Citizenship and Immigration committee  There are a few things. The fact that we don't have a RAD now, eight years after it was passed, is a problem. It's been a problem for the last eight years, and it's been a problem before we even got the RAD. Lack of an appeal continues to be an issue. The fact that this bill proposes to have it there for most is great, but the justification for denying access to a full appeal on the basis of a presumption of safety in a country, in our submission, is unfair.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  We have a problem with this provision because we have no idea what it means. Right now there is a huge amount of power being given to the minister to designate parts of countries, classes of people, and particular countries, without our having any sense of what the criteria are.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's the kind of thing that comes back to bite you later, but I frankly can't imagine a committed human rights organization or individual participating in a process like that. The basic legal principle is individual assessments of the merits of the claim, so as soon as you have a human rights organization participating in the designation of entire countries--

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Right. One would hope Human Rights Watch wouldn't do this either, because, again, it goes contrary to the basic principle of individualized assessments. It would require that they buy into the idea that there is a country that is safe for everybody and that they are in a position to know.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Right. Again, there are ways that we could try to mitigate some of the harm. Maybe you could work on criteria that became so clear and so difficult to pass that very few countries would actually succeed. You could try to set up some committee that was at arm's length to do it. But the basic principal is—

Citizenship and Immigration committee  No, and I think there would be serious questions about the credibility of any human rights organization willing to take on that role.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The length of time is okay, but the question about whether or not you're giving the individual refugee a chance to tell their own story is a separate issue. It kind of defeats the purpose. So let's say rather than eight days without counsel, you could have 28 days and you have a right to counsel.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm not big on the status quo, but, generally speaking, I think the 28-day written PIF is okay. So maintain what we have and set up a process. Invest the resources and maintain a full complement of decision-makers so that you can actually have hearings quickly. Do it within roughly six months, with an opportunity to do it faster if a claimant says they've got their evidence and are ready to go, or an adjournment if they're still waiting for their evidence.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Again, I wouldn't say it's appropriate to put timelines on the act. They're not right now, so I imagine they still wouldn't be. I think having a target of four months, with the possibility of getting an adjournment if the claimant for good reason isn't ready, is probably workable, with adequate legal aid, obviously.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you. No, I would say that no country is safe all the time for everybody. The basic principle of refugee determination right now in Canada is that every claim gets decided on its individual merits. You explain why you are at risk and you have an independent expert adjudicator decide whether or not there's a basis for that claim, whether or not you need protection.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think that's a fair analysis. From my perspective, reading this bill, and looking at the overall process here, it's been drafted by someone who has never sat down and worked with refugees to get a clear sense of how the system works, who has dealt one on one with refugees to hear their stories.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes, I do, thank you. A number of years ago, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International, the Canadian Council of Churches, and John Doe brought a case in the Federal Court challenging the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement. As you know, and as Mr. Coderre knows, in the act right now there's a clear provision saying that you can only designate a country as safe if....

Citizenship and Immigration committee  With respect to the question of eight days, we have a few problems with the very idea of an official at the IRB collecting the claim, as opposed to the person putting forward their own claim in their own words. So in our submission, it shouldn't exist. There should be no interview at the IRB within eight days.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you for this opportunity to address some of the concerns of the Refugee Lawyers Association of Ontario. We are a voluntary association of about 200 refugee lawyers who practise solely or primarily in the area of refugee law. As refugee lawyers, we have a number of very serious concerns about this bill.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Excellent. Given the limited time available, I've decided to focus my comments today on the very specific issue of that initial eight-day interview, in part because I believe it won't be addressed all that much by some of the other advocates or in the discussion of some of the other issues, including H and C applications and the safe country of origin list that are also of grave concern to us.