Citizenship and Immigration committee  Further to what Peter said, the reality is that in cases involving refugee claims, what constitutes legitimate persecution and what doesn't is often very subjective. If you make a nice little silo, you could say that you have to make it within the refugee claim. But the refugee decision-maker could say that really isn't persecution, it's really something else, and it should be decided within the context of the H and C.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think the question was why they're trying to restrict it. From what I understood from officials, I think their belief is that if you make a refugee claim, you should have a determination through the refugee stream, and the H and C should deal with everything that isn't in the refugee stream.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The safe third country agreement is the one we have with the United States. All it does is provide that people who come to Canada through the United States and can make a claim in that country should make their claim in the United States and not in Canada. They're not being denied a right to claim; they're being told that because the United States is a country that Canada has determined respects human rights and gives a fair refugee determination, they should make the claim in the United States.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think Professor Showler and I are in agreement. We both took the same position. The raw material is there, but if it's not amended, we'll be worse off than we are now.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes. Like Mr. Showler, I gave qualified support publicly to the bill when it was introduced, because I believed that it was a good start. Having said that, I agree with Mr. Showler that if changes aren't made to the bill in its current form, the bill will create serious problems.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  On the member's question about the fees, whatever the fees would be for a RAD, it would be a lot less than a Federal Court application, which is much more complex and time-consuming. I would suggest to you that the claimants would be better served by a RAD because they would have access to a less expensive appeal process.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  All the things we stated are things that could be done without legislative change. That's the reason we suggested all these things. Obviously, if you do legislative changes you can do lots more, but you can create a fair, efficient system, implement the RAD, and not have to make any legislative changes.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  It is very important, in response to what the member was saying, to state that all of us who work as lawyers are frustrated by the delays and inefficiencies in the system and we all want to make a positive contribution to make the system work more fairly. That's why, when Mr. Boulakia and I talked about the RAD, we're not talking about the RAD in isolation.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes. There's no doubt that the H and C doesn't stop deportation. You could do the same thing with reopenings at the RAD, as Raoul said. The reason you need to have the power for reconsideration is that there are often long delays between the decision and the removal, and things can change.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Let me make a few real important points. You don't have to change IRPA and you could achieve pretty much everything you've said. First of all, if you implement the RAD, you could, in the regulations, give the RAD the power to reopen. Let's say there was a decision. If new evidence became available or there was a passage of say a year between the decision and removal, the person would have a right to apply to the RAD in writing.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Forgive me for having to speak in English. I understand French but it is difficult for me to speak it. I just want to respond to one thing. It's this whole idea of numerous appeals and things like that. This goes back to the whole idea that a failed refugee has a lot of options open to him.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The concern is that the RAD is creating another level, but I think the RAD could be implemented in a way that wouldn't take a lot of time and it could be efficient. The difference between the RAD and the Federal Court is that the Federal Court judges are sitting in what's called judicial review.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you. Mr. Boulakia and I chatted, but I didn't have an opportunity to talk to Ms. Taub before she came in. What I'm going to do is talk in general about the principles and Mr. Boulakia is going to have some specific comments. The issue of refugee determination and having a fair system has been debated and I've been part of the debate since 1977, that I can remember.

Finance committee  As I said, as long as there's no.... I regret that I don't speak French. If I did, I would embarrass you, so I'll speak English. As long as the legislation does not put clear limits, the discretion of the minister, as it now stands, is not fettered, and it would allow the minister to make changes that could affect the agreement with Quebec.

Finance committee  The only point I want to make is that the concern we all have here is about giving the minister such broad, unfettered discretion. In our view it's not acceptable. The minister should be accountable to Parliament. There should be pre-publication, pre-debate, be it an instruction or a regulation.