On March 30, the Minister of Immigration announced plans to enact the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, Bill C-11. This bill has passed second reading and is currently being examined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee. In my opinion, this Bill would prioritise removal of failed refugee claimants over ensuring a free and fair legal process. Given the massive impact that this bill is likely to have on our system I will be focusing a series of blog entries on different aspects of the legislation and how they will change our current system.
The issue that I will be examining in this entry is Section 15 of the bill which prohibits any individual from making a Pre-Removal Risk assessment Application (PRRA) if less than 12 months have passed since their refugee claim was rejected. The purpose of the PRRA application is to ensure that the Government does not remove an individual to a country where they will face torture or a risk to their life. The bill in its current form would remove this safeguard and facilitate faster removal of individuals whose refugee claims have been deemed unsuccessful.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigrations maintains that a one year ban on the PRRA is unnecessary because a timely risk assessment is conducted in the context of the refugee claim. There are a number of problems with this position.
PRRA applications often include evidence that was not presented to the refugee Board to support a claim. Given that the bill also proposes to shorten the timeline of the hearing to sixty days, it is likely that applicants will not be able to collect the evidence in time. As such, it will be even more critical that a PRRA be conducted otherwise removals will occur before this crucial information can be reviewed.
The PRRA is also important because it serves as a safety net for the most vulnerable claimants. Often it is used to raise new risk grounds that the applicant could not raise at the hearing. For example, female claimants that live in situations of domestic abuse come to Canada with their abusive spouses who make claims on behalf of the entire family. Once in Canada these women separate from their abuser and seek their own legal advice because they fear returning with their spouse. Because these women have already made a refugee claim, the PRRA is the only application where she can tell her story.
A third consideration is that circumstances in a refugees country of origin can change significantly over a short period of time. Situations such as the collapse of a peace accord, a major terrorist attack or a political coup can drastically alter the risk for individuals being returned, even in a matter of days. The Federal Court has clearly stated that a timely risk assessment be conducted that considers the relevant circumstances that are present at the time of removal.
The current PRRA is purposefully designed to consider evidence that was not, or could not, have been considered by the Refugee Board. Any ban on PRRA would put refugees at greater risk of being deported to torture or death. This is too high a price to pay for the sake of expedient removals.
