few as two people, as far as we can tell. There's no logical basis for a presumption that a group of such claimants coming from, say, Iran, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Somalia are making abusive claims that do not merit a right of appeal.
Third, there are persons who have claimed asylum at the Canada-U.S. border already, under the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement. Very few refugees can enter at the border and make an asylum claim. There are a few exceptions. The main exception that remains today is to have a family member in Canada. If somebody manages to enter at the border and claims asylum, he will also be subject to a restriction on his right of appeal. We really don't understand why this should be the case. As a matter of fact, in a briefing call that was held right after the introduction of Bill C-31, it was explained to us that the worst that could happen to these people is that they'd be returned to the States. Actually, that's an error. As of the expiry of the reciprocal agreement in October 2009, it's not possible to return them to the States. They would be sent directly to their country of alleged persecution, with no right of appeal. So this seems to be based entirely on an error.
With the fourth exception, “manifestly unfounded or no credible basis” claims, the above three exceptions kick in even before the claimant has been heard by the IRB.
This fourth exception only kicks in at the IRB itself. What can happen is a person who in principle has a right to appeal can have their hearing, and if the decision-maker says that the claim is manifestly unfounded or has no credible basis, they will lose their right to appeal. This strikes us as extremely perverse, because the decision-maker in effect can insulate himself or herself from review. In other words, if they make a small mistake and refuse a well-founded claim, it can go on appeal. If they make a big mistake and say that a well-founded claim is manifestly unfounded, it can't be reviewed.
It seems to us that all of these exceptions therefore violate basic principles of fairness and in some cases even logic.
It's also important to keep in mind that these same four categories will not have effective access to the Federal Court, because although it's possible for them to apply to the Federal Court, they will no longer benefit from a stay of removal. Therefore, they can be removed on day 31 or 61 and have no appeal, no access to the Federal Court in practical terms.
Other post-claim recourses are also being eliminated. The so-called pre-removal risk assessment, or PRA, wasn't a very good procedure, but this will be practically eliminated, because people will not have access for 12 months after refusal. The government has said it wants to remove people far faster than that, so practically speaking the PRA will be out the window.
Final recourse that is also effectively being eliminated is the humanitarian and compassionate recourse. This does not overlap with the refugee claim. It takes into account other things, such as gender-based discrimination, or other types of discrimination that do not rise to the level of persecution. It can also take into account best interests of the child, and so on. An exception is created in the law for humanitarian applications based on best interests of the child and medical considerations. However, no stay of removal is being provided for those cases. They can still be removed on day 31 or day 61. Consequently, as a result of these different exceptions to the RAD, there is the very unrealistic 15-day timeline for filing at the RAD. We can talk about that more.
This, along with the gutting of the other post-claims recourses, means that we may finally have a Refugee Appeal Division in Canada, and yet the majority of refused claimants will have absolutely no avenue to have their refusal reviewed.
Our recommendations are as follows. First of all, Bill C-31 should be withdrawn and replaced with fair and balanced legislation. On the specific topic of the Refugee Appeal Division, all claimants should have access to the RAD. The corresponding regulations should allow 45 days for filing and perfection of appeals to the RAD. The bar on filing of humanitarian and compassionate applications while a refugee claim is pending and for 12 months following a refusal should be removed. Humanitarian and compassionate applicants should benefit from an automatic stay of removal until such time as their humanitarian and compassionate applications are ruled upon.
Thank you.
