CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 2, 1997

• 0908

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. I would like to call the meeting to order. We have met the requirements for a minimum quorum, so we might as well proceed.

We're very fortunate this morning to have several people from the Immigration and Refugee Board to share information with us. After the information is presented we will continue with a question period. We will follow our normal pattern, as we have in the past.

The chairperson is Madam Mawani. I believe she's going to lead off with a presentation.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani (Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you very much. I would like to start this morning by introducing my colleagues here with me. They were here before you the last time: Paul Thibault, Philip Palmer, and Evelyn Levine.

• 0910

I want you to know I'm very pleased to be here today. In a way it's particularly fitting that we are here today at the same time as the opening of the landmines conference, which is another very major humanitarian challenge of our times.

I've read the transcript of the October 23, 1997, appearance before the committee and therefore am aware of the preoccupations and the comments that were made by the committee.

[Translation]

Today, I will respond to your questions and comments throughout my presentation. At our last meeting, my colleagues described the mandate and procedures of the Board and the key indicators relating to our processing time, backlog, and so on.

[English]

My presentation today will focus on our environment, the initiatives we've undertaken to improve our processes and our performance report, and the 1997-98 estimates. From time to time I will be referring to the handout that's been given to you. I trust you all have the handout. It's just a few pages.

I would like to begin my remarks by sharing with you that I regard it as an honour to be the chair of the largest administrative tribunal in Canada and to oversee a demanding decision-making process that affects the lives of large numbers of individuals and their families on the one hand, and the safety and good order of Canadian society on the other.

Our system is all about balance. We must always seek a just equilibrium between competing objectives, providing protection to those who need it and safeguarding Canada's frontiers, ensuring there is a balance between sometimes seemingly polarized issues such as efficiency and fairness.

Let me share with you some of the complexities that are involved here. On the legislative background, the Immigration and Refugee Board, as you know, was established in 1989. It has a unique mandate, one of the greatest humanitarian challenges to be dealt with by a Canadian tribunal. As I have mentioned previously, the nature of adjudication at the board requires us to achieve the enshrined principles of fairness and balance and to balance competing legislative objectives.

In addition, the complexity of individual cases has increased, and I can say this from my own experience over a number of years, both as a decision-maker and as an administrator. For example, more and more claimants today, and for last few years, are fleeing from the effects of civil war as opposed to fleeing from the Cold War situation in the past. This has resulted in more and more undocumented and improperly documented claimants coming to our shores.

This has also added some additional challenges for us to ensure that those who seek our protection were not perpetrators of persecution when they were in their own countries. In civil war situations particularly, the roles between the persecuted and the persecutors change on a regular basis. Furthermore, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the growth of many autonomous states as a result of that have also added to the complexity of our process.

Whereas in the past our members used to have to decide mostly whether the person merited a refugee convention refugee status, now we also have to first of all decide on the claimant's stated identity. Is the person before us who he or she claims to be? Of the claimants who come before us, 60% are undocumented or improperly documented.

Our commentary on undocumented and improperly documented claimants, which was an advisory commentary to decision-makers to assist them in dealing with such cases, was published in March 1997 and it was one response to this challenge. We recognize that this is a continuing challenge and one that we are working on with several other partners to further.

• 0915

The determination process for such claims requires more carefully examination. It needs more co-ordination. It needs experienced and specialized decision-makers and personnel. We cannot use our expedited processes as much; therefore, the expedited-process decisions are down.

At the end of the day, we go back to the question of balance. We need to expedite the processing of cases, while at the same time not jeopardizing the safety and security of Canadians and the integrity of the system. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is the single most significant challenge that is shared by all systems of refugee status determination everywhere.

What have we done about it? We have put into place what we call a claimant-specific research program. This is part of our information-gathering initiatives with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and other agencies.

So far, for example, this specific research unit that we established processed 2,640 requests since October 1995. That's 120 per month. At present, the turnaround time for such a request is 48 hours.

We are in the process of negotiating two further letters of agreement with the United States and other countries. This is again to enable us to get more of what we call claimant-specific information. We have a lot of country-specific information, but the issue is to get that information without jeopardizing the safety and security of the claimant and his or her family.

This is a very important initiative. We can't do it alone. We are working in conjunction with other agencies. It contributes to our hearing process.

So just from that very brief overview, I hope you can see why many experts have characterized the decision-making that the IRB is engaged in as being one of the most difficult forms of adjudication. They have in fact characterized it as being more difficult than being a judge in a civil case.

What does that mean for us? It means that the board must change to adapt quickly to these complexities, yet the Immigration Act, which provides the board's legislative framework, is 20 years old. As pointed out to your committee by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, more than 30 amendments to the act since 1978 have created a legislative maze.

The immigration legislation review that has been undertaken by the minister is a response to this situation. She has already described this project to your committee.

The Immigration and Refugee Board, through its decision-makers, is responsible for the middle part of an immigration and refugee program continuum that begins when a person makes an application abroad or arrives at the port of entry. It then ends when that person is granted permanent residence or is removed from Canada. So we are dealing with the middle part of the program.

As you can see on page 1, Canada's share of world refugees is relatively small. You can see here that we have 28,315 out of a total of close to 26 million people who are of concern to the United Nations. This includes refugees and other persons who are in refugee-like situations.

You will see that page 2 provides you with the number of landings in Canada in 1996. As you can see, refugees represent 13% of the total of 225,313 persons who were granted permanent residence in 1996. Very often people don't distinguish between persons who are recognized as refugees abroad by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and those recognized in Canada by the board.

• 0920

The board, as I think members of the committee are aware, makes determinations only on refugee claims made in Canada, the inland process. This in-Canada process was enacted to meet Canada's international obligations under the Geneva Convention.

The refugee selection abroad is made by departmental officials pursuant to Canada's humanitarian tradition, not because of the international obligations under the Geneva Convention.

[Translation]

On page 3, where, as you see, 28,315 refugees were granted permanent residence in Canada in 1996, there is an illustration of the breakdown of these refugees according to their selection type. Fewer than half, 49%, were recognized as refugees in Canada; 28% were government assisted; and 11% were privately sponsored.

[English]

The acceptance rate of inland refugees, those we are responsible for, has gone from 62% in 1994-95 to 38% at the present time.

We recognize the importance of consistency of decisions. We are monitoring and dealing with regional variations in acceptance rates for claimants from certain important source countries. A number of initiatives are in place. We are narrowing the gap between these variations. But I'm sure you will appreciate that this cannot happen overnight when we are dealing with the volumes of cases that we are, and when we are dealing with a case-by-case determination. But the trend is in the right direction. I want to assure the committee that we are watching this very carefully.

Let me turn to a few more words about some of our challenges. In the immigration and refugee program continuum, the board must deal with individuals who are referred to it. We don't go out to select anyone. The number of cases to be processed in a given fiscal year is the result of international migration trends; unforeseen influxes of claimants; the speed of the screening; and the referral process. More and more factors influence the speed with which the board processes cases. We have already discussed the need to decide on identity as well as on merit, which lengthens our hearing process.

[Translation]

Page 4 describes the legal environment of the IRB. Decisions made by the Board must be in accordance with the established framework, international law as incorporated into Canadian law and guidelines, for example, those of the UNHCR, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Federal and Supreme Court decisions.

The decisions give the following rights to refugee claimants: the right to have their refugee claim reviewed individually, the right to be represented by an advisor, the right to interpretation services, and the right to introduce evidence, to question witnesses and to make comments.

[English]

Any IRB decision may, on leave, be brought before the Federal Court for judicial review. Once the board has rendered its decision, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration becomes responsible for the further processing of that claim or appeal, which means either removal or landing.

• 0925

As a result, to monitor, measure and improve our performance, the IRB has made significant commitments to Parliament in two key areas. We have established performance targets to reduce the pending inventory and shorten processing time for both our divisions by March 2000. The refugee division's processing time we expect to be able to shorten by September 1998.

Although we always try to improve our efficiency, the principle of quality and excellence underlie all the board's activities, given the nature of our decisions. Over the years the Federal Court of Canada has recognized the quality of our decisions. For example, the court rarely sets aside our decisions. In our refugee division, less than 1% of the 23,000 decisions we make are overturned or set aside. In our appeal division, less than 1% of the 3,500 decisions we make are overturned or set aside. And on adjudication our record is even better; it's 0.02% of our 16,000 decisions that are set aside.

This is all the more significant if one considers the volume of decisions we make each year, which is close to 43,000 decisions, each one affecting the life, liberty and security of individuals concerned and the balance with Canadian society's interest.

So the quality of our decisions is the outcome of several initiatives, including a unique and ongoing exhaustive training program for members, establishing performance benchmarks for members, and then knowledge that is gained through the sharing of best practices not just within Canada but also with international asylum agencies. As a result, our members' productivity has increased and the quality has been maintained and augmented.

Next is enhancement initiatives.

[Translation]

In order to carry out our mandate in a very complex environment, we have implemented a number of improvement projects, beginning with the model of a specialized commission of enquiry. The improvements that have made the greatest contribution to our work are described in our performance report for the period ending March 31, 1997.

[English]

The portfolio approach is on page 5.

[Translation]

Many people were involved in the development and smooth operation of the Immigration and Refugee Program in Canada, including the department and government agencies such as the CIC, the Department of Justice, the RCMP, the provinces, legal aid, health and social services, lawyers and consultants, non- governmental organizations, the international association and the other international group.

[English]

It is essential that the IRB maintain productive working relationships with all key players in the immigration portfolio. In this context the Immigration and Refugee Board and CIC signed an administrative framework agreement in December 1996 to increase information sharing and opportunities.

The same agreement provides for the development of subagreements on specific portfolio management issues, and I'm pleased to report to the committee that two weeks ago the IRB and CIC concluded two AFA subagreements on information sharing and on priorities co-ordination.

• 0930

With respect to our working with the non-governmental organizations and les avocats, I'm also pleased to share with you the fact that we have established a consultative committee on practices and procedures. This national group meets regularly to work with various stakeholders in the process.

Also, given the global nature of our work, we know that refugee and immigration movements are an international phenomenon, and we have decided to become an active player in an international organization of refugee law judges. I'm also pleased to tell you that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Council of Europe are both very strongly behind this initiative.

As noted on page 6, you will see that decision-making at the board is the responsibility of three divisions: the convention refugee division, the immigration appeal division and the adjudication division. Our focus tends to be on the refugee division, because of the fact that it finalizes more than half of all our decisions, and given the nature of the work that it does.

Enhancements to support the work of all of our divisions are described in our performance report and in our plans and priorities document. The most significant include: enhancements to the refugee determination process itself; more aggressive case management; specialized teams; restructuring within the board; expedited hearings; single-member hearings, which we can only do by consent; oral decisions; shorter and quicker decisions; increased use of guidelines; commentaries; more practised directions to the parties who practise before us; pre-hearing conferences; videoconferences; alternative dispute resolution; and quicker scheduling.

In response to one of the members' questions last time—Madame Folco had a question about Algerian claimants—I'm pleased to report that the board is looking into using its expedited process to conduct group hearings for specific countries.

Also, in Montreal we are looking at a pilot project that will deal with having an initial interview within 60 days in all cases.

We have also provided a response to another question from Madame Folco regarding the numbers of people who appear before the board who have been involved in criminality. I understand that the letter has been presented to the committee.

In our last appearance, some committee members expressed an interest in Canada's detention process. The adjudication division, which deals with detention, carried out 9,356 detention reviews in 1996-97, and it has prepared a new set of guidelines on the powers of adjudicators to order detention. These guidelines will become effective in the New Year and will, I believe, assist adjudicators in the exercise of their discretion in this very difficult area.

In the very first sentence, the guidelines state that Canadian law, like international law, regards preventive detention as an exceptional measure. It goes on to describe the grounds for detention. It deals with long-term detention, the notion of what constitutes a danger to the public, alternatives to detention, and the issue of evidence and procedure. A person may be detained on only two grounds under the legislation: if a person is a danger to the public or if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person will not appear.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, in the two accountability documents your committee is reviewing today, you will note that the board practises sound financial management and is intent on supporting the government's cost reduction priorities. Our performance report, for example, indicates that we have reduced the cost of finalizing cases in our divisions.

• 0935

Rather than go over the figures, perhaps I can refer you to page 11 of the performance report, where we talk about the reduction in the convention refugee determination division to deal with refugee claims. It is down by 20%. The cost on the appeal division is down by 6%—that's on page 13—and we also have information there on our adjudication division.

All of our initiatives are in support of the board's vision statement, which you will find on page 7 of the handout that has been given to you, and which I know was shared with you by our officials the last time they were here. It is therefore our vision of where the board should be in the years ahead. We intend to get there by building on our strengths, our expertise and our past experience. We share your concern and that of Canadians for the integrity of our process and our system.

The three performance expectations in our performance report contained the words “excellence”, “leadership” and “innovation”. These words are also the key components of our vision statement. As such, Mr. Chairman, they are our guiding principles as the IRB prepares for a period of change, improvement and greater accountability, while preserving and upholding the principles of integrity, equity and efficiency.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you. That was a tremendous amount of information that you presented.

We'll begin with our questions. We'll go to the opposition side first. Mr. McNally, please.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation.

You mentioned that 60% of the people you're dealing with are either under-documented or have no documents at all. There are definitely concerns about that. I know we've received calls in our office about persecuted and persecutor ending up here together within the same community. I'm wondering what specific plans the department has in place to try to deal with those situations. We heard in our last meeting about documents being destroyed on airplanes or passed off to somebody else, and a few other ideas in that area. What specifics are you aware of that are coming to help deal with that?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Perhaps we can deal with those initiatives that are within the purview of the Immigration and Refugee Board first, then others that we are doing jointly with the department, and then others that we hope will come about.

As I said in my opening comments, the IRB responded to this by issuing a commentary on undocumented and improperly documented claimants. In that commentary, what we have done is lay out the various procedures, the evidentiary issues, the other types of proof other than documents, that can and should be obtained in those circumstances. It certainly requires a different type of questioning technique, and that's why training is very important.

The other thing we've done is make sure that we have very full—as full as possible—documentary information about the particular source country from which the person is claiming to be refugee: the individual; the details of the type of profile; the situation not just of the country as a whole, but of specific groups within those countries. I would submit that we have some very refined information on those issues.

In addition, I think the department is looking at a number of initiatives in this area, and I would submit that the legislative review group commissioned by the minister will be focusing, I would imagine, very largely on this as an issue, because it is 60%. We are very much looking forward to the recommendations that will come about at the time.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

In regard to the questioning technique, does that mean the department is looking at an adversarial approach? Is that something you're hearing, but that's not the case now?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: What kind of a function is that?

Mr. Grant McNally: An adversarial approach. We talked about this briefly the last time too, I think.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I would ask my general counsel to answer that.

Mr. Philip Palmer (General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board): At this stage, there is no plan to transform our process from a non-adversarial to an adversarial process as a general rule. But I think you're aware that in any instance where there is a hint of criminality, particularly war crimes or crimes against humanity, that information is available to the minister. In fact, we count on the minister intervening, and that then becomes a fairly adversarial process with respect to that issue of criminality and possible exclusion from the definition of a convention refugee.

• 0940

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

I was just thinking of this specific case that I'm aware of in my own riding. This was the case where a person obviously didn't fully disclose their own background and we get into that case of persecuted and persecutor being in the same community. If the approach or process, off the bat, the initial screening, had perhaps been a bit more adversarial with this individual ahead of time, we wouldn't be in that kind of situation now.

Are you telling me that there's no move to go to that at all?

Mr. Philip Palmer: In speaking about the Immigration and Refugee Board itself and its procedures in the hearing room, no, there's no plan to change that.

We find that in fact what most influences the outcomes is not the questioning technique and not the question of whether there is a strict adversarial relationship, but really the quality of information we're able to obtain.

Very often our problem and the problem of the department is that it's very difficult to obtain information at the time of entry into Canada, or even in the months preceding the hearing before the IRB with respect to an individual. It's sometimes only after they've obtained status, based upon what may be a hiding of their past, that a member of the community recognizes them, comes forward and makes that information available in a way that can be confirmed by Canadian authorities. An adversarial process wouldn't have found that, I'm afraid.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I certainly would not want the committee to go away with an impression that we feel helpless in this circumstance, because that's not the case. The country specialization, the team specialization that the board has moved to, and, as Mr. Palmer said, also the information base this board has now, enables us to be able to determine some of these identity issues in a manner even without the documentation.

What I'm saying is that it takes us longer to do that because the questioning, the making sure that what the person is saying to us fits within what we know of the situation in that country, of that particular group, who are the perpetrators and who are the victims.... We have a pretty good idea in terms of.... I would say we have more than an idea; we have specialized knowledge of this. That's one of the reasons why it's getting more complex, but that's why we need experienced and well trained decision-makers and that's why we have to continue to work towards making that happen.

The Chairman: Ms. Minna is next.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mrs. Mawani, I want to go back to your earlier comments about the level of acceptance and approvals. In 1994-95 it was 62%, you said, and now we're at 38%; that's a drop of 24%. Can you explain to me why there is such a drastic drop in acceptance? Is it in approvals? Are we giving different directions to the adjudicators, telling them to cut it down, and are some people who should be approved not being approved? What's happening?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Let me assure you straight away that we are not giving any such directions to our decision-makers. I think it is a matter of a combination of various things.

First, while some of the source countries remain the same, the profile of the claimants from those countries is changing. That is not unusual. For example, when there is a civil war or an outbreak of any such hostilities in a country, you tend to get the first group of people who are fleeing immediately; you get another group who are also, I would submit, very much at risk; and then you tend to get people who are also trying to leave for a whole bunch of reasons and therefore may not fit the profile—

Ms. Maria Minna: Can you give me an example of that? Would Somalia, for instance, fit into that description?

• 0945

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: It certainly could. For example, we've already seen a decline in the number of Somalis coming to seek refugee status. If you look at the acceptance rates from some of the major source countries, those rates have gone down. They are in response to changing situations in those countries. They are volatile, it is true, but their situations are changing, and I think it speaks well that some of those countries that were in a terrible situation a few years ago are slightly improving. I would submit that our system is responding to that because we have the information that enables us to make those decisions.

Secondly, it hasn't just happened as dramatically as these figures would suggest. We are talking about 1994-95 being at 62% and then we are talking about 38% for 1997-98. In between the rate has been going down, but it has been going down gradually. This is the current rate.

I would also submit that in 1994-95 we had a very large group of new members, and it takes time for members to become experienced. As members become more experienced, I would submit they are also in a better position to deal with the claims. There's no question in my mind that when you're a completely new member you will want to make sure you give every benefit of the doubt to the person who is in front of you.

I'm not saying we don't give the benefit of the doubt now, but I think experience makes us better decision-makers. If that means higher acceptance rates, so be it. If it means lower acceptance rates, so be it too. That is in the nature of the work we do.

Ms. Maria Minna: I'm sure you have available the percentage rates for the previous five years rather than just 1994-95. I would like to be able to see a bit of trend and how that worked, whether or not the trend was on its way down or steady and then it suddenly dropped. Your explanations about things changing in the country are interesting, but I would like to see a bit of a trend for more than just the one year, just to have a better understanding of what's happening.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we'll be more than happy to supply that.

Ms. Maria Minna: On page 14, undocumented claimants...earlier you mentioned the issuance of a commentary, but you also have here that one way of dealing with it is commentary, practice notice, and enhanced member training. Can you expand a bit on what that means in terms of what are you doing to address that? You said a bit about the commentary, but what kind of training and practice notices are they?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I would be happy to. I will have our general counsel start.

Mr. Philip Palmer: The practice notice is in the way of an advisory to claimants and their counsel. It puts them on notice of what the board expects, what typically we'll be demanding of claimants. For undocumented claims, it puts them on notice that we expect them to provide alternate evidence of identity and to be able to substantiate who they are and their group membership: what nationality they are; or, if they are claiming persecution based on tribal affiliations or clan affiliations, that they be able to substantiate that, if not directly—in many of these countries documentary evidence is often lacking—then by means of some form of corroborating evidence, evidence from elders of the community or things of that nature.

About training, we provide training to members both on the kinds of alternate evidence that's acceptable and also on how to question that evidence, how to evaluate it and judge whether it's credible or not. We also encourage members to rely on their expertise as they learn country conditions, to be able to focus questioning on, for instance, matters of cultural assimilation.

If you're a member of a certain clan or a certain country, then you know certain things, you commonly have certain experiences that help establish identity. If you're not a person of that group, clan, nation, then you're not likely to be able to give the right answer when you're asked about it. It's a way that a non-adversarial process can be very probing in terms of determining actual identity or at least adhesion to a particular cultural national group.

• 0950

The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Excuse me, but there cannot be a second question from the Reform Party until the Bloc Québécois has had a turn. No one has spoken yet for the BQ.

[English]

The Chairman: You'll have your turn.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But you...

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, you'll have your turn.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'll let him go. If he wants to go ahead now, that's fine.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John Reynolds: It's not a problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But you began with the Reform Party.

[English]

The Chairman: No, whoever has indicated that they want to speak—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I did indicate that I wanted the floor.

[English]

The Chairman: —we put in the order as they indicated that they wanted to speak. So that's what I've been doing. I've been keeping a list.

So Mr. Reynolds was first, and then Mr. McNally, but Mr. McNally has to leave early so he went first, and then I asked Mr. Reynolds.

Now, Mr. Reynolds, do you concede your five minutes to him?

Mr. John Reynolds: Conceded.

The Chairman: And then I'll come back to you after.

Mr. John Reynolds: Fine.

The Chairman: All right, five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have four questions.

First, I would like you to explain the administrative process for committee members, beginning when the application is filed for the refugee claim. I would like you to go through the main steps in the process. I will ask my four questions at once to facilitate understanding.

Second, I know that you are the largest administrative tribunal in the country. Obviously, that has a number of implications for you. However, you know that there are many criticisms about the delay or about the backlog. In your report, I read that corrective action had been taken. I would like you to update us regarding the processing of applications for Quebec, since you have had some very specific representations from some Quebec authorities. I would like a report on this matter.

Third, in your remarks, you mentioned an expedited process for certain countries, but you did not go into much detail. I would like you to come back to that. Which are the countries in question? Could you tell us what is meant by this exactly, in detail, so that we understand the process better?

Fourth, you know that the committee is very concerned about the whole issue of war criminals. My colleague from the Reform Party mentioned it. I read in Mr. Gordon's report that there's a very close link between the work done by your Board and the way war criminals are accepted in Canada. I would like you to talk about that link.

I have always read that 90% of all cases go before the courts, that you win your cases, and that because of the specific nature of the Geneva Convention, subparagraph 1(F)(a), it is possible to deport people on this ground. I would like you to discuss that in detail.

Those are my four questions. I realize they are complex, but nothing is simple in life.

[English]

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Thank you. I will start, and then I'm going to ask the executive director and the general counsel to follow.

Let's look at the first question, which is the processing. The inland refugee claim initially goes to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Somebody comes in and says he or she claims refugee status. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration does an eligibility screening. That is their responsibility, essentially to decide whether that person is eligible to have the case referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. So we cannot start the process until the claim is referred to us.

Once the claim is referred to us, then the person has 28 days within which to complete a personal information form. Right now we find that not very many claimants are able to complete those personal information forms within the time limit, and we are getting more aggressive on insisting that they do.

We have that information, and the file is then looked at within the board by a refugee claims officer, and depending on the country it is from, it goes to the specialized team for that country or for that region. The teams consist of decision-makers, refugee claims officers and other support staff who are going to assist in providing documentation and other material. The case is then scheduled for a hearing.

• 0955

There are two ways the case can be scheduled. One, if it is from a country that has a high record of acceptance because we know it is what we call a refugee-producing country, then it will go into an expedited process. Essentially, the refugee claims officer will review the file and decide if it's a case that is appropriate to be expedited. He or she will then let the member know whether the case is appropriate for the expedited process, and the member will make the decision as to whether it should be a positive expedited case. The interview takes place between the refugee claims officer and the person making the claim. It lasts about 45 minutes, generally, and there is a lot of background information that the refugee claims officer has gathered by this stage.

To deal with another question at the same time, as I said in my remarks, yes, the expedited process rate has gone down. It has gone down in most of the regions, although I think probably we will be able to provide you with some detailed figures, if you are interested, for specific countries.

Those cases that don't go to expedited go to what we call full hearing, because everyone is entitled to an oral hearing if they are going to rule negatively in their case. The full hearing is before a panel of two members, but it can be one member if the parties consent. The legislation with respect to single-member hearings has not gone through, and therefore we have to have two-member panels. But we have been able to get counsel to agree to a single-member hearing in about 25% of our cases nationally.

At the full hearing the case is presented. There is a very important role played by the refugee claims officer. Even though it is not an adversarial process, the refugee claims officer plays what we call a challenge function. So there is a challenge function within the system as a whole.

Once that is over, the decision is rendered. We are encouraging that more and more decisions be given orally, immediately at the end of the hearing when possible. We are very much moving in that direction. This will cut down the delays in providing reasons for decisions.

At the end of that process the decision is either yes, you are a refugee, or no, you're not. Once that is over, if you are found to be a refugee, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration takes over and deals with the whole landing issue.

If it is a no, then there are some further processes that the department is involved in. There may be some changes to that very soon. There have already been some changes to that: the post-determination review and the humanitarian review. After that, there is also the appeal for judicial review to the Federal Court. The whole process, after us, goes into another system.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: May I ask a question? You said earlier that more and more refugees are arriving from countries in which civil wars are going on. These are turbulent times, and there are a number of areas where tensions are high throughout the world. How can the expedited process be less important at a time when there are more areas of tension and civil war?

For example, on the matter of war criminals, I am always disturbed to hear that only five countries have been identified, even though there are a number of other places and countries where extremely serious violations of human rights are going on. Is there not a contradiction between the fact that we are not using the expedited process and the international tensions that exist at the moment?

[English]

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: You are quite right that the international situation does reflect a much greater advance in civil wars. Not everybody from those situations, though, is able to get to Canada. Therefore we still are dealing with the numbers of people who are able to actually come to Canada.

What we are finding in the major civil war situations right now is that most of the people are fleeing to countries within the region. If you look at the major movement in Rwanda and Zaire right now, people are going to Tanzania, they're going to Zaire, etc. They are not all getting to Europe and to Canada, that's for sure.

• 1000

Yes, I agree on the face of it that it would appear there's a contradiction between our expedited, accelerated processes actually going down and my saying that we're getting a lot of people from civil war situations. However, we are also finding that it's becoming so largely because of the fact that people come without documents from many of these countries in civil war situations, or they don't have reliable documentation. It becomes more difficult to manage these cases through the expedited process.

We are also keeping a very close eye on the fact that there is a preoccupation in Canadian society, and rightly so, with the issue of war criminals and people who are involved in crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, we know civil war situations generate those types of cases as well. So we have to scrutinize those as well.

The Chairman: Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentation. My major question was the same as Ms. Minna's in that I also would like to see the figures on the number of refugee applicants, which has been declining. I'm a little concerned that there is some kind of trend there.

I have a couple of questions on the appeal side. You stated that the number of appeals that are actually successful is very low. What is the percentage of appeals?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: That actually go the Federal Court?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Close to 70% of cases that are rejected are appealed to the Federal Court. So if you look at an acceptance rate of 39% or 40%, the rest of those cases—not all of them, but a very large proportion—do go to the Federal Court.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: With respect, maybe Mr. Palmer can answer this question.

Are those appeals actually the leave to appeal, the leave to appeal for judicial review, or the judicial review?

Mr. Philip Palmer: The answer is that 70% seek judicial review. In a typical year, about 300 decisions are reviewed. Of those, normally about a third of our decisions that go for ultimate judicial review are overturned.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: But the grounds for the appeal are very limited, are they not?

Mr. Philip Palmer: The grounds are limited. It is a review on errors of law or jurisdiction or breach of natural justice. Happily, we're fairly good on those. There is not an appeal on the merit.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay.

Could you tell me what your board's relationship is with the PRDC and what percentage of the ones that are not refugees, then, in the post-refugee determination area...or what's the correlation there?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I don't have the figures on me, but they can be easily provided. To the best of my recollection, the percentage is very low. The number accepted at the post-determination process is really quite minuscule.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: But how are you related to the post-refugee determination? What is the relationship there? I mean, you talked about how, after the process...or maybe it was inferred or implied that either it's landing or it's deportation. But there is that other process.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes. The relationship essentially is that the IRB is no longer involved in the process. When it goes for the post-determination review, it's a review done by departmental officials. It's Citizenship and Immigration's responsibility. The test they apply is a slightly different test. We are dealing with somebody who falls within a convention refugee determination, whereas they look at what they call a more generalized “risk assessment”—whether the person really is in a situation where they can't be removed to the country.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: So they apply a totally different set of criteria at that point.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

An amendment to the Immigration Act that came into force in 1993 provided that an individual recognized as a convention refugee in Canada could not be granted permanent residence in Canada in the absence of a valid and subsisting passport or travel document or satisfactory identity document. Nonetheless, these individuals can apply for landing five years after being admitted.

• 1005

My question is, as a matter of comparison, how do other countries deal with these situations when no papers are available? For instance, what do they do in the United States and Australia?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I don't know the full answer to that. I think this is one of the areas that the legislative review committee the minister has set up is going to pronounce on. They have had the opportunity to review other systems. I can simply share with you from my conversations and meetings with other bodies that they are all struggling with a very similar issue. There is a recognition everywhere that when people are fleeing in circumstances that are caused by civil war, they are not going to have the opportunity to walk over to their government office and ask if they could have a travel document or their passport.

What happens is that there is a huge market, as we know, in forged documents. There are a great many people taking great advantage and making a great deal of money on these issues. That's a global phenomenon. We are all trying, working hard. The department, I know, through intergovernmental organizations, negotiations and consultations is working on this. We are also looking at this through this newly established international association of refugee law judges. This is one key issue that all of us are dealing with.

Mr. John Reynolds: Could you undertake to get us a written response to that question?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: We'll certainly endeavour to get you more information on that, yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: You mentioned your acceptance rates have gone from 62% to 38%. I'd like to know why you think it's going in that direction. Also, looking at the numbers you're talking about—it's a fairly large number—that, say, 62% are being rejected, which is in the thousands, where do those people go? I think you asked the question on the other side about the numbers who are going to appeal. But only 1% of those are successful. We still have a big block of 13,000 or 14,000 people who are rejected. What assurance do Canadians have that those people who are rejected are out of the country within a reasonable period of time?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: First of all, let me clarify something. Because we accept 38% or 39%, it doesn't necessarily follow that all of the others are rejected. I say this because close to 25% of claims before us in fact are abandoned or withdrawn. They don't go to full processing. That's why sometimes our inventory looks enormous, but by the time we've dealt with that it comes down by about 25%.

Second, let me give you—because there was a question from Ms. Minna as well earlier—the acceptance rate variable. Perhaps I could share that with you. In 1989-90, when this board was established, the acceptance rate was 83%. In the next year, 1991, it was 77%. In the year after, 1991-92, it was 63%. In 1992-93 it was 58%. In 1993-94 it was 48%. In 1994-95 it was 62%. In 1995-96 it was 54%. In 1996-97 it was 41%; in 1997-98, 39%. That gives you I hope...and we will certainly be more than happy to provide this to you in writing so that you have it there.

To answer your question as to what happens to those who are rejected under our system, we have already talked about the fact that they go through the post-determination review—it is true that not many are accepted in that process—and through the humanitarian and compassionate review. Ultimately, it's the responsibility of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to deal with the removals.

As I said in my opening remarks, we are the middle part. We don't do the initial screening for eligibility and we don't deal with landings or removals. That's a question I would submit that you put to the department.

Mr. John Reynolds: So you don't know, once you reject the people, what percentage actually end up staying in Canada or get returned?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: No. We don't know.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Is my time up?

The Chairman: No. Do you still have another? Fire away.

Mr. John Reynolds: Sure. I have lots.

You mentioned that the job is more difficult sometimes than a judge's. You've also mentioned a couple of times about how the training is very important and how long you train.

• 1010

I have some concerns regarding when you're going from two people down to one and we're going to start making decisions on people's lives and on whether they should stay or not stay in the country. I'm wondering how the Canadian public can be assured that the people, because they are political appointees, are properly trained before they actually sit in the position of making these decisions. What would your opinion be of looking at a system where appointments to this board were done like those for judges, so that they were judicial appointments instead of political appointments?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: There are a number of comments. First of all, we have an excellent training program. I have every confidence that the development of our training program is one of the best we will ever find. In fact, we are asked on a regular basis to provide training for judges and decision-makers in other parts of the world. Unfortunately we're not able to accede to those requests because we're so busy training our own decision-makers.

However, about the appointments, there is a process in place that is not dissimilar to that of judicial appointments. In March 1995 the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration set up an independent advisory committee to assist him, and the current minister has used that committee to assist her, in reviewing names of qualified candidates who make an application, which is advertised in the Canada Gazette. Those applications are reviewed by a committee. Candidates are interviewed. Reference checks are taken. It's a very thorough process. At the end of it the committee presents a slate of names to the minister for her consideration and for the governor in council.

I would submit that this process has strengthened overall the quality of the members we get. Our challenge, then, is to make sure we can train them. We dedicate a lot of resources to the training. It takes probably up to a year to have a member absolutely fully operational, to work at maximum productivity and quality. That's why it is very important for us to have a sustained group of members. We invest a great deal in that training.

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I have a couple of questions about the time or the perception. A lot of this is perception. It's difficult for a member of Parliament when people respond and say they believe people are being allowed just to walk in. In fact, I recently attended a meeting of my regional council that wound up in almost a shouting match, where they were saying people are allowed to come to this country with no documentation whatsoever, that they get off the plane, claim full status, full rights, protection, welfare cheques, a house to move into. They almost go on to say they are giving them the keys to an Audi or something.

The perception and the ability to defend or to dispute or debate that when you have a local council with a huge welfare bill, which of course they are continually passing on to the minister.... It's just extremely difficult to answer these questions. Is it perception or is it reality?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: It's a combination of the two. But the reality is that we have to strengthen our initial screening process. There is no question about that, in my mind.

We don't have all the answers. I know the legislative review group will be looking at that. I know from the discussions we have had with them.... How can we do the initial screening? When I say “the system”, I don't mean the IRB but the system. Whether it's the department or it's us, it's ultimately for all of us to be aware of this. How can we do it in a way that gets the information, does the appropriate amount of screening, but doesn't keep people waiting for ages at ports of entry? It's this constant having to balance that is the major irritation faced by millions of people.

I know you know, and I know, the figures. It's 40 million to 45 million people who come to Canada each year, in various categories. A huge amount of them are, of course, visitors. Just the Canada-U.S. border generates crossings of between 20 million and 25 million each year. So you can see just from those figures that we are dealing with a situation where we have to have that balance.

• 1015

Having said that, yes, of course there's a concern that if somebody comes in at a port of entry and has no documents and simply says “I want to make a refugee claim”, what do you do with that person? Those are some of the difficult questions that are not in our mandate or, frankly, within our ability to be able to answer. That's why I applaud the minister's initiative at setting up such a review of the legislation, a review of an act that's 20 years old and situations have changed a great deal.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You talk in terms of people coming here without documentation, fleeing civil war with literally the clothes on their backs. I can certainly understand how a lot of these folks would not have documentation. But then we had—not to unfairly single out a country—the controversy with the Czech Republic and the television show that went on, and all of a sudden they're all coming here, many of them without documentation. They're not fleeing civil war. They're fleeing discrimination, I guess, difficulties at home.

The real question that people ask me surrounds more of the definition and the sort of common sense approach to defining what a refugee is. I know very few Canadians who would want you to turn down a legitimate refugee. The ones I do know I wish I didn't. I don't think that's a problem in this country. It's the perception that there are people coming who are not legitimate refugees, who immediately land on this soil and claim rights under our Constitution, who get all of the rights and yet take forever.... I don't know if you can give me a timeframe, but the perception is that it can take one to two years before there's proper adjudication and a decision to reject their application as a refugee. Then they appeal through the process and it takes more time, and in the meantime they're living on the taxpayer. That's what people say to me when I'm in my community, and I don't have an answer for them.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Let me try to respond to that.

First of all, let's deal with the Czech Roma situation. In fact, that is one group that has come to Canada with documents. Being undocumented is not an issue.

The issue with the Roma cases is simply whether what they fear constitutes persecution. Frankly, at the end of the day it's not what the Canadian public regards as being persecution, but it's how persecution is defined by an international convention, by the way in which our courts define persecution.

We don't operate in isolation. Our courts interpret the Immigration Act for us, and persecution is very much part of that Immigration Act. So that's something that we certainly have to bear in mind.

As to the question of how long it takes and whether people are in the process, yes, I agree with you: people are in the process too long. We need to put in, and we have put in, a lot of initiatives that will help to shorten that process, at least our end part of the process. We are working closely with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration through this administrative framework agreement that I talked about, especially the one we signed just two weeks ago, which is on priorities co-ordination, so that each part of the system is working in concert to make sure we have the same priorities in terms of dealing with the claims.

So, yes, I would agree that we need to shorten the processing time. We have committed to doing so. We look forward to being able to report to you the next time on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Thank you, Mrs. Mawani, for coming here.

As I listen to you I think, sure, the process and everything you have put in place make us feel quite comfortable, but the reality, as my colleague on the other side said, is quite different, and you have touched on that.

A concern that I have—and I have two or three questions here—is that our immigration system says that every person who is coming to Canada, whether he's a visitor, a businessman or whatever, is deemed to be coming into Canada to apply for permanent residence. That's the underlying fact of our immigration policy.

• 1020

We are saying to everybody over there that when they go to Canada we don't expect them to return. Therefore we reject visitor applications by saying simply that if this person goes on a visitor's visa, his chances of coming back are nil. He will circumvent the system and live in Canada. That falls under your jurisdiction because he comes here as a visitor and applies as a refugee. We know this guy is not a genuine refugee because he came here on a visitor's visa and wasn't running away.

There is a problem with their perception that somebody coming over here can apply to the refugee system here and be accepted. You're telling us when you go through all these things here it makes everybody feel uneasy, hence many applications from genuine visitors who want to come to this country are rejected.

The second question following that also goes back to the refugee board, the appointments, the training and what you have just addressed to us. We see time after time that appointments to this refugee board are definitely all politically motivated, no matter what you tell me. You just mentioned it's an independent advisory body and people are going through the interviews. People are going through all these kinds of things to make them look like they're qualified to be sitting on those refugee boards.

The question still remains, and I read it also last week, that people who have run for political office or have worked for the parties are the ones who eventually end up with the jobs here. It brings a question into every Canadian's mind that those appointments and those people who are making the decisions are not qualified. They are there because of their political connections.

Then, in order to justify system, we go ahead and say there's a training program here for one year. People go through this one-year training program, which is another cost. Every time there is a new government, you put people into your training program. There is a cost there. I think you just said it takes a year to train. What happens in the meantime? Refugee claimants are coming all the time.

Mr. Palmer indicated two things that also bother me with respect to your training aspect. He said we allow people who sit on the board leeway to use their own judgments and experiences to make decisions. You're just creating problems here again. These people who have been appointed have some connections there and you are giving them leeway.

At the same time, Mr. Palmer is saying we are relying on their cultural backgrounds as well to make their decisions. Canada is a fortunate country to have people from all over the world here, so how many people with cultural backgrounds are going to be put in there?

As you know, the Auditor General is about to release his report, and chapter 25 deals with the IRB process. Had you taken his recommendations when you gave us this report?

The Chairman: I don't want any response based on political assumptions and so forth. Just deal with facts and the realities of the situation. Would you do that, please?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Thank you very much.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: On a point of order, I have one question. I thought we could ask and do anything in the committee. Isn't that what the committee is for?

The Chairman: You can ask questions based on the act, the performance report, the deficit figures we have received and the information that has been presented by our witnesses, but not based on assumptions that are of a questionable nature.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm not making assumptions. These are the—

The Chairman: I know. I understand what you're trying to do and I would like to terminate this discussion. I'll deal with this later on.

• 1025

I would like you to respond, please.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Thank you. Let me deal with the earlier question about how members can take their experiences into account.

What Mr. Palmer was referring to is what we call “specialized knowledge”. A board like ours is an expert body. It deals with cases and information from regions in a number of countries. After a while you become specialized as a decision-maker, but also, the institution gains expertise, which it puts completely into the hands of the decision-maker. When he talks about specialized knowledge, that's what it's about.

With respect to diversity, yes, you are absolutely right. We have a board that's very representative of Canada's diversity. I think that's important. It brings in a broad experiential base to this very important task that we do on behalf of Canadians.

With respect to the candidates appointed to the board, I would submit that all the candidates that are appointed are qualified. They are qualified under this process. I am part of that committee, and therefore I have no problem in saying to you that the committee takes its responsibilities very seriously. The profile of the candidates is advertised, as is the job description. There is an interview process, as I said, and reference checks are done. At the end of the day, a slate is presented. It is not unlike the judicial appointments process. At the end of the day, it is up to the government to select from that list, and the government has in fact committed to selecting from that list and has done so ever since the committee was set up. That provides you with some of that information without getting into any further detail.

With respect to the question on visitors' visas and the implications of that on our process, firstly, I can't respond to your comment that most visitors' visas are rejected. I really don't know. That's something you would have to ask the department. As for your question about the impact of that on our work, it's true that there are a certain number of people who claim refugee status inland, having come to Canada under different circumstances—some, it is true, as visitors.

But let me also assure you that when we deal with that refugee claim, we ask some very probing questions as to why the individual came to this country as a visitor and why he or she has now decided to make a refugee claim. We look at how long the person took before changing his or her mind and wanting to convert from visitor status to refugee status. It is possible, and sometimes it happens, to get a visa to come to Canada as a visitor, but if you went to the mission or anywhere else you may not be able to make an application to be a refugee.

It might perhaps be useful if I can share with you the fact that the selection process for refugees abroad is slightly different from the selection made in Canada. The selection abroad is done on the basis of people not just being at risk but also being able to establish themselves quickly in Canada. It's a joint criterion of risk and immigration. If you come to Canada and make your application in Canada, you are dealt with under the Geneva Convention, and therefore the criteria are slightly different. So it is perfectly possible that you could have a visitor who wants to convert. It doesn't mean that he or she will get it. You can see, and I can assure you, that it is taken very much into account in the determination.

The Chairman: Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I have a number of questions, and I wonder whether I might ask several of them now and then come back for a second round, at the end.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll have a second round. Try to stick to the five-minute limit. Don't ask five or six or seven questions.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, I won't, and I'd like to be put on the second round as well.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Good morning, Ms. Mawani, good morning everyone. It is a great pleasure for me to see you again this morning. As you know, my comments will stem in part from the fact that I worked with this process closely for some time as a member of the Board. Before getting into any criticism, I must congratulate you, because in my experience, the Board does an absolutely outstanding job on day-to-day basis. I wanted to say that publicly here. Unfortunately, not everyone around this table is familiar with the process in detail.

• 1030

I was wondering whether it might be a good idea to invite committee members to see the process first hand in the various centres in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or elsewhere. I think that if committee members could see the process at work for themselves, they would have a much better understanding of what you and Mr. Palmer said. When I listen to some of the other people on the committee, I realize that there is a lack of information, sometimes a very serious lack of information.

With respect to the number of people who applied for refugee status in Canada, I would say that the Canadian government or the Board should take the initiative and go to certain countries where we know flagrant violations are occurring. We saw that at the Board, and we have seen television programs on this as well.

For example, we have seen travel agencies openly giving out visas, documents, information about the Board and its procedures. I'm referring to a program I saw on Radio-Canada about India or Pakistan. There was a completely open travel agency that was passing out every imaginable type of information.

I wonder whether the Board could take the initiative and go to these countries and give people broader information, whether on the radio or in the newspapers. Some people want to come here who, in our view, are not refugees according to the definition of a "refugee". We should give them some information and tell them that Canada is not open to everyone. Because of the huge numbers of individuals who arrived in the past from Chile or other countries, the Board has a backlog problem. I think we have to look at the issue, not just when the people arrive in Canada, but when they leave their home country. That is one of my suggestions. The second one was about inviting committee members to see the process firsthand.

I'm speaking from personal experience of course, but I realize—and I was not alone—that even when Board members rejected a claimant, the decision was referred to the department. Often we would run into people on the street whom we had turned down as refugees six months or one year earlier.

Board members often felt that even though we had grounds for our negative decisions, they were overturned—and I use the term advisedly—by the Department. A great deal could be said about this situation.

Third, we will talk about the perception that Mr. Mahoney and other members on the other side of the table have of the Board. I think there is a flagrant lack of information both internally and externally—and here I will take the liberty of criticizing the Board. In my view, the Board is not well enough known to people. I think the responsibility for this lies with the Board. It should publicize its work, often to the general public.

The reason why we often have questions about war criminals, and the reason people have the impression that anyone can get into Canada and that people are allowed to do whatever they like once they get here, is that the Board is not providing enough information. I'm speaking here about relations outside the Board.

• 1035

Within the Board as well—and here I know whereof I speak—the members don't always have enough information about the good initiatives you have put forward, for example the commentary issue you referred to earlier, the Gordon report.

I think this would be a good initiative for members who take their work seriously, and for those of us here who do not understand that. It is really unfortunate, because most Board members take their work very seriously and do an excellent job. I think it would be good if they had access to more information.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madame Folco, for all of your suggestions.

Now we'll go over to Mr. Earle, please.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you. I apologize for coming in late, but I had another meeting so I hope you'll bear with me.

As the first question, I want to come back to a question that has already been raised on this side about the single-member panels. I realize, and I heard you say earlier, that legislation in this regard has not yet come into effect, but the board seems to be moving in that direction. I also heard you say earlier that there's a fair amount of training that takes place, but you did mention that with new members sometimes the decisions that are made at the beginning are a bit different from when they're more experienced.

So I wonder, would there not be an advantage to still maintaining two-member panels so that a more experienced member could be paired up with a new person coming on? You thereby would have a balance and hopefully achieve more justice for people, because their lives are weighing in the balance as they are presented with these hearings.

One person sitting there might have a bad hair day, or whatever, and come up with a decision that's going to be unfavourable, whereas two people...as the old folks used to say, two heads are better than one. With two people you have a balance, particularly if you have a new member coming on who does not have the experience.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Thank you very much. First of all, I agree with you entirely that these are very important decisions, and therefore the quality of the decisions we make are clearly very important.

With respect to whether a single member can do the same job as a two-member panel, with the same quality that we are seeking, I think the answer to that is yes. It's always helpful to have a mentor at a time when a member is completely new, and we try to do that at the present time. That's why we look upon the move from a two-member panel to a one-member panel as a transition. That's why right now we're dealing with 25% of our cases on a single-member basis.

There are two or three things that are really important in giving us confidence to move to single-member hearings. One is the quality of the appointment, the people who are appointed to this board. That's very key. The second one is the nature of their training.

As I said earlier, I think we have a good appointment process, and we have an excellent training program, one that has been developed over a period of time. It is not something very new.

When I talked earlier about new members not being very experienced, I was talking about a period also when the board's institutional expertise, its own specialized knowledge, was not at the same level as it is today. I can tell you from my personal experience that a member who is appointed to the board today has far more institutional expertise specialization at his or her disposal than there used to be many years ago, or even a few years ago.

We are still a young organization, but I think it's that expertise, it's the training, and it's the quality of members that gives me greater confidence in our ability to be able to deal with these cases single-member. Let's also not forget that the proposal in the legislation still permitted the chair to appoint a multi-panel for cases, if it were thought to be necessary. That's the safety valve in the system.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Great.

Turning to your estimates, on page 7, under plans and priorities by activities, I notice for the corporate management and services line, the planned expenditure for 1996-97 is $24.8 million, and then it goes up in 1997-98 to $26.9 million, and then back down to $24.4 million for the remaining two years. What's the rationale or the reason for the jump in 1997-98?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I'm going to ask the executive director to respond to that.

• 1040

Mr. Paul Thibault (Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board): If you'll bear with me, could you give me the page number again, please?

Mr. Gordon Earle: It's page 7 of the document, under plans and priorities. Corporate management and services takes a jump in 1997-98 and then comes back down in 1998-99, 1999-2000, $2 million or so.

Mr. Paul Thibault: In this fiscal year the reason some of this corporate management and services item is going up is that we intend to make some investments in IT this year. Some of that would be showing up there. We have to make some fundamental investment in that area.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Is that the $0.5 million under capital? There's also some under operating.

Mr. Paul Thibault: Capital would be some of it, but not all.

Mr. Gordon Earle: On the next page it's mentioned that you operate with a total complement of an average of 20 members this year and you plan to bring it up to an average of 28 members through the three-year planning period.

Mr. Paul Thibault: Right.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Back on the preceding page we show immigration appeals at 71 FTEs. Does that include support staff?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Yes, it does. That's the public servants who support members.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I haven't heard too much mention in particular about measures being taken to ensure women who were, say, victims of abuse and violence are to be considered as refugees. Are any particular steps or procedures taken there?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes, very much so. The board, as some of you know, issued guidelines on women claimants fearing gender-related persecution. That was in March 1993. It was a very major step, both domestically and internationally. The guidelines have now been in force for over four and a half years.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Is it paying off?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes, very much so, in the quality of the decisions. We're making sure that as a result of those guidelines, the cases of women refugee claimants who may have been—“may”, I say—previously excluded are now being included. I think other countries have looked at this as a model, and Australia and the United States have certainly followed and established very similar guidelines.

The Chairman: Ms. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): I want to welcome you. I'm from Vancouver. It's good to see another Vancouverite.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Thank you.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I have three questions. First, what is the average processing time for a refugee claimant? The waiting periods sometimes vary, and in B.C. a few cases have created a lot of media attention. One case I was thinking of was a family with quite a few children. They had to take refuge in a church. Is that kind of case very unusual?

That leads me to another part. Who really is responsible for providing good schooling, education, their living? Is it your board's responsibility or the department's?

The second part is on the board, your members. I understand some of them are being renewed for a longer term. Is there a limitation on how many years you're supposed to serve? What is the process? Sometimes a very good board member should continue, but I understand some could stay longer than necessary.

Third, recently I had some comments from a Chinese diplomat. To go back a little, in 1988, during the Tiananmen Square incident, the group of students in Canada was huge, and they claimed persecution. You did comment about the definition of persecution. It is being conveyed to me that they feel this is very unnecessary. The government took on this group of students—I just present what they say—because they are the top, the cream of the top, the best scholars. The Chinese government, through years, have cultivated and educated them. Then they are literally just left and allowed to go back.

• 1045

This, which is a sore point, I did not realize until recently. So I just want you to answer this. The students claimed to be refugees. The board accepted.

Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I understand what my colleague is trying to do. Unfortunately, the board's responsibility is not to decide what the policy of the government is. They deal with cases that are referred to them. Then they have to look on the case-by-case basis. So with respect to what the Chinese government is saying on that, it is really out of order.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Maybe I did not raise my question. That group has been considered as refugees, to remain. That's true. That's the definition of refugee. I want to know how you define refugee in that.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes, that's right. Let me try to respond to some of your questions as quickly as I can.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: You raised a question with respect to member terms. Within the legislation the maximum length of term is seven years. Members are generally appointed for two years to three years to four years to five years, and then they can be renewed. Currently there is no limit on the number of times a member can be renewed. The renewals are for a varied period, again from two to three to four to five years.

More recently—and I'm very pleased about that—we have seen longer-term appointments and longer renewal mandates. That helps us.

Second, with respect to the case you referred to from British Columbia, I would submit that it is rare, it's an unusual case. When you think of the total number of cases we deal with, I think we would all agree that the case you're referring to, with the family and the church involvement, is not something that happens every day.

You raised a very important point there with respect to processing times. It is something that is of concern to us as well, as it is to all of you. Currently our processing time for refugee claims is at 14 months. It is too long. I said that earlier. I've also tried to share with you some of the reasons why it is happening and has happened, but I'm also wanting to say to you that we are committed to reducing that through the number of initiatives we've introduced that I mentioned earlier, through working more closely with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and other people in the portfolios.

Also, I want to share with all committee members that we need a steady flow of cases. A very sudden influx such as we've had from time to time takes us off course, and we need a critical group of experienced members to be able to do that as well.

We have put into place a sufficient number of initiatives that I'm confident will enable us to reduce those processing times. I hope I will have that report for you the next time we appear before you.

The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.

We have only three minutes for each question. No lengthy preambles, please. Get right to the point.

Mr. John Reynolds: Last week I received a fax from the Vancouver police department and a number of pages showed 32 arrests on one day, on November 21. I've found out since that it's a normal type of arrest record in that city. The whole arrest section for that day in the city is probably 60 to 65, but about 50% of all the arrests are people who are seeking landed immigrant status or refugee people, etc.

I'm wondering if there's any way your people who are looking at a refugee know whether they've been arrested in Canada and charged with any crimes since they got here.

The other point I want to ask about before you go is this. I understand that about 12,500 people came through the U.S. border into Canada seeking some kind of refugee status. Why do we allow people to come through a safe haven? Why wouldn't we just send them back across the border, telling them to go and apply in Seattle, New York, Los Angeles, wherever we have an office, rather than bringing them into Canada, where they can go on welfare, seek medical help and all the rest of it?

• 1050

Those are my two questions.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Thank you. With respect to people coming across the U.S.-Canada border, it would largely depend on the type of status they have in the U.S. You're right in terms of figures. Around 25% to 30% of our claimants do come through the U.S.

It is up to the government to negotiate an accord with the United States. I think you have heard from the department about the attempts that have been made and the work that's been done to facilitate that accord. We really cannot send anybody back until that accord is completed and the U.S. is put on a safe third country list. At the moment, no country is on that list.

With respect to whether we get information in the course of proceedings about a person having been charged for a criminal offence, yes, that information can be made available to us. We don't have our own internal investigative unit that can go out and do that as a tribunal. However, it is part of the responsibility of the department, and in those circumstances that information can be brought to our attention.

I would simply remind everyone that a person is not guilty until proven to be, so there is a delicacy in how we deal with a charge as opposed to how we deal with a conviction.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I won't make a long speech about the refugee board and things of that nature. I appreciate the fact that you have some moral and legal dilemmas that would cross the eyes of a rabbi. I'll try to deal with some of them.

Following up on Mr. Reynolds' question, it is my understanding that about 7,500 people are ticketed for review on an annual basis. Of that 7,500, about 5,000 are actual deportees, and of that number, about 35% are connected to criminal activity. In other words, a little less than 1% of the overall immigrant/refugee population is actually deported for criminal activity. Is that a correct number?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I'm not in a position to give you the number. It's really a question for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. I understand that the lawyers are so frustrated in dealing with your department these days that they are actually increasing access to information requirements. Is that true or is that not true?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: In fact, I am surprised to hear that they are so frustrated with the Immigration and Refugee Board, because through this consultative committee on practices and procedures—I think you were not here when I spoke about that—three years ago, with the Canadian Bar Association representatives and the non-governmental organizations, we established what I think is a very useful working relationship with them.

Mr. John McKay: Have your access to information requirements spiked?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Off the top of my head, it would be difficult to say. They haven't spiked, I would say, but we can look at that figure for you. It certainly has not been brought to my attention as having exceeded what we...no.

Mr. John McKay: That's at variance with information I've been receiving. What about your mandatory dispute resolution? Have you implemented that at any stages of your proceedings?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: We have implemented quite aggressive case management, which is part of an ordinary dispute resolution.

Mr. John McKay: Is that helping you with your timelines in the system?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes. We have instituted that in the appeal division, and that has certainly yielded good results. But we are looking right now at piloting a more formal alternative dispute resolution process in the new year, jointly with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Justice and the legal community. I have already briefed the committee about that.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mme Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I've just one question for you. The department has a program entitled "Women at Risk". I don't know whether you are familiar with it. It deals with the problems facing women refugees.

In the past, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has recommended that the program be changed so as to better meet its objectives. Has your department acted on that recommendation?

• 1055

In addition, the committee recommended that processing of women claimant who want to stay in Canada for humanitarian reasons be reviewed so as to make the guidelines better suited to the situation facing women. Has anything been done in this regard?

[English]

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: The Women at Risk program that you referred to is not a program of the Immigration and Refugee Board, it is a program of the ministère.

It is a very good program. The criteria are slightly different, again. Yes, there is a risk component to it, but there is also the ability of the person to be able to settle in Canada. Often they are cases involving a woman in very difficult circumstances, with a very large family, lots of dependants, etc.

Any detailed questions of that program I think would be more properly put to the department. I'm certainly very happy and proud to report to you that as far as the board is concerned our initiative on gender-related persecution has been very, very effective, and certainly has made a difference.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, I'll have to cut you off there.

Thank you very, very much. It was a very informative and very rich session that we had for the last two hours. I apologize to Madame for cutting her off.

I understand that Mr. Ménard has a notice of motion. Mr. Ménard? We have to be out of here in three minutes, because another committee is waiting at the door.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I will read you the motion, Mr. Chairman. I am giving you notice of it, and I would ask that you have it translated. Is that all right?

Thus, I move that, for the smooth functioning of the committee, stricter rules be introduced. Each party should have ten minutes on the first round, and five minutes on the second round. The speaking order proposed by the parties is as follows: the Reform Party, the Bloc Québécois, the government, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party.

I would like us to discuss this, Mr. Chairman, because there is a problem with the way you are dividing the time. We will talk about it at our next meeting.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.