Citizenship and Immigration committee  As I expressed, there is a general rule that is the basis of the 1961 convention. I remind you that in the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness, the general rule is that no action of the state should render a person stateless—no action in terms of accepting renunciation when we allow persons to renounce citizenship or revocation of citizenship.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  In UNHCR there is no definition of armed conflict. UNHCR is the organization that deals with the humanitarian consequence of refugee situations. In this particular case, there's also a specific mandate for the prevention and reduction of statelessness. There are other instruments, there are other conventions, there are other solutions in international law that deal with the issues of war, and there are definitions of war crimes in the statutes of the International Criminal Court, but these are areas that do not pertain to the mandate of UNHCR.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  As I put it in my recommendation, making this bill consistent with the provision of the 1961 convention by deleting the words “or a legal resident” would be enough because that is the part that impacts on the risks of creating statelessness.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Tilson. Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for inviting me to participate in the debate on Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I haven't said that; I'm sorry. I don't know about numbers in that respect very well. I am saying that all applications have to be studied on their merit. There may be a number; I wouldn't know exactly the number. But I also want to say that there are situations in all countries, including EU countries, that may warrant valid asylum claims.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes. I was speaking earlier about the importance of the durability of solutions. Of course, if someone arrives in Canada, especially as a resettled refugee but also as a claimant, and receives his permanent residency, it should be durable. However, I also understand that the minister, here in this committee a few days ago, recognized that this will not be applicable to refugees only on the basis of changed circumstances in the country of origin.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes, the analysis of the pre-removal risk assessment should be conducted in a timely manner to ensure that those protection needs that are not captured within the refugee process may be found within the PRRA, or the pre-removal risk assessment. It's a safeguard.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Do you mean after 12 months? We are thinking that not having an appeal, or a review phase, is a problem. Without a review phase, the pre-removal risk assessment is a safeguard in the process. If there were a review process, of course, the pre-removal risk assessment would be less important.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm sorry I haven't brought with me ExCom 44, which I would have read in that regard. But I have quoted it before, saying that detention is permissible; that it's possible to include a detention phase at the beginning of the process in order to exactly meet those concerns that you are referring to.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Of course, in a sense case by case, every case has to be seen within its own merit and within its own study. Of course, I know there is this element of this large number of people coming from EU countries. The other thing I want to say is the refugee definition is universal in nature.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The designation, as I said, is a procedural tool and can help if it facilitates the process in terms of identifying needs, in terms of facilitating the processing. What we need to avoid is the designation infringing on established rights. I believe that it is most important to avoid mandatory detention, because I understand, without being an expert on your national legislation, that there is already the capacity and the possibility of maintaining people in detention.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think that, of the people who arrived by boat two years ago, very few are still in detention for obvious legitimate reasons, and, if they are in detention, it's because the law allows that. So we were just wondering if that would be enough for lifting this provision from the bill.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  On timelines, we appreciate—and I want to say it—the government's efforts to create a more efficient system in the processing of asylum claims. This is reasonable and legitimate. We also support implementation of efficient timelines. Of course, the issue is what are efficient and what are adequate timelines.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I have to say that I had the pleasure to meet Mr. Elcock a few months ago during my introductory meetings, having arrived in this country in my function only last August. I found the meeting and the discussion with him extremely interesting and really stimulating. I remember Mr.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I can probably refer to the Bali process, to the establishment of the regional support office, to the encouragement that we are giving Canada in terms of joining the Bali process, and to all that process that is going on. I can't really be more specific than that, because I was not personally part of that thing, but I do remember this very well during our meeting with Mr.