Madam Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act calls for a new entity to be created within the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, namely the refugee appeal division.
In his appearance before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when the bill was being studied in 2001, former IRB head Peter Showler stated the following.
The vast majority of protection decisions will be made by a single member... It is true that claimants will no longer enjoy the benefit of the doubt currently accorded them with two-member panels... However, any perceived disadvantage is more than offset by the creation of the refugee appeal division, the RAD, where all refused claimants and the minister have a right of appeal on RPD decisions.
In April 2002, it was announced that creation of the appeal division was delayed by system overload. The minister of the day had apparently promised at the May 2002 annual general meeting of the Canadian Council for Refugees that he would be putting it in place in less than a year.
On May 9, 2002, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees wrote to the minister of the day, indicating that an appeal procedure was vitally important.
I am writing to convey UNHCR's deep disappointment, following your recent decision to postpone indefinitely the creation of the Refugee Appeal Division at the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The HCR representative in Canada also said:
It is particularly important for states to demonstrate not only their determination to combat abuse and to address security concerns, but also their commitment to the protection of refugees.
Minister Volpe keeps saying that the Canadian immigration system is one of the best in the world. Yet, his government's relentless refusal to implement this appeal division has been condemned by the Canadian Council for Refugees, the UNHCR and Amnesty International.
The Refugee appeal division is indispensable for the smooth functioning of the Canadian refugee determination system for many reasons. In the interests of efficiency, a specialized appeal division is a much better use of scarce resources than recourse to the Federal Court, which is not at all specialized in refugee matters. It would be much better placed to correct errors of law and fact. In the interests of consistency of law, an appeal division deciding on the merits of the case is the only body able to ensure consistency of jurisprudence. In the interests of justice, as in matters of criminal law, a right to appeal to a higher tribunal is essential for the proper administration of justice.
In December 2004, the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Jean-Guy Fleury said:
It would require initial start up costs of an estimated $2 million in addition to $8 million in annual operating costs.
Let me say that should the government decide to act on the RAD, we would be ready, with sufficient new resources.
In other words, neither costs nor technical difficulties are an impediment to the establishment of an appeal division. The only thing lacking, despite all opinions to the contrary, is the minister's political will.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration claims that the existing system contains a number of appeal mechanisms. That is not the case. There are mechanisms for reviewing decisions, but none to reassess the facts submitted in support of claims.
The organization KAIROS noted:
A United Nations committee says Canada failed Mexican torture survivor Falcon Rios ... The UN Committee Against Torture blamed the failure on Canada's lack of an effective appeal process for rejected refugees.
In Canada, you can appeal a traffic ticket, but you can't appeal a decision that could send you back to death in the country you fled when you put your trust in us.
These were recent statements by Mary Corkery, the executive director of KAIROS.
The Bloc Québécois supports this statement. We call on the minister to put the appeal division promised three years ago in place immediately. The mechanism is provided in the law. The House approved it. Only the minister fails to see the need and the urgency of implementing it.