Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's what we were just looking at. I have some raw statistics here, but I'd have to try to figure out the percentage in my head, and my math isn't the best. But we can safely say that the percentage is 1% to 3% across Canada. Since it was one of your members who just handed t

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Virtually all refused refugees do ask for the pre-removal risk assessment. I would think it's in the high 90%. Although perhaps some feel it is safe to return to their country, for the most part, if people are asking for refugee status, it's because they believe it's unsafe. Bu

Citizenship and Immigration committee  No, not so far. It's our understanding that CIC is doing an assessment of PRRA, which will be carried out mainly in March, and that they will be consulting NGOs, including Amnesty International—as far as I know—and the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Are you talking about the pre-removal risk assessment?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Between about 1% and 3%, I believe.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  We have actually just been given some statistics. In British Columbia, it seems to be about 3%; in the prairies, less than 1%; Ontario, 1%; and Quebec, 1%—although we have heard that the national total is 3%. It seems to be between 1% and 3% everywhere. There's no place where it'

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes. Right now when somebody receives an Immigration and Refugee Board decision, a negative decision, they have the option of filing at Federal Court for judicial review, although about 90% of them are not even granted permission to have a hearing. Some of them have excellent ca

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The objectives of the two programs are different. But if you were to say, this is what my government is going to put forward, institute the RAD, put PRRA at the IRB, and have the IRB also decide H and Cs, I think we could live with it.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I realize that we may end up agreeing to disagree, but the criteria for the Federal Court intervening on credibility or issues of fact is that the finding of the decision-maker was manifestly unreasonable. Those are the words that--

Citizenship and Immigration committee  But the thing they're looking at, whether it's credibility or fact, the standard that is used, the notional standard, is that of manifestly unreasonable as opposed to correctness. If it were an actual appeal, the Federal Court would say it doesn't believe the decision-maker has m

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I don't believe it needs to be narrowed, but I believe there would be virtually no incentive for refused claimants to turn to the Federal Court, and the caseload would be drastically reduced.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I don't plead national security cases. I know they have no access to actual evidence and the possibility of cross-examining or testing it. I can't really say more.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I can't say, no.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  What was that?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I would say that if the appeal division were to be implemented in the way it was first presented--which was that you go to the IRB, you get a negative decision, you go on appeal, you win or you lose--if you lose, you no longer get a stay of all removal proceedings from the time y