This is a fairly straightforward amendment. Once again it puts minimum timelines into effect for the production or submission of documents. It introduces a 30-day minimum for the basis of claim documents and 45 days minimum for appeals to the Refugee Appeal Board. We have heard from a number of witnesses on this issue.
On Monday, April 30, we heard from one of the witnesses of my colleagues across the way:
The one exception I have to supporting the Minister is that he is expecting faster decisions to accelerate the overall processing times on refugee claims. However, he is cutting 1,500 CBSA positions. This is counterproductive to an accelerated refugee processing time, because they're the intelligence gatherers. They're on the front line and meet the people when they come in. So how does he expect to expedite and accelerate the process if on the one hand he takes away the very officers who are supposed to help with the processing?
Also, Richard Goldman said the following:
We agree that somebody should not have to wait two years for a decision on their refugee claim.
Chair, this is where I think we have a lot of unanimity, from both the presenters and the people around this table. None of us has an interest in trying to prolong things. We want to speed things up.
Mr. Goldman went on to say:
However, we don't think you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Thirty days is too short. No appeal makes it impossible to correct errors.
We need to pay attention.
Then Chantal Desloges:
However, this 15 days, 30 days, 60 days, etc., is just completely unworkable. I'm telling you as an expert who has worked a lot in this system that it is set up to fail. It is impossible to work with. It's not only a problem for the claimant, it's not only a problem for the lawyer, but I can't even imagine what kind of a nightmare this will be for the Immigration and Refugee Board to have to make decisions within that kind of a framework. I don't know who in the department thought it would work, but I can assure you it will not work. Shortened timelines definitely are a good idea, but this kind of a shortened, accelerated timeline is just too much. It cannot work.
As far as I know, there is no new money going to the board. They're already having a hard time making decisions within the timeframe they have.
Then she goes on to say:
I guarantee you this system, if implemented, will not be faster, and I'll tell you why. People are going to be forced to postpone and adjourn claims at an unprecedented rate. And if those requests to postpone those cases are not granted, it's going to end up in the Federal Court and people will win, because it's a denial of natural justice if a person does not have a reasonable opportunity for counsel.
That is said so well, in the words of our witnesses, that I am not going to add another word.