The changes in Canada are concerning as they remove safeguards that are needed to ensure that vulnerable applicants, including VoTs, are not at a greater risk of being returned to their country of origin without a proper and full examination of their case. The shorter time-frames will make it difficult for VoTs to obtain an MLR to submit as evidence. If the refugee hearing is held before there has been time for the MLR to be prepared, decision-makers will be without an important piece of evidence that can help them make the right determination. The VoT is more likely to be re-traumatised by the hearing process as a result. In addition, the 15-day time limit for an appeal to be submitted does not allow enough time for new evidence to be prepared. This evidence may include an MLR. The shorter timelines for applicants from “Designated Countries of Origin” are problematic as they allow even less time to prepare their claims. It is also discriminatory to impose a different process for some people, based on their country of origin. In addition, according to the Canadian Council for Refugees, these applicants are likely to face an inbuilt bias against their claim by virtue of the fact that their country is officially deemed not to produce refugees, and therefore are likely to need to obtain more evidence in support of the claim.140 Why public funding is essential to enable vulnerable asylum-seekers to access independent legal and medical assistance early on in the asylum procedure The findings in Part 2 show that, in the majority of countries participating in the report, funding for medical and/or psychological assistance to VoTs comes mainly from the UNVFVT, public grants, public health insurance and private funds from NGOs and charities. On the one hand, the results show a good spread of funding sources in most countries, with half of the respondents indicating that funding comes from a combination of all three categories (domestic public funds, private funds and international donors). However, there is a lack of national legislation placing obligations on the state to provide medical or psychological assistance to VoTs, once they are identified. Therefore, there remains a risk that public funding could be withdrawn by a state according to changes in its economic, health and social policy. The two contrasting examples below illustrate this issue. Canada – cuts to funding hinders access to healthcare for vulnerable asylumseekers The Canadian federal government recently passed legislation that substantially reduces health-care coverage offered to refugees and protected persons within Canada, including asylum applicants awaiting the outcome of their application.141 Prior to these changes, all refugee claimants received uniform health-care coverage, including prescriptions, access to doctors and emergency facilities and other supplementary benefits (including psychotherapeutic services). In addition, failed refugee claimants also received coverage until their removal order came into effect. Critics of these reforms argue that the changes create a two-tiered health-care system amongst asylum-seekers. Resettled refugees receive more extensive coverage, including supplemental health-care benefits, which include prescribed medication, psychological counselling provided by a registered clinical psychologist and post-arrival health assessments (in addition to hospital and other medical services).142 However, vulnerable asylum applicants who claim asylum inland, including those who have suffered torture, etc. will receive substantially reduced health-care coverage, as a result of the reforms. Health-care coverage offered by the state has now been substantially reduced so that refugee claimants now receive preventative care (i.e. medication) only if their condition is a public health risk. They can only access hospital or medical services in emergency situations. Refugee claimants from a designated “safe country” or failed refugee claimants receive no preventative care and no hospital or medical services, except when public health or safety is at risk.143 According to the Depart- ... Recognising victims of torture in national asylum procedures / 67