Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. That is a particular salient message to bring in this committee because aside from our first peoples, of course, when we're discussing issues of immigration and refugee matters we all have a story that's rooted in migration.
Our remarks today will focus exclusively on clause 306 of the bill, which adds a ground of ineligibility for claims of refugee protection made to the refugee protection division of the IRB. I'd like to register our objection to the fact that the changes being proposed to Canada's refugee protection regime are in an omnibus bill. We salute this committee's decision nevertheless to examine this issue, but we're dismayed that we were not consulted prior to the tabling of this bill.
Over the course of my presentation, I would like to make three points. First, Amnesty International considers that Bill C-97is inconsistent with Canada's commitments under international law. Second, the bill will have the negative impact on Canadian refugee practice by creating a two-tier system of refugee protection. Finally, Canada must not rely on foreign protection regimes to uphold its international obligations.
With respect to the inconsistency in international law, Amnesty International is of the view that clause 306 of Bill C-97 is inconsistent with international refugee law because it constitutes an automatic barrier to the referral of a claim to Canada's refugee status determination system, the refugee protection division.
It operates without regard to when the prior claim was made; the status of the claim in the other country, whether it be finalized, accepted, rejected, withdrawn, etc.; the fairness of the refugee status determination process in the other country or whether there are other possible bona fide reasons for which a person may seek Canada's protection after having done so elsewhere. We consider that automatic bars to consideration of the asylum claims are not in conformity with the refugee convention.
The convention furthermore prohibits discrimination amongst refugees on the basis of race, religion or country of origin. While the measure in Bill C-97 does not discriminate on the basis of these grounds, it is arbitrary and discriminates on the basis of a claim having been filed in another country if that country happens to be Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom or the United States or any other country with which Canada signs an agreement.
We view this to be an analogous ground of discrimination to those covered in the refugee convention and thus a violation of the spirit if not the letter of that convention.
Second, there's the two-tier system. Amnesty International further opposes the measure Bill C-97 because it introduces a two-tier system of refugee protection. While some refugee protection claimants will have access to the robust status determination system in the Immigration and Refugee Board, others will only have access to the PRRA.
The UNHCR has previously expressed concerns about this:
Where access to the refugee determination procedure is denied, and claims referred to the PRRA for determination, there is the risk of creating a two-tier system, in which the protection risks of one class of asylum-seekers are assessed by the Immigration and Refugee Board, while those of another are assessed by CIC officials. This could affect both the efficiency of the system and consistency of decision-making.
The UNHCR handbook, reissued as recently as February 2019, says the same:
There should be a clearly identified authority—wherever possible a single central authority—with responsibility for examining requests for refugee status and taking a decision in the first instance.
Amnesty International supports that view, because the two-tier model results in important differences. I will cover them now.
The first is independence. While the IRB is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal, a PRRA officer is an employee of the IRCC. This new system would undermine the long-standing policy in Canada that claims for refugee protection are heard by an independent decision-maker.
Second is oral hearings. This is discretionary under the PRRA. However, even if an oral interview is afforded, it does not offer the same protections as an IRB hearing. The refugee claimant has no ability to call witnesses or to test the evidence upon which an officer is relying.
Third is appeals. Decisions of the RPD are appealed to the refugee appeal division, whereas appeals of the PRRA go to the Federal Court for judicial review. Both have different standards of review and, more importantly, while an appeal to the refugee appeal division results in an automatic stay of removal an application for judicial review does not.
Finally, Amnesty International is concerned that Bill C-97unduly relies on foreign refugee status determination systems where human rights abuses of refugee protection claimants are well documented. The U.S. provides an illustrative example.
In our 2018 report entitled “You Don’t Have Any Rights Here”, Amnesty International documented three categories of human rights violations that are being committed by the United States: illegal push-backs along the U.S.-Mexico border, family and child separations, and arbitrary and indefinite detention.
Since that report, there has been a slew of administration policies that fail to respect the rights of refugees. One will deny bond to persons seeking refugee protection until their claims are finalized, which we know can take years. Another would establish a general rule that disqualifies victims of gang violence and domestic abuse from refugee protection. Only last week, the Trump administration circulated a memorandum that intends to further dismantle the system of protection by having U.S. border guards, rather than asylum officers, consider those claims.
I'd now like to turn the floor over to my colleague, Marilynn, to provide a real-life example of the type of claim that will be affected if Bill C-97 becomes law.
