[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, April 27, 1995
.0908 
[English]
The Chair: Order. Good morning, everyone.
Before we begin, I'd like to take care of other business of the committee. I'd like to remind the members of the committee about the reprinting of evidence, because there have been a lot of questions. Effective this week, the Board of Internal Economy has decided that committee issues will no longer contain transcripts of the evidence. Transcripts of the evidence will be available to you electronically, within a period of approximately three working days, on PubNet. Everybody has received notice of that, in fact.
I should remind you all that this process is new and has required substantial and hurried training of House transcription staff. It is possible, and indeed highly likely, that the three-day deadline will not be met right away. I would ask you to be patient.
There will be no written or electronic transcripts of in-camera meetings dealing with future business. Members will no longer receive a hard copy of the blues, as we used to in the past.
Finally, in order to avoid confusion and facilitate the work of the transcribers, I will recognize each of you by name and would encourage members to refrain from talking over one another. Should you wish to speak back and forth among yourselves, I would ask your indulgence to have you please address your comments to the chair. It's just a little reminder to be civil, which I know you all are.
I'd also like to have you approve today the budget for the subcommittee.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Madam Chair, concerning your first statement, I must tell you that I am very frustrated and dissatisfied with the Committee's decision.
.0910
I totally disagree. I think that we were well served and I do not see any justification for that change. I think it will mainly prejudice the francophones on committees since most of the discussions are held in English. I have to say it for the record.
The Chair: I want also to put on the record that it is the Board of Internal Economy, one member of which, if I am not mistaken, is a representative from the Bloc Québécois, that made that decision. It is on the record.
[English]
Mr. Knutson, did you want to say anything on that matter?
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): We're asking for... What is it?
The Chair: It's $14,600 to cover both Diminishing Returns, which is the C.D. Howe report, and also the immigration consultants.
Mr. Knutson: The primary cost is witnesses to Ottawa in the amount of...
The Chair: It's $9,000 and $1,500.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you.
The Chair: If anybody would like copies, we have them.
All I need today is agreement to put forward the budget. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: We'll now proceed with the order of the day.
I'd like to welcome Ms Avvy Go, executive director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic.
I believe you've been with us before, Ms Go.
Ms Avvy Go (Executive Director, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic): Yes.
The Chair: Welcome back, then.
Ms Go: Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to come here today and talk about an issue that is of great importance to many women in my community and in the communities served by the clinic.
As is stated in my written submission, which I handed in on time for translation this time, my presentation this morning is going to focus on the issue of humanitarian and compassionate review alone. It is not because I think the other two issues are not important. However, we just want to confirm that we endorse the positions and submissions that have been presented to this committee by the Canadian Council for Refugees. We feel it is not necessary for us to elaborate on those points that have already been presented by the CCR.
So I would like to focus on the last question that is highlighted in the terms of reference for this committee today.
At the very outset, I would like to ask the committee to take note of the fact that discrimination still exists in our society, and discrimination based on gender and race, much to our dismay, is still very much a reality faced by many refugee and immigrant women.
Spousal abuse concretizes, in a very violent and blatant manner, the various forms of discrimination faced by women. Spousal abuse can and does exist because women in our society are still disadvantaged in terms of their social, economic, and political conditions.
Therefore, any policy dealing with women who are subject to spousal abuse must incorporate into the policy the understanding of the issues of disadvantages and discrimination. Such policy must, at the very least, recognize the various forms of disadvantages that are faced by women. More fundamentally, any government policy dealing with spousal abuse must not play any part in condoning or reinforcing the disadvantages faced by women.
Unfortunately, as we submit, the current immigration policy fails to address the disadvantages faced by immigrants and refugee women who are victims of spousal abuse. Our brief describes why that is so.
On page 3 of our submission we outline some of the bases for the so-called humanitarian and compassionate review in our immigration system.
This is based in part on paragraph 3(g) of the Immigration Act, which highlights one of the fundamental objectives of the act - to provide protection for the displaced - and also a section dealing with non-discrimination.
The objectives are then further implemented by subsection 114(2), which deals with the approval of landing for people who otherwise do not qualify or who fail to meet the admission criteria under our immigration system.
.0915
The words ``compassionate and humanitarian'' are not defined anywhere in the act. Over the years, however, policies have been developed to provide the parameters under which these principles must operate. We deal with that briefly on page 4 of our submission - how the courts have reinterpreted the terms ``compassionate and humanitarian''.
Because of the amendments to subsection 114(2), what is important for this presentation and for the purpose of today's discussion is our submission that the so-called humanitarian and compassionate review has been anything but. This is because of the emphasis of economic criteria within the context of humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
It is our submission that the very requirement that women have to be self-sufficient in order to pass the humanitarian and compassionate review is fundamentally discriminatory because of its lack of recognition of the disadvantages women face as a result of the abuse.
We have cited in our report an article by Felicite Stairs and Lori Pope, in the Journal of Law and Social Policy. It's only one of the many articles written over the years around this issue. This article, and many others, point out that women globally, including those in Canada, are socially and economically disadvantaged vis-à-vis men. Women in general have less access to employment opportunities. They tend to be ghettoized in lower-paying jobs.
Most women are still the main caretakers of the family, and for that reason many of them are staying home. Work at home is not valued in the same way work outside of the home is valued in our society. Because of the lack of universality of child care, women do not have any free choice between staying home or working outside.
All these issues reinforce the disadvantages women now face economically and socially. We really have to ask how many times we have to emphasize that the economic disadvantages faced by these women are directly related to the abuse they suffer at the hands of their spouse. How often do we have to challenge a government policy that reinforces such disadvantages before things will be changed?
Now, with the new right-of-landing fee, we can only anticipate that more of a burden will be put on those women who want to seek asylum and other status in Canada. The new fee is discriminatory in its impact on women for the reason that as an economically disadvantaged group, women will find it harder to apply for landing status in Canada under this new tax.
I can think of many cases that come to mind from among many of my clients. For those who are in the process of applying, the single mothers are the ones having the most difficulty coming up with the fee to apply for landing.
In addition, if the government decides to go ahead with a bond to be imposed on sponsors, abused women will find it even harder to leave the abusive relationship, because there will be more reason for the abuser to make sure the woman doesn't leave.
We believe solutions to this problem must and can be found. We must find a solution because the policy and legislation as they stand are discriminatory in their impact against women in general, and against women of colour in particular.
Far more women than men are in need of protection as refugees, but far more men than women are getting refugee protection in Canada. Women come to Canada mostly as sponsored immigrants because of the overall emphasis of the male-defined skills and status of wealth as admission criteria. More women than men will therefore be subject to control by their sponsor, and are more likely to become victims of spousal abuse and sponsorship breakdown.
So long as our immigration and refugee policy is discriminatory in gender terms, in general, then specific regards must be paid to the women who are among the most vulnerable because of their lack of status. For every abused woman our country accepts as an immigrant on humanitarian and compassionate bases, there are hundreds of women we have rejected as a matter of fact or law under our routine admission and selection system.
.0920
As well, to be true to the principle of humanity and compassion, we must be prepared to provide protection to those who deserve it most. And while I recognize that a balance between concerns for the economic versus humanitarian concerns needs to be struck in the overall immigration system, I don't think it has any place at all in policy designed specifically to address concerns of those who would not meet that balance test. Women, and particularly abused women in the sponsorship breakdown situation, are one of those cases.
We must also look at the issue of violence against women in the context of immigration, because we look at issues of violence against women in other contexts. If violence against women is not acceptable under our criminal justice system, it should not be acceptable under our immigration and refugee system. We must not allow the domestic element of violence against women to again sneak in through the back door and into the discussion when we're dealing with this particular issue. Women have fought too hard for many years to make sure that domestic violence has been placed on the public agenda and is understood as a public issue.
I have cited a number of international declarations to show that there are international obligations that we must meet, but by no means are they the only declarations or covenants we abide by. Women's rights are human rights, therefore any human rights protection we grant to refugees and immigrants as a result of international obligations must be granted to women as well.
Finally, because it is our position that the issue of economic sufficiency, or the lack of economic dependency, as understood in a very male-dominated society, has no place in a humanitarian and compassionate review of landing applications. We therefore recommend a very different understanding of what is humanitarian and compassionate.
We recommend that the standing committee require the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to develop a new set of humanitarian and compassionate review guidelines to deal specifically with women who are victims of spousal violence. This new set of guidelines must make the safety of women and children, where applicable, the first priority in assessing any landing application. We recommend that the minister seek and consolidate the input of various women's organizations, particularly those dealing with victims of violence and other abuse, when determining the factors that need to be looked at in assessing the degree of ability of any particular applicants.
Until our recommendation for fundamental change is accepted, we recognize that there must be interim measures to ensure that immigrant women victims of violence are not left out under the protection scheme. To that end, we make the recommendation that women whose sponsorship has been withdrawn by the husband or by the spouse, or who have also been subject to spousal violence, should be given a minister's permit authorizing them to work for a period of up to three years. This would allow women to upgrade their skills or to obtain employment to meet the so-called establishment criteria. At the end of that three-year period, landing status should then be given to those who have demonstrated the ability or the potential to become self-sufficient.
This is not the position we would want to take as a fundamental one, however. This is a compromise position we have taken, and many women's organizations have taken over the years.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Go.
[Translation]
We will go first to the opposition. Mr. Nunez or Mrs. Debien.
Mr. Nunez: Thank you, Ms Go, for your presentation which is a brilliant plea in favour of women in general and also in favour of immigration. You have submitted one of the best briefs that the committee has received. You have a lot of experience, particularly with immigrants of Asian origin.
You mentioned the right of landing fee of $975, that I call the immigration tax, saying that it was yet another obstacle to the acceptance of women as immigrants or refugees, especially single mothers.
.0925
Have you dealt with many of these cases lately, since the fee was imposed on February 28th, and how did you resolve the problem? Did you obtain those government loans that were promised by the minister?
[English]
Ms Go: We have dealt with two cases since the landing fee was imposed at the end of February. In fact, those two cases dealt with the Deferred Removal Order Class, which is the special program now being set up to help the refugee claimants who failed three years ago to get landing status after they were left in limbo in Canada for a number of years.
In one case we submitted the application the day before the budget, but it didn't arrive until four days after the announcement. So the package came back to us with a letter saying there was now this new landing fee, so we had better come up with $975, otherwise they wouldn't process the application. In that case it was a single mother who was working on and off, so she didn't have the money to pay right away. In the end, she somehow managed to borrow money from her landlord, her relatives and her friends at the factory where she worked in order to pay that fee.
In another case the woman still hasn't been able to come up with the money. We aren't sure how the loan system works and are still in the process of receiving information about it. We know from the media that the Algerian refugee's application for a loan has been declined. We don't know the exact criteria being used right now, except we know you have to prove you're able to pay it back in order to get the loan.
I think in the situation of the single mother, she probably wouldn't be able to do it. The fact that she was not able to pay is very much related to the fact that she may not be able to pay in the future.
So we are very skeptical about the loan program, but more fundamentally we think the $975 fee should not be in place in the first place, because this is what you will get. The single mothers, or people who are economically disadvantaged, will have the most difficulty in coming up with that money. So they may not even be able to apply. The package was sent back to us; the immigration office wouldn't even process it just because it didn't have the $975.
If you accept that certain groups such as women face an economic disadvantage, then you would have to recognize that the fee has an adverse impact on those groups that are economically disadvantaged.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You did not mention in your brief the application of IRB's directives in the field. We know that over the last few decades there have been a lot of refugees from Southeast Asia, particularly from Thailand. Department officials went over there to select refugees, basing themselves mainly on their capacity to adapt to the labour market rather than on the degree of persecution which women might be subject to based on their gender, for example. What is your experience or knowledge with regards to the application of those directives abroad, in the field? Do those directives really favour women or do men always have preference?
.0930
[English]
Ms Go: I am much less familiar with the refugee determination process compared with my knowledge of the immigration system. I gather from reading the guidelines and the various briefs and submissions that have been prepared on this particular issue, as well as just looking at the statistics, that over 80% of the world's refugee population is made up of women and children. But if you look at the figure in Canada in terms of the number of women refugees we're accepting, it is nowhere near 80%.
As I said, men in general are more likely to be accepted as refugees because of the criteria we have adopted. It has nothing to do with the degree of persecution or the conditions the refugees face. It has more to do with whether or not they have the ability to establish themselves in Canada, and other secondary factors. I would defer to the position that has been presented by ICCR on that issue, as well as its critique of the Women at Risk program, for the committee to decide how effective we really are in granting protection to refugee women across the world.
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): Thank you very much. I really enjoyed your presentation. I have a few questions, so perhaps you can enlighten me and members of the committee.
First, the Ontario government is deducting $100 from the welfare cheques of new immigrants or refugees. You mentioned, and I agree with you, that most refugees in the province or country are women. What are we going to do about this $100 deduction?
Second, on page 7 of your report you use three phrases to describe one thing: the right-of-landing fee, the head tax and the new tax. Why can't we just use one phrase that everybody can deal with and understand? We should call it a landing fee. We know it's not a head tax or a new tax, it's just a landing fee.
Third, you mention that the new bond that will be introduced will create hardship, but you fail to tell us how you're going to prevent abuse in the system. That bond is intended to correct an error in the system. Once you have complied with the terms and conditions, the bond is returned. It's security for the government so it won't be taken for a ride. If you don't like the system we propose, how would you replace it?
I assume your organization, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, has been around for a long time. How long have you been in operation?
Ms Go: Since 1987.
Mr. Assadourian: Since then, I'm sure you have contacted many members of Parliament from different political parties. You are an activist, which is a good idea. I'm not blaming you; don't get me wrong. Which party so far has reflected your concerns the most in that you would feel comfortable saying that if you get this idea and run away with it, it will be beneficial to the organization you represent?
Ms Go: I'll try to answer the last question first. We see ourselves as advocating on behalf of the immigrant and refugee women -
The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms Go, Madam Debien has a point of order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien (Laval East): I think that Mr. Assadourian's question is inappropriate. It is as if he is asking Ms Go for a political opinion when this is not the purpose of her testimony.
The Chair: I will let Ms Go decide whether or not she wishes to answer that question.
However, I agree that the question is not relevant to the order of the day. Go ahead.
[English]
Ms Go: I was just going to say that although we are a political organization, we are not partisan in any way. So it doesn't really matter to us which party is in power, or what position it takes. As long as our concerns are not being met, we will continue to put forward the concern. That issue is a non-issue for us.
.0935
I'll try to remember all your questions. I guess the first one is about the $100 deduction. It's on sponsored immigrants alone; refugees are not subject to that deduction. We just held a press conference on April 17, which was the tenth anniversary of the equality section under the charter, to announce that we are taking the Ontario government to court over that particular issue. It is our view that the $100 and more deduction has an adverse impact on sponsored immigrants, who are mostly elderly parents and spouses, mostly women and children.
That issue is of major concern to the community I serve, because in the last ten years most of the sponsored immigrants coming into Canada have been from countries in Asia and the Caribbean and so on and so forth. The figures from 1993 show that many of them are from Taiwan and Hong Kong and China, and those are the direct constituencies being served by our clinic. So that is an issue we will continue to address, but in a way, that issue is linked to the issue of the imposition of bonds.
I can recognize that in some situations the sponsors decide not to provide support for the sponsored immigrants. Some of my clients - for example, the elderly parents - are victims of elder abuse. They were victims of neglect, or the children just decided to dump them. In one particular case I remember the parents were locked up in the washroom and subject to all kinds of abuse.
But those are a very small proportion of the overall cases of sponsorship breakdown. In most situations the sponsors cannot pay for the sponsored immigrants any more because of economic recession. A number of the clients who come to my clinic have more or less the same story. Before the parents came to Canada, the sponsors were holding down two jobs, working full time and part time to support the family and to bring their parents over and so on and so forth. Then after the parents arrived they lost their jobs, either because the factory moved down to the States - and now they're moving down to Mexico - or because of other economic restructuring taking place in our society.
So the sponsors are not wilfully forfeiting their sponsorship. Rather, they have lost their ability to support because they are also victims of economic recession. That is confirmed by the report that was prepared by Immigration Canada when they were studying the sponsorship issues in the region of Peel. They found out that, first of all, the percentage of sponsorship breakdown or the percentage of sponsored families on welfare is still lower than that of average Canadian families.
They came up with the conclusion as well that most of the sponsorship breakdown occurred because of the economic recession.
Given that as the case, then, if you put in place a system of bond because you want to stop the abuse, but you're using the wrong instrument - most of the cases have nothing to do with abuse, nothing to do with abusing the sponsor's power - what you will be left with will be a situation where people will have to have money to make up for their bond payment. I don't know how much that will be. I have been told any figure from $20,000 to $100,000. I have no idea how much that will be in the end, but that is a significant amount of money you're talking about. So you will then be excluding a lot of people from the ability to sponsor.
.0940
When sponsorship does take place because of the abuse, my understanding is that the bond will kick in if the sponsored immigrants go off and apply for welfare. If they don't, then you won't know that the sponsorship has broken down. What will happen is that the sponsor, because now they may lose their $100,000 or $20,000, or whatever, will do whatever they can to stop the sponsored immigrants from applying for welfare. This is already happening in cases of abuse, but there will be more of a reason for the sponsor to do that if they are going to lose the hard cash if the parents or the wife go on welfare.
So I don't think that will address the issue of abuse. I think the abuse or the sponsorship breakdown will then become an underground issue. We will not see the sponsorship breakdown happening because it will be happening within the home.
The Chair: I'll ask you to try to make your answers a bit shorter.
Mr. Assadourian, would you like to repeat your other question?
Mr. Assadourian: You described the landing fee in three ways, as the landing fee, head tax and new tax. What is the correct one?
Ms Go: I guess the official name is right-of-landing fee, but many of us refer to it as the head tax.
Mr. Assadourian: Well, don't you think it's misleading - head tax and landing fee? They're two different things.
Ms Go: This is a political statement. We are making a political statement that we believe the right-of-landing fee is inappropriate and that it is creating a burden on people, particularly on immigrants and refugees. It's on every single adult immigrant and refugee. So we're giving a very political statement.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: Good morning, Ms Go.
Ms Go: Good morning.
Mrs. Debien: Welcome to our committee. I just wish to reiterate what my colleague Mr. Nunez said earlier regarding the quality of your testimony and brief.
On page 10, you make a very important recommendation. You ask the committee to urge the Minister of Immigration to draft guidelines on the review of claims made for compassionate reasons, specifically to deal with women who are the victims of spousal abuse. I guess you have given this a lot of thought. I would like to know what you feel those guidelines should be. What would you include in those guidelines which should be suggested or recommended to the minister?
[English]
Ms Go: I guess the very first thing I would include in the guideline is the reason for the breakdown: why it is that women have left the sponsor, whether it's because of abuse. So I would put abuse as the first priority for determining whether the woman deserves the protection or exemption from the general admission rule.
There may be some issues around how you define abuse, what kinds of abuse we are talking about. I propose that it should be as broadly defined as possible, because many women are in a situation where there is no physical abuse but there is tremendous emotional and financial abuse that would disable them from leaving the abusive situation.
There may be some issues around what kind of evidence is required. It has been mentioned to me that in Australia they require you to produce a conviction record or charges or whatever. I'm not sure if that's the way to go, given that most women are still very reluctant to go to the police for help when they are being victimized or abused at home. Evidence is necessary, but other kinds of evidence, such as maybe a doctor's report, maybe whether the woman has contact with social workers, community agencies' workers, who might have documentation on the abuse.
I'm sure that if women know that by disclosing the abuse they will still get protection, then more and more will come out and talk about the abuse they suffer at the hands of the sponsor and the issue, with evidence, hopefully will become less and less over the years.
.0945
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You said that belonging to a racial minority or visible minority makes it even more difficult to obtain immigrant or refugee status. You belong to a visible minority like all people from Southeast Asia. How does the fact that someone belongs to a visible minority affect his or her ability to obtain refugee or immigrant status? Could you elaborate a little more?
[English]
Ms Go: In a general way or in the context of ``humanitarian and compassionate''?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In the context of women.
[English]
Ms Go: In the general sense, in the immigration context, one of the criteria for applying for immigrant status is the language ability. That puts up a wall, a barrier, for people who come from non-English speaking countries. That has been an issue raised by groups dealing with domestics, such as Intercede. But it is also an issue with immigrants in general if they are from countries where English is not the first language.
The first step is that the language ability will be a major barrier. But in general, or in the particular context of the humanitarian and compassionate review, if the immigrants who are here and those who may become a victim of spousal abuse and sponsorship breakdown are racial minorities, if they are non-English speaking, chances are they will also face other discrimination as a result of their race in Canada: less opportunity for jobs; whatever professional skills they may have brought over to Canada are not being recognized because their degree is not being recognized; their experience is not being recognized; and they are not in jobs that are comparable to their degree of knowledge or expertise and education, but in lower-paying jobs.
All of these have been documented in various reports, such as Access: Task Force on Access to Professions and Trades in Ontario (1989), a report done by the Ontario government.
All these issues mean that immigrants are ghettoized in jobs that are lower paying. In that situation, you have to prove that you are able to establish yourself, and if you are a woman with those kinds of barriers, in addition to being a woman, then chances are you would not be able to meet the economic criteria of having to show that you are self-sufficient, that you are able to establish yourself, that you are better than just working in restaurants sixty hours a week for $4 an hour.
Many of my clients are in that position even though they have degrees or other relevant education levels. Their education is not recognized, so that's the kind of job they are holding down right now. They won't meet the economic establishment criteria when sponsorship breakdown takes place.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): I thank you for your comprehensive report. I do have some concerns, however.
We were talking about the settlement fee, the $975, yet basically, when we take a look at what other countries are charging for settlement purposes, our $975 is really a minimal amount compared with other countries.
I don't know if there is a direct relationship between the settlement fee being charged and an increase in spousal abuse. Some spouses, we know, with psychological problems and a lack of ability to cope with frustration, will use any excuse to abuse their loved ones, or their spouses, or whatever.
.0950
To say that our policy is another example or a foundation for an increase in spousal abuse is I think questionable. I think we should be very careful there. The abuse has been taking place, is taking place and will continue to take place, no matter what the excuses might be.
In regard to the statement you made about the settlement fee, I just came back from a meeting with the director from Vegreville in Edmonton. They're processing the loans as rapidly as possible. They don't seem to be having much trouble in the machinery and the way it's set up.
The statement you made, that the applicant has to prove somehow that they have the ability to pay the loan back, I find a little bit puzzling. If the client is in Hong Kong or in Singapore or Taiwan there's no way they could at that moment come forth with proof that they can pay back a loan when they come to Canada, because no one knows what the future has in store for anyone.
So I question that statement, and I don't know how much validity there is in it.
Ms Go: That's a very good question, but that's exactly what is required; to determine whether the person is entitled to a loan, the person has to show this. It's right in the policy. It's stated in the policy that they will only give out loans to people who can demonstrate the ability to repay.
So that's a very good question. If you don't have the money to start with then how can you prove that you have the ability to pay?
Maybe you should take that back to the director of Vegreville and see how they address that.
Mr. Dromisky: I will. Thank you.
Ms Go: With respect to the first question you raised, I wasn't talking about the landing fee in the context of the abuse. I was talking about the landing fee in the context of applying for landing. If the woman has been the subject of abuse and then she wants to leave the relationship and apply for a humanitarian and compassionate review, where is she going to get the $500 and the $975?
Without that money, her application would not even be processed. She may be trapped in the abusive relationship, she may or may not be, she may have left the relationship - what matters is that she may not have the ability to go through that process just because she doesn't have the $975 on top of the $500 she has to pay right now.
Mr. Dromisky: That's fine. I won't pursue it any further.
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Ms Go, thank you for your presentation. I have just a comment.
I don't agree with your statement. Just because one individual is abused somewhere else, it's not Canada's obligation to accept him and protect him. Of course, they have every right to apply, and if they are qualified, they'll be accepted.
As far as I understand it, the money is not the issue. If the individual has enough points, they'll be accepted, and then the immigration officials will worry about the repayment of the fee.
We have to separate refugees from the regular immigrants. I know of one case where a mother with two small children came from Bosnia as a tourist. Then she applied here for refugee status and she got it. The day after that she was on social assistance for three years. Then she applied to sponsor her husband after two years. She wasn't even in my riding; she was in a Toronto riding. She came to me and asked for help.
.0955
What I heard from her about Canada is not acceptable. Canada, in her opinion, is the worst country. We do everything to her. Eventually her husband came here, and from that time on she never contacted us again.
Now, we have to be fair. There is no way in which we can say that the Canadian immigration policy is not fair and is not working. It is, and it's more than fair. I don't think any other country is as generous as Canada. I'm a former immigrant as well, and I respect this country, and I don't agree that where there is any abuse, Canada should accept that person.
Ms Go: Twenty or thirty years ago a lot of Canadians would have said ``So what?'' if a woman was beaten up by her husband. That's what happened all the time. There was no responsibility on our society to protect that woman.
That attitude has changed, and now it has become illegal under our criminal law because we recognize that spousal abuse is not a private matter. It is a matter for the state to prevent it from happening and to punish those who commit it. If that is true, then I think it's a natural extension of recognizing spousal abuse as a state matter in the context of immigration as well.
In the context of refugees, I can recognize that you have to show that a woman would not be able to seek protection from her own country and so on. All those are in the gender persecution guidelines, as is true for any other kind of persecution. I think there is a safeguard against the so-called floodgates argument, that every woman will then come to Canada and seek refugee status, because that hasn't happened. Because of the guidelines, it won't happen.
It's fine to think of Canada as being a wonderful country. I have no quarrel with that, but we should not stop at thinking that this is the best we can do. We do have international obligations, which from time to time we don't meet. We do have our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which governments at all levels don't meet from time to time. That needs to be challenged. Policies or laws need to be challenged. Government needs to be reminded of its obligations, either domestically or internationally.
The submission I'm making today is just another reminder that we are not doing the best we can and there are legal obligations that we have yet to meet.
Mr. Assadourian: How many clients do you serve per year on average?
Ms Go: Last year there were 3,700.
Mr. Assadourian: How many of them would require a landing fee, the $975?
Ms Go: The immigration and refugee case-load is usually one-third of our case-load.
Mr. Assadourian: So 1,000 -
Ms Go: That doesn't mean that all of them require the landing fee, because some of them have other immigration problems.
Mr. Assadourian: How many would you say?
Ms Go: It's really very hard -
Mr. Assadourian: Let me ask you it in this way. How many applications have you had in the last two months that require a landing fee?
The Chair: Would you like to come back with that answer, Ms Go?
Ms Go: Yes, I would.
Mr. Peric: How much are you charging for your services?
Ms Go: We don't charge.
Mr. Peric: So you are providing services on a long-term basis.
Ms Go: No, we're funded through the Ontario Legal Aid plan, so we're on salary.
The Chair: You said earlier that you feel the fact that there's a sponsorship bond is an additional reason to control the sponsored woman. I think there is another way of looking at this. Is it possible that in fact the existence of the bond strengthens the position of those being sponsored? I'll tell you why I say that.
.1000
The woman could say, ``If you abuse me, then you will forfeit your right, and you'll have to pay back the government.'' I would say to you that is one way of looking at that problem also.
Ms Go: But that only happens if the woman is able to say that and the state is able to come and stop the abuse. It doesn't happen in the real world. In the real world abuse happens first. The woman may or may not seek help, and then we find out about the abuse, and then you deal with the fall-out of the abuse. We're never effective enough to stop the abuse from happening.
The Chair: I know, but you will agree with me that it is another way of looking at the sponsorship bond.
Ms Go: Given the reality as it is, no, I wouldn't say so.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Go. We look forward to seeing you again before the committee.
Ms Go: Thank you.
The Chair: I'll invite Ms Adams, the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner, to come forward. Ms Heather Gibbs is also coming in.
Ms Adams, please go ahead.
Ms Lois Adams (Deputy Representative (Canada), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees): Good morning. With me is Ms Heather Gibbs, legal officer in our office in Ottawa.
The Chair: Welcome.
Ms Adams: It is an honour for us to have been invited to appear before you today. As you're all aware, we highly approve of the Canadian guidelines on refugee claimants. Canada is now a world leader and remains a world leader in this area. Its guidelines are being used not only by UNHCR but also by other states.
UNHCR does not not consider these guidelines to be revolutionary in the sense that they are totally consistent with approaches taken by UNHCR and by Canada across the whole spectrum of women's rights. The right of all human beings to equal treatment in all spheres is not the opinion or cultural norm of any one state. It is enshrined in international instruments adhered to by all civilized states, including the Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter. States have committed themselves to respecting this right.
In addition, as member states of the United Nations, of which Canada is one, they have bound themselves by the charter to take joint and separate action to achieve universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
Regretfully, however, women's rights have not always received due attention, not even in UNHCR, and this is reflected by the present unsatisfactory situation of female refugees in the world today. It is a sad fact that although women and children represent over 80% of the world's refugee population, consistently fewer women than men are being recognized as convention refugees. It is felt that the convention does not deal with their particular problems. This is chiefly due to ignorance, whether wilful or benign, of the fact that a person's rights are based on humanity and not on sex and that human rights are universal, not dictated by culture, tradition or religion.
It is also feared that were women to receive protection from persecution peculiar to their sex, the asylum countries would be inundated with a substantial number of the world's female population. On the contrary, experience has shown that only 5% of all refugees are able to make inland asylum claims in western countries, and of these only a small proportion are women.
UNHCR has in recent years - and somewhat belatedly, I might add - made a concerted effort to improve the situation of women fleeing persecution. Here Canada's guidelines have been of enormous help, not only to our staff in headquarters but to our staff in the field.
.1005
Madam Chairperson, equal treatment is not just a matter of a change to gender-neutral language in texts that have been written by and for men. Account must be taken of the fact that while women face the same harm as men, they also encounter persecution that is peculiar to their sex.
These include difficulties in the country of origin where the type of harm faced is related exclusively to sex, for example, gross violation of women's bodily integrity, such as female genital mutilation, forced abortion or rape. In other cases, the persecution is imposed because of gender, examples of which are extreme penalties for violation of dress or morality codes.
There's also danger during flight where refugee women face danger of sexual violence, for example, rape and abduction or assault in front of their spouses or other family members. There is danger in refugee camps, including extortion for food rations, discrimination by other refugees, and discrimination against women heads of household by camp leaders. Rape has also, in camps, become a tool of persecution.
Then there are difficulties in countries of asylum. Because of self-sufficiency and local integration requirements, women often have difficulty being accepted for resettlement by asylum countries.
UNHCR is addressing these problems. The executive committee of the high commissioner's program, which is the body created by the United Nations General Assembly to create international refugee policy - and Canada is an important member of this committee - has produced several ground-breaking conclusions over the past few years.
These call on states party to the convention to take account of women's problems and to apply the solutions agreed upon. However, because the executive committee's conclusions are not legally binding, the high commissioner counts heavily on the good will and support of states such as Canada to implement them.
I should like now to comment on the issues being considered by this committee, the use of gender guidelines for inland processing. Because the convention refugee definition does not specifically include persecution on the ground of sex, practical problems can be experienced in the assessment of claims relating to gender. This is especially the case when deciding whether the harm feared could be regarded as persecution within the meaning of the convention.
To address this problem, the executive committee in its conclusion 39 encouraged states to consider female asylum seekers, who complain of harm based on sex, as belonging to a particular social group. This criterion is well suited for this purpose as it was intended by the drafters of the convention to cover types of persecution they had not foreseen at the time they were drafting it.
An alternative but a less practical solution to using ``social group'' for these claims would be amending the definition of the convention refugee specifically to include sex. While this could well prove to be the ultimate solution, it could take years and massive efforts to arrive at a modification of this international instrument. In the meantime, the plight of persecuted women who require urgent and immediate protection would remain unresolved.
UNHCR considers claims based on gender grounds such as severe discrimination based on sex, severe penalties for contravention of social mores and tolerated spousal abuse to be claims falling within the ``social group'' category, the use of gender guidelines for refugee selection abroad.
UNHCR considers the sensitivity training of all officials dealing with refugees as essential.
Our view, then, is that Canada's guidelines should apply equally to procedures used in selecting refugees abroad - humanitarian and compassionate grounds. UNHCR encourages states to accept asylum seekers who may not fall within the strict convention definition yet are nevertheless in need of protection. Those falling under this category come within the wider definition of refugee to be found in regional instruments, such as the Cartagena declaration and the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention.
Humanitarian and compassionate acceptance is of particular importance to victims of sexual violence, as often the sexual persecution elements do not surface until after an original determination has been made. Training in the meaning and application of both Canadian and UN-produced gender guidelines for officials involved in post-claim review is therefore desirable.
Canada has taken a leading role among states by being the first to develop explicit guidelines on the treatment of gender-related refugee claims. It is therefore now better placed to ensure consistency of decision-making, which leads to fewer appeals.
Canada's fulfilment of its international obligations as well as women's rights to have their claims heard will also be facilitated. Other countries have been dealing with the issue in a more ad hoc fashion; however, there is unanimous agreement among major asylum countries that discrimination of any kind in refugee status determination can no longer be tolerated.
.1010
UNHCR hopes Canada's example will be followed by other states in order to achieve consistency in international refugee jurisprudence.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Adams.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Unfortunately, your brief is not in French. We are talking about women who are victims of violence. This is a rather serious problem in Muslim countries. A few days ago, an Algerian filmaker named Ms Koudil simply asked for a visa to come here, and it is incredible, but the minister refused to grant a visa to this Algarian woman. He refuses to review her file.
Ms Koudil does not intend to seek asylum here, but if she did ask for asylum, I think it would be very clear cut that she would be entitled to refugee status. The lady does not intend to do this, she is not a criminal, and she is not a terrorist.
In any event, I think this case would spark protest from our guests. I hope that the minister will change his mind.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, I must remind you - and I've already said this in committee - that this kind of question, which the opposition already asked in the House, should remain in the House. You've brought up a specific case, and I would like us to continue discussing the item that we have on the agenda.
Mr. Nunez: In other words, women.
The Chair: That's one case, and I've already told committee members that we were not to discuss specific cases. You may now ask another question.
[English]
Mr. Dromisky: On a point of order, I think we should be really sensitive to particular cases of this nature and consider the sensitivity of them. The name of the applicant should be kept in privacy in order to protect her or his privacy. It should not be put in a public record through this means or through a committee.
The Chair: Just to be fair to Mr. Nunez, it was raised in the House. So it has become public knowledge. It has been in the newspapers.
Mr. Dromisky: I know that.
The Chair: I just want to clarify again a ruling I made, and I wish it would be respected by the members present. I don't think this is a forum in which to bring up particular cases with the details of those cases. The witnesses are not experts on that dossier or file, and I would appreciate it very much if this issue isn't raised in future deliberations of this committee.
Now, could we please continue with the following question on the subject at hand?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I accept your ruling, but at the same time, I deplore it.
The Chair: You've already told me that, Mr. Nunez, and I've already taken note of that. I repeat: I will not give you the floor if you continue in this matter.
Mr. Nunez: I think that you should allow some democracy here. We are entitled to express our views, and sometimes experience things that you do not like.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, do you have a question to ask?
Mr. Nunez: I have several questions to ask.
The Chair: Please go ahead.
Mr. Nunez: Mam, on several occasions we have discussed the possibility of including this grounds for gaining refugee status in the Geneva Convention, namely the persecution that women suffer from, particularly that persecution caused by domestic or family violence. Do you believe that the convention should be amended to include this ground?
[English]
Ms Adams: As I said before, we are already using the ground of social group, which already appears in the convention. It has proven to be entirely adequate to cover this type of claim. Much depends on the spirit in which the convention is interpreted by asylum countries.
Our conclusion 39 was drafted by the executive committee to encourage states that had already started to use social group for this purpose. The possibility of widening the definition to include other types of persecution is always there, but as I mentioned, it is not always easy to achieve international consensus on what should be put in the definition.
.1015
It is interesting to note that states party to the convention have the sovereign right to amend their own laws to include whatever they would like to include. In other words, the convention is a minimum guarantee, not a maximum. States are encouraged to go beyond what is included in the convention if they so desire.
The granting of asylum is a sovereign right of all states, and they are able to decide freely on the grounds they will use. For example, if a country wishes to amend its law to give protection to women fleeing gender-based persecution on explicit criteria, it's free to do so. But at the moment we feel the social group criterion is adequate.
Mr. Nunez: Do you have the same opinion concerning the Canadian legislation on immigration?
Ms Adams: All states have the sovereign right to take their own decisions on asylum. Most follow the convention definition in article 1 and apply the social group, but they're free to amend their own laws in any way they choose.
Mr. Nunez: Do you know of any legislation abroad that includes this reason?
Ms Adams: I'm not aware of any state law that specifically makes reference to gender. I do know that some states use their own laws for deciding, for example, what persecution is, or what grounds they will use for recognition.
For example, Germany uses its basic law, which is the constitution, to decide on refugee claims. The United States has included not only the fear of persecution but also past persecution in its law. So there are a few differences, most of them positive, in the laws of member states concerning the grounds on which claims will be based.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: I agree with Mr. Nunez regarding the inclusion of a sixth ground in the convention. A number of witnesses however have told us that in the present international context, where immigration gives rise to much zenophobia, it was preferable not to reopen the convention so as to include that sixth ground. What do you think?
[English]
Ms Adams: I would tend to agree with people who consider it would be a very difficult task at the present time to succeed in any attempt to widen the definition for the grounds you have mentioned. As I mentioned in my statement, this may well be the eventual solution, but I think we are fairly pessimistic at the chances of success of any attempt to amend the definition.
Another school of thought holds that the definition should not be reopened every time we become aware of a new type of harm that was not explicitly covered in the definition. There is a rule of law that tends to say that if it's not explicitly stated, then it is not allowed, whereas if you make the definition not very specific you can, by analogy, include other types of harm. This is another reason why it is felt we should not reopen the definition.
The drafters of the convention foresaw the day when grounds other than the ones they had agreed on would be cited as the basis for refugee claims. This is why the social group criterion was used.
There have been objections to using the term ``social group'' for women, because before 1985 it was held that a social group could only be a minority, or a minority within a given society, and because women are the majority in most societies they could not be considered a social group. This has now been struck down by the courts in most asylum countries, and it is recognized that women who are persecuted on gender-based grounds are entitled to protection under the social group criterion.
.1020
Mr. Peric: You mentioned that 80% of refugees are women and children. Can you provide us with statistics on the countries or continents from which the majority of refugees are coming?
Ms Adams: I cannot give you very specific or definite statistics on the total number from any one country. The main countries of origin at the moment for refugees in the world are Afghanistan, Rwanda, Liberia, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Angola, Sierra Leone and Burundi.
It is certainly the case that when there are mass movements of refugees - for example, across a border - fleeing internal conflict or whatever other disaster, women and children constitute the majority, because they are the most at risk. They are unable to defend themselves. They usually do not have weapons, and they are usually targets of persecution or harm by the combatants in the dispute. They have to take their children with them, because the children clearly cannot survive on their own.
So when we have a mass movement across a border, it is usually the case - especially in Africa, but also in Bosnia, for example - that the women and children are the vast majority.
Mr. Dromisky: This is a very serious and complex problem. Dozens and dozens of countries in the world have customs and traditions and religious beliefs that put the female members of their societies in a very delicate and precarious position. In other words, where abuse of the opposite sex is customary and tolerated, there is no protection for the female member. The female member, from our perspective, is declared to be practically a third-class citizen. Many of them don't even have any rights.
We're talking about hundreds of millions of people on the surface of the earth, which really points out to me that, as far as opposite-sex relationships are concerned, we haven't really made much progress since prehistoric caveman days.
Where do we draw the line? We have cases that are being mentioned in the House and cases in newspapers where special interest groups are making hay or making a tremendous furore over some particular woman trying to get in from some particular country, when hundreds of millions are trying to get in or to escape from the abuse they're suffering on a daily basis.
Do we deal only with people where we have proof that their own society, their judicial system, has no guarantee of safety for them, will do nothing for them? Where do we draw the line?
Canada is one of the few countries in the world that's taking refugees in and then allowing them to become citizens of the country. I don't know how we're going to be able to cope with the national guilt complex that possibly we're developing because we can't cope and deal with and provide the kinds of services that so many people in the world require.
Ms Adams: First, the problems faced by women are not different from those faced by men in many countries of the world today. The first four grounds in the definition - race, religion, political opinion, and nationality - apply equally to women and to men. We do not draw any lines as far as men are concerned for protecting them from these types of harm.
.1025
I think it would be safe to say that had the 30 million South Africans who were unable to vote made a claim outside of South Africa, very few people would have said that it was intolerable, that their claim couldn't be accommodated because there were too many of them, and therefore they wouldn't be entitled to protection. We draw the line where it has to be drawn. We have our responsibility to fulfil the international human rights instruments that have been drawn up to protect humanity. These instruments are the only way in which we will be able to, as you say, leave the caveman days and achieve progress and civilization.
Human rights instruments have to be upheld or the alternative is that they will break down completely. As we have seen in some parts of the world where war has broken out, these instruments have not been respected, the rules of war have not been respected, and we've seen the carnage. We are celebrating 50 years since the camps in Bergen-Belsen were liberated. This was not so long ago, relatively speaking, in our history, and it is certainly not ruled out that it could happen again if we do not respect human rights norms.
The foundation of fundamental human rights is non-discrimination. If you look in the UN Charter it is mentioned in the preamble; I think it's the first paragraph of the preamble. It is the bedrock foundation of human rights. Canada supports these rights without reservation.
Secondly, I would say that spousal abuse may seem to be trivial to people who have become inured to it, used to it, and who accept it as a fact of life. For the victims it is no less hurtful and no less devastating because it is a common occurrence.
If we should regard claims of spousal abuse as being unwelcome because of culture or tradition, then what do we say about practices based on cultural traditions such as slavery and cannibalism? We certainly would not refuse a person refugee status who feared being eaten under rites that have their origin in culture or tradition. We certainly would not refuse to accept someone who was fleeing slavery.
Even in 19th century England, Lord Mansfield, one of the most eminent judges of the British legal system, proclaimed that the air of England was too pure for a slave master to breathe and that slaves who landed on the shores of England were free from the moment they put their feet on the soil. The air was too pure for a slave master to breathe.
I think that is even more true today, that we are more enlightened and that we are more aware of the importance of individual human rights. So I would say we draw the line where we have to draw the line.
Secondly, we have not been inundated; there have been no floods of women arriving on the shores of asylum countries. Last year in Canada only 650 claims out of 20,000 were made by women on gender grounds, and only 68% of these were accepted. We do not know how many more would have been made had women the mobility, the opportunity, and the permission from their spouses to travel.
It is a sad fact that in a large part of the world.... When I was growing up in my own country, married women could not leave the country without the written permission of their husbands. If they were fleeing from spousal violence, from domestic violence, or other types of harm, they still needed to go to the very persecuting person and ask permission to leave. This was 30 years ago. I think we have come a long way since then, and I do not believe we should flinch at the possibility that more women will be protected. It is their right to be protected, under the convention, on an equal basis with men.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In your brief, you mention that there are 20 million refugees in the world. I think that you are lagging a little behind. We are already at 23 million and those are the statistics given by the minister a few weeks ago. Soon there will 25 million of them.
.1030
My question concerns female genital mutilation. There have been a few cases in Canada, but not that many. A private member's bill on this matter was even tabled.
Do you know how serious the situation is in some parts of the world, for example in Islamic countries or in Africa? Could you give us some details about this problem?
[English]
Ms Adams: First of all, I'd like to give you some more details of that figure of 20 million. It is actually 20 million refugees and 3 million internally displaced persons. We use the global figure of 23 million because these are all persons of concern to UNHCR. We have a mandate to protect people who have not yet crossed the border and who therefore cannot claim to be refugees in the full sense of the definition in the convention.
As far as female genital mutilation is concerned, the United Nations has in recent years become very combative in this sphere. We regard female genital mutilation as a gross violation of women's bodily integrity and their fundamental human rights.
Since 1982 the World Health Organization has forbidden any of its practitioners and medical practitioners in general to practise female genital mutilations in hospitals. It was considered before that time that we should make some sort of gesture toward culture and tradition by ensuring that women who had to be mutilated could be mutilated in safety by trained medical personnel in hospitals. Since 1982 we have outlawed this practice. For the past two years WHO has called on member states to reject and outlaw female genital mutilation as a gross violation of human rights.
The UNHCR firmly believes and practises the acceptance of women who fear female genital mutilation as coming squarely within the social group criterion of women who fear being subjected to this practice on the grounds of culture or tradition.
I'd also like to quote, as I have in my brief, from the Human Rights Commission in its latest session in March 1995. It calls on states to
- condemn violence against women and not invoke custom, tradition or practices in the name of
religion to avoid their obligations to eliminate such violence.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I am thinking, for example, about forced abortion in China, where government policy allows women to have only one child and where women have to have an abortion thereafter.
What is the position of your division of the United Nations High Commission? How serious is the problem?
[English]
Ms Adams: The law on forced abortion is not actually clear at the moment. Under human rights law we regard any invasion of a woman's bodily integrity as being contrary to her human rights.
I'd like to point out that the Government of the People's Republic of China does not officially condone forced sterilization or forced abortion. It encourages its local members to discourage couples from having more than one child, and certain measures are taken against couples who persist in having more than one child. However, their official policy does not include forced abortion or forced sterilization.
There have been reports of local officials who have threatened or carried out this practice; however, this is without the official sanction of the Chinese government.
I cannot comment on the law in other countries because I do not have all the details before me, but I would say that any invasion of a woman's bodily integrity, even under a law of general application, would be considered persecution under the 1951 convention.
.1035
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In your document, you are very complimentary about the Government of Canada, as your organization usually is.
Would you have any recommendations to make? As you know, we are now looking at this problem and we are probably, especially in the case of our party, going to make recommendations to improve the condition of women who are being persecuted because of their gender to implement more appropriate government policies and CIEC guidelines for them, for instance.
In addition to your congratulations, would you have any recommendations to make to improve the situation in Canada?
[English]
Ms Adams: As mentioned before, the UNHCR believes the guidelines issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board are a very useful tool for assessment of gender-based claims.
We are using these guidelines in our own offices in the field as well as in headquarters, and we feel they cover the issue well. We have very little to add. We are in the process ourselves of amending our own internal guidelines to include some of the issues expressed by Canada.
I would like to say that in our handbook on procedures, which was drafted in 1978, unfortunately there is no mention of gender, and this is one of the things we would like to correct. I do not know how far we have reached in this process. It unfortunately would require the input and the sanction of governments, and I think it is something we are seriously considering.
As far as recommendations to Canada are concerned, I would say the UNHCR is very pleased with Canada's approach in general on the issue of human rights and women's rights. We feel the refugee status determination in Canada is very generous. It is done in a very methodical and very efficient manner. Canada's acceptance rate is way above the acceptance rates for any other country. This includes gender.
We are in close contact with the board. We make our advice and our information available to the board, and we are also consulted by the board, or invited by the board to participate on some of its committees. So we make our recommendations to them as issues come up for discussion.
On the whole, we have very little to add to the guidelines, because we consider them very comprehensive indeed.
Mr. Assadourian: This is a request, not a question. Would your office provide us with the UNHCR refugee handbook, if it's possible?
Ms Adams: Of course.
The Chair: They have in fact brought copies, Mr. Assadourian, which we have. But we have to photocopy them, and we the need the copyright permission to do so. We will all receive copies.
Mr. Assadourian: Thanks.
The Chair: If there are no other questions on the government side, I have one question for Ms Adams.
You know Canada participates in the Women at Risk program. So does the UNHCR. We have been informed that for women in immediate risk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees approaches other countries in the program, rather than Canada, due to the fact that our processing is so slow.
Do you have any information about this, and if so, have you any suggestions as to how the system could be corrected?
Ms Adams: It is a fact at the moment, I think, that four countries are participating in the Women at Risk program, including Australia, New Zealand and the United States. We have found that for emergency resettlement of women at risk, other countries do have a much shorter processing time, and this is a very great help to us for emergency cases.
I should say that Canada at the present time holds the absolute record for the number of women admitted, because since 1988 Canada has admitted 394. The whole of Europe admitted 333. We are very pleased with the overall acceptance rate by Canada. But I think if one could be practical about it, it sort of evens out. Canada did pilot the program, did encourage other countries to follow it and was, up until recently, accepting a number that was quite helpful to UNHCR.
.1040
The processing time is a problem we're still discussing with the government. We hope there will be some sort of compromise reached on this issue. The criteria used to accept women also present a problem in cases where women are considered unable, for example, to repay a transportation loan or to be self-sufficient. We are also discussing this with government and we hope that eventually some arrangement will be reached whereby we can eliminate this problem.
On the whole, I would say the government is making great efforts to see our point of view and to arrive at some accommodation.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Has your organization established a policy about homosexuals who ask for refugee status based on their sexual orientation?
[English]
Ms Adams: I think the issue of homosexuality would fall squarely within the social group criterion. We have not personally in our own mandate determination system, which we do on behalf of some governments that do not have their own procedure.... I cannot recall any case of homosexuality being presented to UNHCR, but I do know that in the cases accepted, for example, by the Dutch Canadian governments, the methodology and the argument under which they were accepted meet with the approval of UNHCR.
We feel that anyone who is at risk because he or she is in a particular social group, for reasons that are beyond their control or that are immutable - for example, characteristics they cannot change and are not responsible for - and who meets severe discrimination or gross violation of human rights because of these characteristics should receive protection.
That would include homosexuality or any other characteristic that is unchangeable or beyond the control of the person.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunez. Ms Adams and Ms Gibbs,
[English]
thank you very much for coming and for your very informative brief. We appreciate it very much. Hope to see you back in the future. Continue the good work.
The meeting is adjourned.