Citizenship and Immigration committee  In my judgment, I think it's important to differentiate the time of detention and the process of review. In my judgment, as I said in my initial remarks, if you look at the security provisions in section 82, even for people who are alleged to be terrorists there is a detention re

Citizenship and Immigration committee  My response to you is that clearly the bill identifies this as a serious problem. You have people who come to Canada who use the refugee system, and it's tied up in knots for years. At the end of the day, even if they are turned down, they have access to humanitarian rights appli

Citizenship and Immigration committee  In my judgment, legitimate refugee claimants who have legitimate claims would not abandon or withdraw their claims. Why would they if they are seeking protection? Clearly, it's in the criteria that show that the claim is not legitimate in the first place. A system that deters the

Citizenship and Immigration committee  In my judgment, people are people. They should be receiving the same treatment. Canada is a very generous country, and I don't think we should be going down that road, to vilify refugee claimants or people. It would be a mistake to try to do that. Whether we're Canadians or perma

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I will respond to that first, and I'll leave my colleagues to respond as well. If the case is meritorious, clearly you should have a system whereby their determination is made as quickly as possible by the appropriate tribunal. If you cloud the system up with people who do not

Citizenship and Immigration committee  In my judgment, that is the sort of fundamental aspect of what I've been presenting. The idea is to devote as many resources as possible so we can get the legitimate refugee claimants out of the system as fast as possible, because they don't deserve to be stuck in there. We need

Citizenship and Immigration committee  In my judgment, the criteria are sufficient. The process of designating the country, or part of it, or a group of nationals is not adequate. As I indicated in my previous remarks, a process akin to regulatory changes allowing for public comment as a pre-publication in the Gazette

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Are you directing your remarks to me?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  All right. Sometimes I wonder. No, I don't think it would be. If they make out a successful refugee claim, they're certainly not queue jumpers. However, they have chosen to utilize the services of people smugglers. There has to be some kind of deterrence mechanism to prevent the

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes, because more resources would be devoted to that system. They would have the benefit of RAD as well; therefore, the Immigration and Refugee Board would be able to catch those mistakes because they have the power to substitute decision-making. Where there are mistakes made at

Citizenship and Immigration committee  In my judgment, they are fair in terms of the criteria. Where I have a problem is that the minister is proposing to simply issue an order that will be published in the Gazette. In my judgment, that's not sufficient. The approach to designated countries of origin should be akin t

Citizenship and Immigration committee  First of all, it's an access system for everyone. Everyone accesses it, whether they have manifestly founded claims or manifestly unfounded claims. You have a system that goes through a refugee determination process at the first instance, which would occur here. The only differen

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes. I stand by that statement.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes. In my judgment it is, as long as the minister follows transparent criteria. There are countries—Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand—where they have similar systems to ours. They have similar refugee determination systems to ours. Claimants from those countries

Citizenship and Immigration committee  It should improve the process because you're eliminating the avenue in terms of recourse to the Federal Court, in the sense that you're limiting them to the Federal Court. They don't have access to RAD. You've removed the regulatory stay provisions. People who lose their refuge