CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹

1535

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Peter Showler (Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board)

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

¹

1540

Mr. Peter Showler

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

Ms. Krista Daley (Senior General Counsel, Director of Legal Services, Immigration and Refugee Board)

¹

1550

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Forseth

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

¹

1555

Mr. Forseth

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Mr. Karygiannis

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Karygiannis

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Karygiannis

º

1600

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Karygiannis

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Karygiannis

Mr. Peter Showler

Ms. Krista Daley

Mr. Karygiannis

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Karygiannis

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

º

1610

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ)

Mr. Peter Showler

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Peter Showler

º

1620

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Mr. Peter Showler

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

º

1625

Mr. Peter Showler

Ms. Krista Daley

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Peter Showler

Ms. Krista Daley

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR)

Mr. Peter Showler

º

1630

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Peter Showler

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Peter Showler

º

1635

Ms. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Peter Showler

Ms. Krista Daley

Ms. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Ms. Neville

Mr. Peter Showler

º

1640

Ms. Neville

Mr. Peter Showler

Ms. Neville

Mr. Peter Showler

Ms. Neville

The Chair

º

1645

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

º

1650

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

The Chair

Ms. Krista Daley

The Chair

Ms. Krista Daley

The Chair

Ms. Krista Daley

The Chair

Mr. Peter Showler

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. Forseth

Mr. Peter Showler

Ms. Krista Daley

The Chair

Ms. Neville

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 042

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good afternoon, colleagues. We're resuming our review of the regulations with regard to Bill C-11. This afternoon we have Peter Showler, chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, and two of his officials, Manon Brassard and Krista Daley.

    Peter, I don't know if you have an opening statement or not. Perhaps you could clarify something for some of us. When the package for the regulations was tabled or pre-published, gazetted, I understand your rules, as part of the regulatory framework, were also published on December 15. I'm sure all of us have those rules. I know they're comprehensive and detailed, but I didn't know whether or not you were going to refer to some of the new rules that come into play because of Bill C-11.

    Mr. Peter Showler (Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board): Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I had intended to make a brief opening statement, and part of that statement would of course also involve some reference to the rules that have been pre-published. There's one set of rules that is yet to be pre-published, and I was going to make reference to that. I hadn't intended to make reference to the specific content of any one of the sets of rules--subsequent, of course, to questions that might require that kind of clarification.

    The Chair: For the benefit of the committee, you will know that Ben, from our research team, has put together briefing notes on the IRB pre-published rules, and they're before you now.

    Peter, I suppose they're easy to get or they're accessible, but I don't know whether the committee formally has those rules. So I would ask if you could maybe forward them to us, and we'll take it from there.

    Mr. Peter Showler: We'll undertake to do that immediately.

    The Chair: Thank you, Peter, and welcome. I know this committee and the IRB have had some very constructive meetings in the past, as we prepared for Bill C-31 and Bill C-11. I want to thank you and your staff for being available and accessible, for working with the committee to bring about better legislation, and now to bring about better regulations and rules. So welcome again to the committee.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

     Mr. Peter Showler: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    First I would like to introduce Ms. Krista Daley, Senior General Counsel of the board, and Ms. Manon Brassard, Director General, Legislative Implementation Project Office.  Both of them will help me answer your questions after our brief comments. I will be very brief today, but I would like to raise a few points.

[English]

    First of all, as you all know, the IRB is in a year of transition as we prepare to implement the new act. The new act's expanded provisions reflect the confidence that has been placed in the board by Canadians and the Government of Canada. It is our view that it's especially important that we try to implement the act as effectively as possible.

    First of all, in regard to the IRB rules themselves,

[Translation]

    I will now turn to the IRB regulations, in light of the fact that today you are interested in the regulations for implementation of the new act and IRB regulations. I would point out however that the IRB did take part in the consultations that led up to the prepublication of the rules prepared by the CIC.

    Under the provisions of the new law, the chairperson may issue rules concerning, among other things the work, the procedure and the practices of each of the board divisions. Moreover, the board made rules concerning the oath of office or declaration. The prepublication of those rules took place at the same time as that of the CIC regulations on December 15, 2001.

[English]

    We had five objectives in drafting the IRB rules: first of all, to provide a fair, open, and accessible process; second, to streamline our processes by increasing the efficiency and timeliness of proceedings; third, to ensure the integrity and security of our processes; fourth, in regard to accessibility, to provide for simplicity of structure and language in the rules--particularly since I'm sure you're aware that many of the persons who might need those rules would not necessarily have legal training; and finally, from the point of view of consistency, to establish a common approach so that similar subject matters would be dealt with in a similar way within all four of our divisions.

    We felt consultation on the rules was quite important, so the IRB created a rules committee composed of various experts from the immigration field. The mandate of the committee has been to advise the chairperson on the design and drafting of the rules, as well as on content.

    We've consulted widely prior to pre-publication with IRB staff, CIC, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, l'Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration--the organization known as AQADI--the Refugee Lawyers Association, and the UNHCR.

    There's also a statutory requirement to consult with the deputy chairpersons of the IRB and the director general of the adjudication division. In fact, all three of those persons have been intensively engaged in the drafting of the rules for their respective divisions.

    The IRB has already considered a number of comments received from those consulted, and we will continue to look at any proposals for changes received in response to the pre-publication.

    I wish to make reference to a fifth set of rules--the rules for conduct of persons in proceedings before the IRB. This is something new. There will now be authority in the statute, as there is not in the present statute, for the board to control its own proceedings and, where appropriate, to issue sanctions. On that basis, we are working on a new set of rules that govern the conduct of persons in proceedings before the IRB. That would refer to all persons in our hearing rooms, including persons before us or claimants or interpreters, but of particular note would be counsel. These rules will ensure better control of our hearing rooms and of the decision-making process.

    The rules are part of our ongoing effort to continue to improve the integrity of the process. Those rules have not yet been pre-published, because we are in continuing consultation, in particular with the law societies of various provinces. We expect the rules will be pre-published by April, and as with the other rules, they will all be ready and available upon proclamation date. We are planning for a proclamation date--as is CIC--of June 28 this year.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    And on that, I will conclude. I do however wish to point out that in spite of all the pressures brought to bear on IRB employees, they are still determined to execute the board's mission. We intend to meet these challenges by exercising the broader powers granted by new laws. This is an opportune time to strengthen the public's confidence in the Canadian immigration and refugee determination system.

    Once again, thank you for having invited me to speak to you today. My colleagues and I are now ready to reply to your questions; it will be our pleasure.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

    We'll move directly to questions. Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, and welcome to the committee.

    You mentioned that you can make rulings for the general working of the IRB and make rules under the act. One of the things you talked about was a fair, open, and accessible process. I'd like you to comment about the concept that, as a matter of course, all hearings are open to the public, like the court system, and that unless by exception--in camera, ruled on a needs-by-needs, case-by-case basis--all hearings of the IRB are basically open, just like any murder trial or any other trial in the criminal courts, of a very serious nature even, and that everything is open unless ruled by exception from the bench that it needs to be otherwise.

    The other issue I'd like you to address is the general backlog and what I see as the urgent national security need to reduce waiting lists to effectively zero, as a goal. I'd like to hear how you are going to get there. If you don't have the resources or the structure to get there, how will you get to the cabinet to make sure you do get those resources?

    That is really a fundamental need that we see from the country and, generally, the availability. We're going to have a new process of referral, so we need to be aware of the general availability of the IRB and its speedy processes within itself, so that it doesn't become so procedurally bound up that it becomes an internal tangle, much like human rights commissions have been commented about.

    I've mentioned three general things there: open hearings, backlog, and internal rules. Perhaps you could respond to that.

    The Chair: Mr. Showler.

    Mr. Peter Showler: Certainly, I'd be pleased to.

    First of all, respecting public access I would like to clarify that there is an exception in regard to public access within the Refugee Division. Those hearings are confidential unless there's an application for public access. Therefore, they fall into a different category, as of course does the Refugee Appeal Division in the same manner.

    The concern there is for potential threats to the life, liberty, or security of any person, not necessarily only the claimant. We frequently have situations where a person is making a claim. They may have been assisted by someone overseas, or they have a relative overseas, or other people would be at risk, so the presumption in terms of our refugee divisions--both of them--would be ones of confidentiality because of risk, unless there was a reason for public access.

    With that clarification, though, we still do have rules around public access to hearings, and, as explained, it is different in the different divisions because of the security concerns for refugee claimants. I would ask Krista Daley, who is our senior legal counsel, to refer to some of the specific rules on public access.

    Ms. Krista Daley (Senior General Counsel, Director of Legal Services, Immigration and Refugee Board): I know you may not have the rules in front of you, but as the chairperson has mentioned, the new act, as well as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, clarifies some of the issues around confidentiality. Therefore, within our rules of procedure, we had to provide a mechanism whereby applications could be made to have an otherwise private in-camera hearing held in public, and vice versa, to perhaps have a public hearing otherwise held in private when there is life, liberty, or security of the person at issue, or a security issue.

    As an example, I could simply refer you to the Refugee Protection Division rules, in which rule 52 simply sets out the mechanism by which an application to have a refugee hearing held in public can be made.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Peter Showler: Do you want clarification on that, or shall I move on to the backlog question?

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, let's go to the backlog question.

    Mr. Peter Showler: You've made reference to the backlog, and I assume at this point we're talking about the backlog within the Convention Refugee Division, which will become the Refugee Protection Division.

    I can tell you that of course it is of great concern to us that there has been a growing backlog. It's related to the number of refugee claims that have been received over the past few years, and particularly this year. Over the last four years, the refugee claim flow has doubled in Canada. This year we are now expecting claims by the end of the fiscal year to reach between 48,000 and 50,000 claims for the year.

    We do anticipate that with the proclamation of the legislation at that point there certainly will be a backlog. There is a backlog now, but it will potentially be more, because, as you know, one of the provisions of the new act is that there will be a deemed referral of all claims that have been made within Canada. So whatever claims are waiting within the Department of Immigration, where a claim has been made but the eligibility decision has not yet been made, within three days those are all deemed to be referred to us as well.

    We certainly had to contemplate that there would be a significant backlog to address. We already have an action plan in regard to responding to it. First of all, as I'm sure you're aware, the government, in the Minister of Finance's budget speech, indicated that it was a concern for the government; specifically, additional resources were granted to both reduce the backlog and to reduce processing time.

    That funding will permit us to seek more decision-makers in order to partially reduce the backlog, but that in itself would not be sufficient. So the board has already undertaken a streamlining process in regard to all of its caseload. The fundamental concept of the streamlining process is that cases should be dealt with as quickly as possible. In order to do that, they quickly have to be identified as being in one of four streams, so cases that can be quickly decided or simply decided can be.

    We've already had an expedited process in place. It's for cases that, in our view, are manifestly well founded. We have a process in place whereby by way of an interview and a recommendation to a member we hope to resolve those cases within a period of three months. It's a process we've already had experience in doing and I think we're getting better at doing it, except that with our new streamlining system those cases will be referred to expedite even more quickly than before.

    We'll have a second category, which are short, straightforward cases that could result in a positive or a negative finding, simply where there are one or two issues to be determined. If we can quickly identify them, if we can stream them directly to decision-makers who are trained in rapid decision-making, again, we hope to resolve those very quickly.

    Our other two streams would be a regular stream of cases, and the fourth would be complex cases. Complex cases, quite possibly, would involve security issues. There is an authority to refer to the Department of Immigration any case where we have security concerns. Again, we want to do that as early as possible to give the Department of Immigration the time and opportunity to adequately prepare for those cases to address security concerns. We're hopeful that's going to be an extremely effective measure in assisting to reduce the backlog and in actuality reduce the processing time of all our claims.

    The Chair: You also asked them with regard to the--

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I think the witness has answered in relation to the expedition and general availability of the board. However, he mentioned about how there are now about 48,000 to 50,000 claims per year. I wondered if he could provide this committee with some advice, and speculate as to why this happened and what confluence of factors developed this situation whereby Canada has been placed in the sort of circumstance where that kind of demand for service is placed upon our country. What are the elements he sees as having come together to create that kind of a situation?

    Mr. Peter Showler: We haven't received international statistics for this past year that at this point are particularly certain, but I can tell you that we do not appear to be in any different situation from most of the other major refugee-receiving countries. By that I refer to primarily the European group, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. And when I say that, we have consistently in Canada received approximately 7% to 8% of the number of claims received by the total European bloc. We've seen increases in the last three years, and so has the European bloc, although there may be variance within particular countries.

    A great amount of it appears to be simply because of globalization, in the sense that all states in the so-called developed countries are ones where there's increased access and increased communication. There's more known about the refugee determination processes and there's more physical access to those countries. Of course, as I'm sure you're well aware, at any given year there are approximately 21 million refugees in the world, and when I say “refugee”, I mean by that persons of concern to the UNHCR who are outside of their country. There are another about 35 million who are internally displaced, but who also have fears of physical harm or persecution. The great number of those, I'm sure you're aware, are already located in third world situations very near to where these situations of civil strife are taking place.

    It is my observation--subsequent to the dramatic rise in this last year, because we haven't been able to do those comparisons--that our situation isn't much different from other major refugee-receiving countries.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Jim.

    Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough--Agincourt, Lib.): When you say IRB also deals with appeals on spousal and/or family, is there a way you can assure us that family-related classes, especially spouses, over parental applications, sponsorships...? Can you give us a timeline of what length of time a spousal appeal will take from the time somebody sends it in to you with regard to the different posts abroad? What length of time would the parental sponsorship take? Is there a difference in the way you handle the spouses, as far as the parental, or are they both mainstreamed in the same channel? And I have a follow-up.

    Mr. Peter Showler: Certainly. Of course you are referring to one of our divisions, the Immigration Appeal Division--

    Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Yes.

     Mr. Peter Showler: --which is responsible for determining appeals of refusals of sponsorships of permanent residency applications. The sponsorship appeals, whether they be for children or whether they be for spouses, are handled in the same manner in the processing. We do not track. We would not statistically track variances between those two streams because they're treated as the same stream.

    I cannot give you off the top of my head precise numbers in regard to the period of time from when the appeal is made until the time when those cases are resolved. I can tell you that in general, our processing times are in the range of 6.5 months. Now, that's for the Immigration Appeal Division in general, because we also handle appeals of removal of permanent residents here in Canada.

    Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Staying on the sponsorship issue, is there a list that you have, length of time from the appeal until the post sends you over the paperwork? Is there a post that is overwhelmed and is not sending you the paperwork from their particular post as fast as other posts are? For example, you might have a lot of sponsorships out of India, and India is overwhelmed and takes twice as long to send it to you as let's say London. Are there any discrepancies, or are the posts reacting at the same speed? That's number one.

    If you can make available through your office a list for different parts of the world giving us the time lapsed between when I put in the appeal to when you get the paperwork, that will certainly help. And is there any thought that you might be processing the spousals faster than parental sponsorships because the spousals want to be united with their husbands? As we're progressing and saying that we want to build strong families and you don't want to keep the two spouses apart for a great length of time, is there any consideration in your department that this could be channeled in a faster stream versus parental?

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Peter Showler: When you say “parental” at this point, you mean sponsorship by parents of children?

    Mr. Jim Karygiannis: No, I'm talking about a child sponsoring the parents. The child is in Canada and he has his parents along with other siblings and they do a parental sponsorship.

    Mr. Peter Showler: We haven't screened one as opposed to the other. If the question is do we do that, the answer is no, we don't do that right now.

    In regard to various countries, because we have regional offices we will track our processing times in terms of each of those regional offices and the particular division. Anecdotally, we may be aware that the processing time is slower in one visa office as opposed to another, but it would be CIC, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, that would be tracking those variances.

    When the appeal comes in, at that point we also send the appeal notice to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and they have a certain amount of time in which they will prepare that case. There are performance standards, but those are the performance standards of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Remember, for every number you want to track statistically you have to have a field in your data program in order to do it. So we have not done that.

    Mr. Jim Karygiannis: No, but anecdotally, once I send my appeal in to your department, to your good office, then you automatically send the letter to the post abroad and say there's an appeal that is launched in this particular case. Then they have a certain amount of time in order to respond.

    In some of the offices I've seen, some of the cases are taking a little longer time to respond to. I was wondering if you have any statistics on different offices and the length of time it takes to respond. Some offices might be overwhelmed, some offices might not be. Is there any thought or any consideration in your particular office that perhaps you should be starting to fast-screen spousal, as it's been done also in the process of immigration? CIC is fast-tracking spousal versus parental. Is there any way you would think about that?

    Mr. Peter Showler: Of course. We could go back and look at it and see if that were a possibility, because it hasn't been raised before.

    We are continually talking to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, both at the higher level and at the regional level. For example, in Vancouver or Toronto there is a CIC office that is responsible for the development and delivery of those appeals, because they would have a minister's representative appearing on it. So they have the carriage of making sure, in bringing them forward, that those files are ready on time. We are continually talking to them and looking for ways we can encourage the prompt delivery of those files, because of course we are concerned when there are delays. At certain points we would actually issue an assignment court and ask for an explanation of why a particular file has been excessively delayed.

    Our counsel might want to add a supplement to that.

    Ms. Krista Daley: Perhaps I could add something, if you don't mind. We had dealt with that particular issue in our new IAD rules, the ones that are before the committee on pre-publication.

    In terms of what you'd call a form and standard, once the notice of appeal is filed with the refusal, the current standard is about 180 days for the appeal record to be received. Under our proposed rules that has been reduced to 120 days, so within the rule itself we've brought it down.

    In addition, there's a provision within our rules that allows for us to make those inquiries in the event that the appeal record doesn't arrive within the 120 days. It enables us to get the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to explain why it is that we have not yet received it, and that's the assignment court question that a person raised.

    Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Let me be specific.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: This is your last question.

    Mr. Jim Karygiannis: It has come to my attention that India, although it has to perform within 180 days, has taken something like 240 plus. I was trying to see if there are offices other than India that have been having problems. India has been problematic.

    Mr. Peter Showler: I think what I can tell you is this. As Ms. Daley has indicated, under the rules our authority is.... It's not my job to be managing the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, but what we can do, as a responsible tribunal, is set the rules. If they don't comply with the time standards, then we ask for an explanation and seek to compel it, where necessary.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Mahoney.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I'm sorry I was late; I was detained with other business.

    I think I'm in the right area here. This decision to refer a refugee claim to you within three days, or it's deemed to be referred, what basically will happen, in your understanding, with the people during that three days? I guess there are two options: one is detention and one is release into the community.

    Mr. Peter Showler: Yes. It's my understanding that one of the two will happen.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay. Where I'm going with this is you would also be responsible for the independent adjudicators who would conduct the hearing on the detention decision within 48 hours, if a person or persons were detained. Is that correct?

    Mr. Peter Showler: Yes, that's correct.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: We've heard some concerns expressed, particularly at Montreal, but in other places, by front-line staff who make decisions, ultimately, on whether to detain or not. Their concern is that too often the independent adjudicator who hears the justification on the decision to detain 48 hours later tends to rule in favour of the detainee, and they're subsequently released. The concern we heard from the front-line staff is that they don't bother detaining because they're just going to be released in 48 hours anyway. They don't feel they're being supported by the adjudicators. That's what they told us, so it's not an opinion--it's their opinion, not mine.

    I'm just wondering if you have a response, because it's my understanding that in the regulations--and I haven't found exactly where--there is something that somehow speaks to that issue as it relates to the independent adjudicators.

    Mr. Peter Showler: I'm delighted you've asked the question. I have two responses, because I understood this question was raised this morning.

    First of all, here are the numbers. In regard to the past year, of detention claims that came before the board on the 48-hour review, 75% of the detention decisions were upheld by the board. Another 15% were only released upon conditions, and those are usually quite strict conditions, such as bonds. Only 6% of those 48-hour reviews resulted in a release of those persons. So I think the committee could consider those numbers as being quite obvious.

    More important than that, sometimes when an immigration officer...and it's not for me to decide the basis upon which they make the original detention, but often within that 48 hours, of course, they will have to seek further information. So even within that 6%, what often happens is information is obtained, and it's a question for the adjudicator of the evidence that comes before them. They make their decision based upon only the evidence that CIC can present, plus, of course, the law, but I would say that those statistics indicate that there has actually been quite solid support for the appropriateness of those original decisions to detain.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wonder if I could follow that. Those are remarkable numbers, and I really appreciate hearing them. I wonder if they're being communicated to the front-line staff or if we just happened to maybe hit a hot spot where there's some dispute or problem at Laval.

    The Chair: I think we heard the same thing in Manitoba. So maybe in answer to your question, Steve, because it's a very good one, in the consistency of the application across the country, maybe your records would indicate that perhaps in Laval or where we were in Manitoba, we heard exactly the same--

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Two hot spots.

    The Chair: Yes, we heard exactly the same thing, that most of those people who had been referred to be detained were in fact being released.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, but I also find that perception is reality in life, and not only in politics, and somehow that perception is with the front-line workers. So I think we need to do something to clear that up.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Peter Showler: I think it's an issue. I can tell you specifically the number of 48-hour reviews that were not upheld. In the Montreal region, it was 7% rather than 6%.

    Because we're in the business of being a tribunal, I understand that perception is sometimes reality, but also facts are reality, and it's important to look at facts and apply them to the law. In this case, there may be an issue of perception. I don't think there is an issue in fact.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would agree, based on the information you've given us. How do we ensure that the facts get communicated to the front line so that we clear up the misconception of the perception, if you follow me?

    Mr. Peter Showler: Yes. I will be speaking to the deputy minister of the department on this issue, and of course it will be his responsibility to ensure that those misperceptions are corrected.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thanks.

    The Chair: We'll go on to Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Showler, in the beginning of your presentation you stated that the new rules had five objectives. You referred to an open process, one with integrity and greater simplicity, and consistent decisions. To what extent will these new rules improve average processing times? Will they be shortened by 10%, 20% or 25%, for instance? That is my first question.

    Here is my second one: we had the opportunity of consulting a document prepared by the Parliamentary Research Branch, which referred to the chairperson's new responsibilities, in particular the power to designate coordinating members. In light of the large number of files that are pending and which are cumbersome for everyone, both the population and the board, do you intend to increase the number of these coordinating members? Has the period of time during which they will serve already been determined? In that connection, will you be the only one designating such members or will there be a committee to assist and support you? That is my second question.

    Here is my third question. Since last fall we have heard talk of negotiations concerning third safe countries. Where Canada is concerned, the only third safe country is the United States; there are no others. Should these negotiations produce results, you might have to lay off some of your members. What is your perspective on the concept of third safe countries?

    Mr. Peter Showler: If I understood your first question correctly, it had to do with processing time and how we are going to improve that. I would first of all like to say that if there is a heavy backlog, processing time will reflect that. We know that if there is a backlog, there will be an increase in processing time. However, as I have already explained, we believe that with the screening system we have begun to put in place we will be able to reduce processing time.

    At present that processing time is nine or ten months. There will certainly be an increase because of the backlog. The processing time may reach 15 months. It is difficult to say without seeing what develops. Firstly, we must consider the effectiveness of the screening system and that also depends on the number of claimants that will arrive next year.

    As you probably know, the department has already undertaken some steps to reduce the number of persons seeking refugee status here in Canada. That is another issue. So there will be an increase and we will then be able to shorten processing time, we believe, on condition that we have an ideal inventory, that is to say an inventory of approximately 15,000 files. We believe that we will eventually be able to reduce processing time to six months, but we will need some time to reach that goal.

    Your second question had to do with the designation...

º  (1615)  

[English]

    The Chair: Peter, I wonder if you can tell us what is the existing backlog.

    Mr. Peter Showler: Right now, 50,000 is the number of claims that we expect by the end of this fiscal year. We expect it will be in the range of between 50,000 and 55,000 claims, if not by the end of the year, by implementation date, if implementation date is the end of June. It's difficult for us to assess the number of claims that have pre-eligibility determination.

    The Chair: As you answered Madeleine's question, you just indicated that 15,000 would be the ideal inventory.

    Mr. Peter Showler: Yes, that's correct. We need some inventory, because if we don't have some inventory you can't achieve economies of scale in terms of being efficient, in terms of streamlining.

[Translation]

    The second question was about the designation of coordinating members. Yes, there will be an increase because we will need other teams, especially since there will be a special team for this screening system. We will need a coordinating member for this position and afterwards if we still have 20 members—we hope to have 20—we will probably need at least one other coordinating member, perhaps two.

    In general, our teams are made up of between 10 and 12, or perhaps 14 members. The appointment or selection of these coordinating members is a matter for Cabinet, but after the new act is passed, this will become the chairperson's responsibility. I will always consult the deputy heads of divisions and probably also the other managers before making a decision.

    You had a third question, did you not?

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, about third safe countries.

    Mr. Peter Showler: I cannot make comments on policy, but I may comment a policy's impact or effect because we have taken certain figures into consideration. At this time we know that approximately 60%... I would first of all like to say that these are figures from the Department of Immigration and not from the panel. Thus, we know that about 60% of all claimants who arrive at entry points or airports come from the United States. We also know that approximately half or 50% of all claims are filed at entry points. So, we know that there will be an effect if there is an agreement that only applies to persons arriving at the U.S. border and airports. This may affect approximately 15 000 people. If this also applies to those who file a claim within the country but come from the United States, many more will be affected.

    I should warn you that the other systems, especially the European ones, make things very, very difficult, because the Dublin Convention which governs several European countries makes it very difficult to decide whether the claims are coming from within the country, from the United States or from another country. It is sometimes very difficult to determine the answer to such questions.

º  (1620)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

    Judy.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

    I have a follow-up to Madeleine's question on safe third country approach. Would it be fair to ask you, Mr. Showler, the numbers of refugees coming to Canada via the United States who are, as some would say, economic opportunists? These are people who are not really genuine refugees and in fact they're just using the system to get in and to get established, knowing we're going to have difficulties sending them back and dealing with them appropriately.

    Would you be able to tell us what the impact on refugee policy in Canada today would be on the numbers of refugees coming into Canada when these regulations are fully in effect? Give us the impact of Bill C-11 now, with these regulations as they've been tabled, in terms of numbers of refugees coming into Canada. Do they go up, down, or stay the same?

    Mr. Peter Showler: It's difficult to answer that question. As I've said previously to this committee, with the regulations in the new act, I think there is faster processing in some ways. That is clear. It's available because we have single-member, and for other reasons as well, such as the deemed referrals. So I think there can be a faster processing of our cases.

    There are security concerns. There are certain persons who won't have access to the refugee determination system who have it now. Those, of course, would be persons who are repeat claimants, those who have made a claim, have been refused, and have then left the country. They don't have access to the refugee determination system again.

    And then there are certain categories of persons—although the number would be small—who, for security reasons or for reasons of serious criminality within Canada, no longer would have access to the refugee determination system. I don't expect those to be appreciably large numbers of persons. Those restrictions are really security-oriented rather than volume-oriented.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My other question relates to some of the work our research staff had done in terms of the role of the UNHCR in the RAD proceedings. My questions are as outlined by staff. It would appear that intervener status is not automatic for the UNHCR in the RAD proceedings. Why is that? Do we need to look at that in terms of a general policy area?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Peter Showler: Of course that comes within statutory authority, and I think there is a difference between... I'm actually going to ask my legal counsel to clarify this.

    Remember that there are two types of RAD proceedings. There are the single-member decisions that are primarily intended simply to protect the integrity of the system and to make sure we get it right the first time. But then there is the provision for the three-member panels, which were conceived for the cases seen as being more important cases. Those are cases that would be sent for determination because we know they're in an area of our jurisprudence and decision-making in which we lack clarity, or for which there is some inconsistency of results because it may be a new country or a new issue within a current country and we're seeking some resolution on it. In particular, those are certainly the ones in which we're hoping to have the submissions and contributions of the UNHCR.

    For clarification, I would ask my general counsel if she can add to that.

    Ms. Krista Daley: I don't really have a lot to add. There are the two different rules on intervener status at the RAD. Rule 37 specifically deals with the UNHCR as a different category of intervener. Then rule 38 covers off the other forms of interveners who might come forward. I think the fact that there's an expression of a separate rule for them is an indication on those three-member panels of the value we would see as an institution in their interventions.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm still not sure that I've raised the question properly to get the answer we need for this part of the act and the regulations. I guess the question is why wouldn't it be automatic for UNHCR to be involved in RAD proceedings, as opposed to having to apply? If the UNHCR has to apply to intervene, under what circumstances would the UNHCR not be allowed to intervene?

    Mr. Peter Showler: Can you answer that one?

    Ms. Krista Daley: I have a brief answer. The way the rule is crafted, you are quite right, it's very much in the permissive: they must apply and then we will allow them. I think that reflects the control of the proceedings the RAD has to have. I'm simply speculating, but perhaps there could be a scenario where the claimants themselves don't want the UNHCR involved. Perhaps there are security issues. Perhaps the UNHCR could not make its intervention in a timely manner. It might be a possibility.

    Once again, I think the way we phrased the rule was in the permissive to allow us to have complete control, as opposed to setting out absolute rights. But I think that to the extent that the UNHCR has something to contribute, we'd be very interested in hearing it, particularly on those three-member panels.

    The Chair: Inky?

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Peter, you certainly have a huge challenge ahead of you.

    My first question deals with numbers, because I'm finding the numbers confusing. In this government's immigration plan for 2002, we talk about convention refugees landed, which ideally should be around 10,000 to 15,000. Inclusive of that, there is government assisted, which is 7,500; privately sponsored, another 4,200; dependants abroad, 3,100. Meanwhile we're already backlogged. From last year, we have 44,000 asylum seekers coming to this country. You're saying that the numbers will be inflated to over 50,000 by the end of the year. The ideal number is 23,000 to 30,000 refugee intakes for the year 2002. So how are you going to juggle all of this? What is the priority, and how do you control the intake?

    Mr. Peter Showler: That is essentially--and I say thankfully--more the minister's responsibility than it is mine. Our responsibility is to ensure that every claim that comes before us is accurately decided, fairly decided, and quickly decided. After that determination is made, if there is a positive determination--and our current acceptance rate over the last quarter is 42%--ordinarily one would presume that the majority of those would successfully be processed as permanent residents, but of course that is completely outside our area of responsibility.

    Maybe in a broader sense it is helpful for me to mention that because we are a tribunal, because our responsibility is to be making refugee decisions for persons who come before us, we don't control this process, in the sense that if there are going to be restrictions on people having access to the system, that will have to come from the Department of Immigration. Our job is simply to do it as quickly and well as we can.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Inky Mark: Following that response, perhaps you could assure Canadians that if you are going to streamline the process it's not going to compromise security. This is what we've been talking about for a long time, since September 11. We know that a number of refugee claimants are undocumented when they come to this country and perhaps could serve as a risk to this country.

    Mr. Peter Showler: Certainly streamlining doesn't mean sloppy decision-making. That's why one of the four categories in streamlining is complex cases, which, as I said, anticipate security issues. We want to identify those as early as possible so we can alert the minister, so that they can prepare adequate documentation in order to participate in those hearings. There is a very broad right to participate in the hearings under the new legislation. As well, of course, we will always have concerns in regard to identity. There is a specific provision now in the new act that makes specific reference to identity and identity documents. We will always be concerned that we can accurately identify the person and be assured as best we can that there are no potential security issues with regard to that person. That's why we want to identify those cases as quickly as possible so we can deal with them appropriately.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Perhaps I can reframe my first question, which is about priorities. Is it your mandate to follow the government's immigration plan of 2002 regarding refugees?

    Mr. Peter Showler: No, those are convention refugees. That's not an area of our responsibility. Our responsibility, as I've said, is to decide the cases as quickly as we can. Ironically, if we decide the cases more quickly, that may in any one calendar year refer more refugees who would be eligible for potential landing. But of course our responsibility is to do it as quickly as possible. I don't think you would want us waiting on those decisions simply to perform with a predetermined quota.

    Mr. Inky Mark: But that precisely is the immigration plan of this government. It is based on quotas in different categories in the refugee area.

    Mr. Peter Showler: It's not really appropriate for me to comment on how they came up with that determination or plan.

    The Chair: Lynne.

    Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance) Overall, how are the new rules going to help you, as compared to the past practices? What further issues are outstanding that get in the way of well-done operations? Is the structure adequate, or is there more work that needs to be done, for example, on the rules about detention release, or the recent Supreme Court rulings about deportation? What do you have in place for some of the officers who have to make...? There's room for a lot of abuse. A lot of officers feel that refugees can claim that they cannot return to their home countries because of abuse. It sounds to me, and I don't know if it's true or not, that they think that all they have to do is say they fear going home and the officer has to accept that as a refugee claim, that they are to be deemed refugees. So I just wondered, what's in place for the officers who know? As far as documentation goes as well, they're asked to make a decision within 72 hours without documentation. Do you have any way of helping officers with things like that? Do you have any overall thoughts on that?

    Mr. Peter Showler: If I understood your question correctly, when you refer to officers you're talking about immigration officers at the front end of the process when they have 72 hours to make a decision. It is a deemed referral, but the act provides for the opportunity to suspend the refugee hearing process and then refer the matter to an admissibility hearing at any time up to the point where an actual refugee decision is made. Of course, it would be quite extraordinary if the Department of Immigration had to make those decisions and they didn't have a chance to recover them later, they only had the 72 hours. The expression is often used “to claw it back”, but they can suspend and they can then refer to an admissibility hearing at any time until the final decision is made. So in actuality there would be months. They could do that if it were necessary. Of course, we're expecting and hoping that those decisions would be made fairly early in the process if they actually identify those persons.

    Also, to let you know, if during the course of the proceeding information came to our attention that would cause concern with regard to admissibility of that person to Canada or even ineligibility for the process, we would of course promptly inform the department of that. So there is an opportunity to recover that.

    Does that answer your question?

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Lynne Yelich: Yes. I'm just wondering about the rules. Is it adequate for detention now? Do you have enough...? Is there more work to be done? We're going to talk about the rules for detention or release. For these people, that's the only tool the officers have. Is your structure adequate to do that, or is there more work that needs to be done?

    Mr. Peter Showler: I'm going to let my general legal counsel refer to that, but I can say in general that in terms of our rules, we're satisfied that we have the rules in place to address our detention decisions, whether they be for 48 hours, the seven-day rules, or the 30-day rules. And there's been reference to the regulations. There are a series of factors to be taken into consideration in making those detention decisions, but I'm not aware of any additions that are necessary to that list of factors.

    I would invite either of my colleagues to make a comment if they can contribute to that.

    Ms. Krista Daley: I would just add that it is the distinction between our rules, which deal with our process when we deal with detention, versus what is in the proposed regulations, which is much more guidance to both the immigration officer, which is at the department when they detain in that first 48 hours, and then the adjudicators, which will now be called members, at the Immigration and Refugee Board. What the regulations have done, which I think was part of your question about the tools for doing detention, is it would appear that they have in large part codified what has already been done, but for which there really wasn't a regulatory listing of the factors of the types of things you look at when you're looking to continue detention or to release a person. In terms of our own rules, I think ours are more the practical: how you get to a detention hearing, what kind of notice you have to give, what type of information has to come from the various parties.

    Ms. Lynne Yelich: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Lynne.

    Anita.

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): I'm going to ask you to go over some previous grounds, because I'm a little muddled. I don't understand the process by which you're going to get rid of this huge backlog. Given the fact that you're going to be increasing the numbers of adjudicators and staff in the process, at what point will the numbers--I thought Inky was going with this in his original question--at what point will the numbers be 15,000 backlog? You said it's going to increase and then work its way through the system. I'm having a hard time following the numbers.

    Mr. Peter Showler: I've indicated that our expectation is that we will have an approximate backlog in excess of 50,000, more around 55,000. At the same time, with the new act, presuming the implementation of the new act, first of all we will have the added efficiency of single-member hearings rather than two-member hearings. Now, that's not a complete efficiency, because approximately 50% of our cases right now are heard by way of single-member hearing, but there will be a dramatic improvement in efficiency because we won't have to seek the consent of counsel to have single-member hearings, and we can schedule our cases far more effectively. So that will give us a lot of scheduling control.

    The other aspect that's going to be very important is of course the triaging or the streamlining I referred to. Often what we find now is that if you wait for a case to come onto the schedule and it's six or seven or eight months before it comes onto the schedule, at that point it appears you can expedite it. Well, you've lost a lot of time if you can expedite that case at the three-month level.

    The same applies to short hearings. We are very confident that with this triage... And in order to do this, by the way, it has taken increased resources, which are part of the resources that were contained within the budget. We'll have more support in order to do that front-end triaging and get the information quickly.

    So we can do two things. We can make sure they're short cases. Secondly, though, we can do them more quickly. So that is directly relevant to processing time, because it's average processing time that we're looking at.

    The third aspect, as I've said, is that there are resources for an additional twenty decision-makers. I am hopeful, but of course it would require the support of the minister and cabinet, that we can do that in a very focused, organized way and devote very experienced members to this triage process in terms of the backlog so we can do focused resolution of cases.

º  (1640)  

    Ms. Anita Neville: I thought at one point I heard you mention a 15-month backlog.

    Mr. Peter Showler: Not a 15-month backlog in terms of processing time. I've said that processing time will go up, because no matter how efficient we are, if we have a backlog in the range of 50,000 to 55,000 claims, we know that for some of those claims, even if we triage, it will take us 12 to 14 months for the regular hearings until we can actually get those cases on our schedule, just because we have so many.

    So our expectation is that the processing time will rise, but it's difficult for me to say exactly how high it will rise, because we have to deal with ongoing refugee cases at the same time. In that regard, as I've said, there have been steps taken by both the immigration minister and the department to reduce the refugee flow with regard to putting some visa restrictions on two of the countries that were quite large countries for us, specifically Zimbabwe and Hungary. At the same time, there is discussion of a safe third country agreement with the United States, which would have a significant impact on our flow.

    The fewer the refugees coming in on the current flow, the more of our resources we can devote to reducing the backlog. That's why, without knowing that specific number, it's difficult for me to give you anything other than generalities. But I am trying to be direct and frank with this committee by saying that we do know that the processing time will increase before it can decrease. At the same time, we're satisfied we have an action plan in place, with the present resources, to eventually get it under control and reduce processing times.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Does your action plan project a time when it will be under control?

    Mr. Peter Showler: Given all of the contingencies I've already indicated, I can still say that we know it will be a period of at least one to two years before we're able to start reducing those processing times.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

    The Chair: Before we conclude, I'd like to work it in another direction, Peter. As you know, one of the main concerns of this committee is with regard to processing times and everything else. I know you've made some great achievements, including the triage and the processing system you will put in place, and some of the streaming efficiencies you will further make, with single panels and so on and so forth.

    Assuming that the back door has been shut somewhat, even though you've indicated it's more about security and not necessarily numbers, the fact is, we've always indicated that it would be nice to get to a six-month...or to make decisions a lot more quickly. We're talking about fairness to people and so on, which means you've made some real ground by getting to 11 months or 12 months.

    I'm a little troubled by the numbers by virtue of the backlog of 50,000, and you will probably get another 50,000 next year. In having to do this, then, in fact the processing times are going to go back to 15 months. Now, I want you to tell me, because you want to be very frank with the committee, is that then a function of resources? And this is assuming that once it increases, the ideal backlog, as you said, would be 15,000 people, and therefore you could get to six months for processing time, which I think would be a good number.

    I don't know how you're going to do that, because you don't control the intake. You can control the inside efficiencies of the system, and you're doing that, but at the same time you have other pressures that are being brought upon you. So you're going to have to answer me on what it is going to take not to get that processing time to go up to 15 months but either to stay at 11 or 12 months or start to reduce by itself.

    If in fact you get to 15,000, then you can always, I suppose, lay off certain IRB people, or do whatever. There has to be some flexibility within your operational system in order to look at the ups and downs in terms of backlog and inventory.

    So what is it? Is it a question of human resources primarily?

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Peter Showler: Yes. If we received more resources, yes, we could take it down considerably more quickly.

    The Chair: Let me ask, then, how much more in resources will you need in order to at least keep it at the 11 months, with no increase in processing time? Because let's face it, with a lot of the retraining and new rules, we can assume that the whole system, even in immigration, is going to go a little bit nuts for the next six months or something.

    I don't want to see processing times increase. In fact, that's the reverse of where we promised to Canadians that we wanted to go as a committee. How many more people or how much more in resources will it take so there isn't a slippage to 15 months, we can at least keep it to 11 months, and we can start to see some greater improvements because of the efficiencies you're making?

    Mr. Peter Showler: That would take a very dramatic increase in resources. I can't give you a specific number, but the reason it would be dramatic--and it's important that the committee understand this--is that once you develop a backlog, it's difficult to get the processing times under control because the cases that are coming forward are ones that have already been in the system for eight, nine, ten.... We've just started going back up: we've gone back up to ten, after we got down to nine. But once you have more and more cases in that system already, no matter how quickly you try to deal with them, you're still going to have some increase in that processing time. I have to say that to some degree that is unavoidable. It's more a question of how quickly we can try to regulate it and bring it back down.

    The Chair: Maybe it's unfair for us to ask you to do this on the spur of the moment. I wonder if you might take the opportunity over the next week or two to lay out some options or some scenarios as to how much it would take or what it's going to take, internally or whatever, at least not to go up to the fifteen months, but at least to stay to the ten or eleven. Perhaps you can just tell us in some more detail.... There have been an awful lot of questions of this committee with regard to the backlog and how in fact it's going to work, and if you could provide us with a paper, that would be fine.

    I have two additional questions, if you could do that. First, on your personal information form that refugee claimants must now file, is that changing under your new rules, under the new system?

    Mr. Peter Showler: Yes, it is.

    The Chair: How much better is it going to be? Is it going to be helpful? What more information are you getting now that you weren't before?

    Mr. Peter Showler: We've had a working group for a few months now. We've also been consulting with CIC because we're looking to see if we can have a coordinated form, simply for the purposes of efficiency, so we don't keep asking for the same information again and again. We haven't completed it. It will be an improved form. The issue that we always have to confront is that we want as much information as possible, but we also want it rapidly and within the capacity of the claimant to deliver that information. I can tell you that it will be an improved form. We will certainly have a first draft, I expect, within about a month, and a little longer than that to have the final form.

    The Chair: Will there be a change in the rules with regard to the Refugee Protection Division? When a refugee protection officer meets with the claimants, in terms of determining whether or not there will have to be a hearing, are you changing the rules of that sort of decision-making process? If your answer is yes, perhaps you can tell us where and how and what those new rules are.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Peter Showler: Yes, we are, and I'm going to ask Ms. Daley to give the details.

    The Chair: Peter, I wonder if you can table that new form, the personal information form, for the committee.

    Mr. Peter Showler: I'd be pleased to. As I say, it's still in draft form until we finally get it completed. That will be a period of time, because we're trying to get it right.

    The Chair: Well, you've got two weeks. That's what I told the minister and the department: you've got two weeks to give me a copy of that form.

    A voice: One week.

    The Chair: Oh, one week. I'll give you two, Peter; I'm in a better mood this afternoon than I was this morning.

    Mr. Peter Showler: It's in draft form, and we haven't had consultations yet. The process is that when we have the finalized draft, ordinarily what we do is go out and consult with outside stakeholders, and of course we want them to have the sense that they have meaningful comment and we would react to that. So it will be a period of a little longer than two weeks, if it's all right.

    The Chair: Some of your best consultation can be right here before this committee. I think sometimes the department, and even ministers, don't believe that we could be some of their greatest advisers and consultants. We seem to be the last one in the process, as opposed to being the first or in the middle. You can try us and see how we like that form, you know.

    Mr. Peter Showler: I would be pleased to, and I would undertake that at the time we're to go out, we will include this committee as part of the consultation process.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Ms. Krista Daley: On the response on the expedited process, it's in the refugee protection rules at 20.(6). Our current rules, which have been in place since 1993-94, simply allow for a refugee to be interviewed and then for a claim to be held without a hearing.

    We've worked a great deal on our expedited policy within the last year, where we've codified much more the procedure and the processes and the protections and the safeguards and the criteria for the expedited process. In essence, this rule simply is a codification of our current policy, so it's much more transparent. Everybody will have access to it. It sets out the exact criteria for how a claim can be accepted without a full hearing. It also indicates that any report that's generated from that hearing then can proceed on to a full hearing into the claim.

    The Chair: So have we. With that rule, is all you said there, or is there additional information, such as the codified guidelines or rules? Is it all there? I think you said 27.

    Ms. Krista Daley: It's not all there. There is, for example, the fact that we usually tape-record these interviews, which is not actually contained within the rule.

    In these rules, just for your own information, we are trying a new model. These are what you'd call the official rules, but we're actually going to have explanatory notes, which we're calling commentaries and we're currently working on, that will flesh matters out.

    The Chair: Maybe you could provide those for the committee too in a model.

    Ms. Krista Daley: As long as it's not within a week, but we could probably give you a couple of samples to give you an idea.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Finally, are there new rules with regard to disciplinary action for your IRB members? Are you contemplating any internal rules with regard to how you assess your IRB members' performance, those kinds of things? I know our committee has always been interested, and we always get the question whether we are appointing the right people to the IRB. I'm not going to ask that question--we ask you that question all the time. I just want to know whether or not there are rules you have internally that look at IRB members, their performance, consider disciplinary action, depending on whatever factors.

    Mr. Peter Showler: For the last four or five years at least we've had a code of conduct in place, and we hadn't contemplated changing that, simply because we felt that it really fully addressed the issues we had. But within the new act and with the rules there is going to be the oath of office, or the declaration of office, which is something new. We do that now, but it does not have any legal effect. It will have legal effect. That was intended to underline the importance of the decision-making and the obligations that decision-makers have to the Canadian public and to Parliament and the Canadian government.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Paul.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Recently, the Supreme Court ruled on the Suresh decision. Did we learn anything from that circumstance? I understand that basically, the court tossed it back to the system and said, you didn't follow the rules, you knew what the rules were, do it all over again. Do you have some comment about that? What did we learn from that whole exercise?

    Mr. Peter Showler: My first comment is that the rules and procedure they were referring to were not the ones that were within the refugee board. It was more with respect to removal proceedings and what would be appropriate removal proceedings where someone was to be returned to threat of torture or life. So these were proceedings that are outside the range of the board itself, and because we have such strict statutory obligations, I think our procedures would fully conform with the expectations of the Supreme Court.

    Perhaps my legal counsel would want to add something to that.

    Ms. Krista Daley: No. In essence, the two decisions in Suresh and Ahani just do not apply. They weren't part of our proceedings. But the court, as Mr. Showler indicated, does speak extensively about procedural fairness and the process that's required, and certainly both the act and the rules would appear to conform with what's necessary, certainly for refugee claimants.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Let me thank you, Peter, Manon, and Krista, again, for some very useful information. I know you will provide us with that information we talked about. Again, thank you very much for your hard work and your dedication, and we look forward to working with you. As we go through the review and look additionally through some of the rules and regulations, we may need to call you back.

    The committee will be adjourned until tomorrow.

    Before anybody leaves, there are some housekeeping matters that I want to discuss with the committee on future work plans. So I'll hold you here for about five or ten minutes. We'll make sure that the television cameras are shut off while we're talking about these other matters.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Then we'll sit tomorrow?

    The Chair: On Thursday morning. I'm sorry, I misspoke.

    This meeting is adjourned.