Inland Protection

individuals with on-going processes with CIC, CBSA, and/or the IRB are required to provide separate address notification to each,

individuals with mental health issues, who have had no involvement with the criminal justice system, are detained in provincial criminal institutions,

conditions imposed on individuals to be released from detention by the Immigration Division and conditions imposed for a stay of a deportation order by the Immigration Appeal Division do not always take into consideration difficulties of compliance for people with serious mental health issues.

there are numerous gaps in services for immigrants and refugees with mental health issues and serious problems with the legal framework

1. It is estimated that the backlog of refugee claims at the IRB will be approximately 38,000 at the time Bill C 31 comes into effect,
2. This backlog will severely hamper the functioning of the new system,
3. These individuals will be denied access to the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) and to consideration on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds solely due to delays in processing their claims at the Immigration and Refugee Board, and
4. Canada and other jurisdictions have implemented regularization programs to eliminate backlogs prior to changes in the refugee determination system

1. The U.S. standards for refugee protection are lower than those in Canada and the implementation of a safe country agreement will negatively affect thousands of refugee claimants coming to Canada from the U.S.;
2. On February 25, 1995 Prime Minister Chrétien and President Clinton announced that they are seeking a Safe Country Agreement under the Joint Border Management Accord despite the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's initial statements that he was against such an agreement;
3. The CCR in previous resolutions has demanded significant guarantees before such an agreement is signed;

1. Refugee claimants not infrequently find themselves in detention even after they have been found eligible;
2. All persons detained in an Immigration Holding Centre are routinely transported to and from hearings in handcuffs and those held in jail (detained under Immigration Act) are conveyed in handcuffs and leg irons;
3. These restraints are in certain cases not removed even when a refugee claim is heard before the IRB;
4. This seems to contradict the spirit in which a refugee claim is supposed to be made;
5. The practice is a violation of UN standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners;

1. Citizenship and Immigration Canada through its foreign missions, is requesting a large number of families to submit to DNA testing as proof of relationships prior to approval for sponsorship;
2. The DNA tests are being requested mainly for families from Third World countries;
3. The DNA tests are very expensive, costing over $1200 for a family of two and more for large families, thus adding a further unbearable financial and emotional burden to families already struggling to raise money to pay processing fees, the Head Tax and transportation costs, and causing unacceptable delays in family re-unification;
4. Current statistics show that over 90% of tests done to date have proved the families' relationships;
5. The small number of negative test results cannot justify the financial burden imposed on others by widespread testing;
6. Too much power is being wielded by the Canadian visa posts abroad in frequently requesting these tests when no reasonable grounds for doing so have been clearly established;

1. Proposed amendments to the Immigration Act recently announced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will result in one member IRB hearings thereby removing important procedural protections from refugee claimants and increasing the chance of incorrect IRB decisions;
2. The Minister has previously acknowledged the need for an appeal on the merits for IRB decisions;
3. The Minister has rejected the recommendations of the Davis/Waldman report and other consultations which support the establishment of an appeal on the merits for IRB decisions;
4. Past conclusions of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR have stated that signatories to the Refugee Convention should have a process whereby refugee claimants may appeal the merits of a negative decision on their refugee claims;

1. The Right of Landing fee is discriminatory, exclusionary and racist because of the vast variance in country and individual income around the world;
2. A refugee is accepted or selected for landing in Canada in order to provide protection against persecution, and usually has neither the cash nor a source of income with which to pay the right of landing fee;
3. Refugees processed through the inland determination system are already subjected to other heavy processing fees;
4. The Minister in his address to Parliament in November 1994 acknowledged that refugees have special needs and problems;
5. The UNHCR has documented that no other country in the world charges landing fees to refugees;