[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 3, 1996
.0910 
[Translation]
The Chair: Order of the day. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is conducting a study on the regulations regarding landing of undocumented refugees.
We have the pleasure and honour to receive two witnesses from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration: Mr. Jeff LeBane, Director General, Refugees; and Mr. John Butt, Senior Policy Advisor, International Protection, Asylum Division, Refugee Branch.
Welcome, gentlemen. Please proceed.
[English]
Mr. Jeff LeBane (Director General, Refugees, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, members. It's a pleasure for me andMr. Butt to be here today. I would like to start off with a few opening comments and then we will answer your questions with pleasure.
On November 13 the minister announced a number of measures to help address a problem that has affected the lives of a very considerable number of refugees in this country for some time. I'm speaking about the undocumented refugees.
Since 1993 the Immigration Act has required that convention refugees in Canada have some sort of valid identity document or travel document before they can be granted permanent residence. The reason for this is simple: we must know who we are dealing with.
Parliament legislated this requirement in 1993 to protect Canadians from criminals and terrorists who might abuse our system, persons who would willingly conceal their identity. Since 1990, we have noted an increasing number of persons who have sought refugee protection in this country and who have arrived with no documentation at all.
The proposed regulatory change is based on the understanding that some people simply cannot get any documents that would meet the requirements of the act. When nations and governments fall victim to civil war, issuing documents may not be a priority. When that civil war situation is sustained and prolonged, the very capacity of the state to issue documents may cease to exist.
Approximately 7,500 refugees from Somalia and Afghanistan have not been able to proceed with their applications for permanent residence due to a lack of satisfactory documentation. There are no other bars to their landing. They simply don't have satisfactory documentation. As the minister pointed out, some 40% of these persons are women and 40% are children, who themselves, for the great majority, do not pose any significant security or criminal risk.
The proposed regulations for undocumented convention refugees in Canada allow people from these countries who do not have the required documentation to proceed with their applications for permanent residence five years after having been determined to be convention refugees. The five-year period will allow time for these persons to demonstrate respect for the laws of Canada and for immigration authorities to detect, often with the help of their communities, those who may be guilty of crimes against humanity.
In my discussions with representatives of the Somali community, that community in particular has made frequent indications that they are prepared to work with the government in reference to those who might conceal their identities and abuse the system.
Some people suggested that five years is longer than is necessary, and that it is too long for these refugees to wait. I would point out, however, that half the affected population - indeed, slightly more than half - will be eligible for landing within two years of the implementation date.
The minister spoke about a balance. Concurrently our officials are focusing on more effective ways to deal with people who do not reveal their true identity and routing to Canada.
We are taking steps to bring a number of administrative measures into place. This includes disembarkation verifications, which enable us to link improperly documented refugee claimants to the airlines that brought them to Canada and which permit us to identify the routes they used to get to Canada.
.0915
We are also working at streamlining our resources so that we can focus more attention on those undocumented claimants who are uncooperative, who refuse to cooperate with officers at ports of entry.
As you know, we share the information we gather in the course of port-of-entry questioning with the Immigration and Refugee Board with respect to those claimants who have hidden their identities or the documents they used to get to Canada, as well as with respect to other claimants. This information can then be considered by the board when members are determining the credibility of individual claims.
I will add that consideration of port-of-entry notes may serve either to help or to hinder a claimant in proving his or her assertion of a well-founded fear of persecution. The objective of the exercise is to ensure that board members have all the information they need before they render decisions about refugee status.
We've had discussions with the board members and asked them what type of information they need from port-of-entry officers and senior immigration officers that will help them when those senior immigration officers are determining eligibility and moving forward.
Coupled with these administrative measures, we believe the regulatory package represents a fair balance between finding the solution for the predicament of those convention refugees and the need to ensure that Canada and Canadians are being protected from inappropriate use of the refugee status determination process.
We are not of the view that this abuse is done by a great number of people, but we want to protect the system from those who are undeserving of our protection.
The proposed regulations were developed in consultation with the people and organizations most directly affected. We talked to organizations like the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Canadian office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We spoke with the Somali community. We consulted with the provinces, particularly those most directly affected, the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
These proposed regulations, as you are aware, were pre-published on November 16. The public comment will end on December 16. If there are no changes as a result of public comment we will implement the program on December 30.
I'll stop there, Madam Chair. Thank you. I would be very pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: We thank you very much for coming before the committee on such short notice. We really appreciate it.
[Translation]
We will begin with Mr. Nunez. You have 10 minutes.
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): I think that the objective of the Department is commendable. The Department wishes to regularize the situation of these thousands of people recognized as refugees who are not able to obtain permanent residence in Canada because they do not have the required documents.
However, I note that the majority of organizations which you consulted do not agree with this regulation. Why do they have to wait five years? That is a very long period of time. As you know, many of them have come here alone and have left back in their country of origin their wife, spouse or children. To be separated for five years is very hard on families. Why does this period begin from the time refugee status is determined rather than from the time when the claim is made? Why do these measures apply only to Somalians, and refugees from Afghanistan? There are also other countries which have very serious problems, such as Sri Lanka and Iran, where it is very difficult to obtain identity papers. Why is this regulation valid only for two years?
I have many other questions, but I would first like to hear your answers to those I have just asked. Thank you.
.0920
[English]
Mr. LeBane: With pleasure. I will start with your second question, why Somalia and Afghanistan and other countries, such as Sri Lanka and Iran.
We feel Somalia and Afghanistan have been in a very unique situation. For a lengthy period they have been in a state of sustained turmoil, sustained civil war. During that time there has been a complete breakdown in the central government ability to issue documents - travel documents, identity documents. Consequently, persons from Somalia and Afghanistan who have been declared refugees are completely unable to get these documents.
In other countries, such as Sri Lanka and Iran, where there have been periodic periods of civil war disturbance, it has not been sustained and there has been no complete breakdown in order in terms of government offices having the capacity to issue documents. We have in those countries a capacity to issue identity or travel documents to persons who require them.
You may have persons, from Sri Lanka and Iran, who are unwilling, as opposed to unable, to get documents or unwilling, perhaps for very good reason, to apply for documents. The fact remains that objectively there are documents that can be issued by central authorities.
For those people who are unwilling, and where there is a clear humanitarian and compassionate need, they can seek relief on an individual basis under subsection 114(2) of the act. We do have cases each year where individuals from Sri Lanka and Iran do seek and are given relief under subsection 114(2) of the act.
On your first question.... You raise really two questions. You comment on the timeframe being long. Many persons have commented that the timeframe is long. As I said, though, within the first two years from the date of proclamation more than half of the Somali and Afghani communities will be landed.
The reason we are looking at a five-year timeframe is that we want to detect those persons who may be serious war criminals, or just criminals. The Somali community has told us they are prepared to work with us. We view that as a fair time to see if there are any persons who would endanger Canadian security.
Mr. Nunez: How many criminals have you identified from the Somali community until now?
Mr. LeBane: The number is small.
Mr. John Butt (Senior Policy Adviser, International Protection, Asylum Division, Refugee Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I don't have an exact number.
Mr. LeBane: But some of them have been prominent. The number is small.
Mr. Nunez: Could you give the precise figure? Sometimes we have trouble with you. You don't have the figures, and they are very important to prove this.
Mr. LeBane: Yes, we'll do our best to get you the number. But I would say the number is very small.
We have looked at a five-year timeframe also to see how well these people demonstrate their willingness to abide with Canadian laws and observe Canadian laws and respect them. That five-year timeframe takes the place of the normal background check we do for all persons seeking to come to Canada as immigrants.
Why are we looking at the five-year timeframe from the date of the refugee determination process? The refugee determination process is a separate action to look at whether the person should be accorded the protection of Canada as a refugee or not. We're not commenting on that process. The Immigration and Refugee Board makes a decision and we start looking at the application only after that decision. We are looking at something quite different. We're not commenting on the refugee process, the determination process. We're looking at what our immigration requirements are. One of the immigration requirements, at least up until now, has been a bar on landing without an appropriate identity or travel document. So it's a separate process.
.0925
Mr. Nunez: Sometimes the determination process takes more than one year or two years. Then if not five years, it could be seven years they have to wait to become landed immigrants.
Mr. LeBane: In one sense, yes, but when the minister made her announcement she said for these cases that would be affected favourably the timeframe would start from the date of the refugee determination decision, so that at time of proclamation, hundreds of persons will have immediate benefit. In the first year of the approximately 7,000 Somalia cases, 1,800 will be eligible for landing.
The Chair: Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Madame Chair.
Thank you for coming to answer some of our questions on this new regulation.
How many flights are we talking about that would come directly from Afghanistan or from Somalia to Canada?
Mr. LeBane: As far as I know, there are no direct flights from those two countries. It would have to be a process of transiting through London or Hong Kong, different routes.
Ms Meredith: In your requirements you mentioned that Canada requires some documentation, travel documents or whatever. Did the individuals being considered here have no documentation, or did they have documentation that was inadequate?
Mr. LeBane: The persons we're addressing here, the 7,500, are persons who have no documentation.
Ms Meredith: Then how did they get to Canada without any documentation? How did they travel internationally without any documentation?
Mr. LeBane: When they travelled to Canada, they had some type of document that satisfied the airline authorities. That could have been a legitimate document, a travel document; it could have been a false document. But to get on an airline anywhere in the world to come to Canada, you have to have a document, a valid travel document.
If an airline accepts somebody who has no documentation, they're eligible to pay a fine, a penalty. So everyone who boarded a plane to come to Canada from the final point, whether it be a transit or direct flight, had a document.
Ms Meredith: But you have just said there are no direct flights to Canada from Somalia or from Afghanistan. So that tells me the individuals who got on those planes to go to London, to the in-between point, would have had to have some sort of travel document.
Mr. LeBane: That's correct.
Ms Meredith: To leave London to come to Canada they would have to have had some kind of travel document for an airline to accept them as a passenger going to a foreign country. If these individuals had no documentation, what then happened to the documents they boarded those planes with?
Mr. LeBane: They could have destroyed them. They could have concealed them on their person. But at the time they indicated to the port-of-entry officer that they wanted to make a refugee claim, they had no documentation.
Ms Meredith: Then what you're telling me is that by this regulation, this change in regulation, we are rewarding people who have, through a process, destroyed whatever documents they were using to travel to Canada.
Mr. LeBane: We are dealing with a situation where the great majority of persons who had sought refuge in Canada and have been determined so by the refugee board have been very much refugees who have either been unable to get documentation legitimately, so had recourse to false documentation....
You can't assume that everybody who boarded a plane had valid documentation, but -
Ms Meredith: The point, sir, though, is they would have had some documentation.
Mr. LeBane: Absolutely.
Ms Meredith: Your answer prior to this was that when they made their claims, they had no documentation - not that the documentation was inadequate, not that it was false documentation, but they had no documentation. Is that still the case?
Mr. LeBane: They have no documentation.
.0930
Ms Meredith: They have no documentation. So even those documents which may have been inaccurate, false, or not substantial, documents that would help you to say yes, this person is truly from Somalia, yes, this person is truly from Afghanistan, yes, this person did originate from there - you don't have anything, even the false documentation they used.
Mr. LeBane: In some of the cases, when they made refugee claims they had false documentation. Some had no documentation; what you have said is correct. Some had false documentation.
I don't have a precise breakdown on figures, but since that point we know those persons who have been declared refugees and who would have the opportunity to be landed have indicated consistently there is no documentation. Canada has recognized these persons as refugees and afforded them permanent protection. The desire would be to seek landing, to get on with their lives as soon as possible, but they have consistently said they have no documentation, they cannot provide us with that.
Ms Meredith: So a decision was made to deal with those people who are here in Canada and who have been granted refugee status. How are you going to protect Canada from an encouragement for people to continue this practice of destroying documents, or whatever they do with documents, between the point of leaving a foreign country and coming to Canada? How are you going to tell the people in China this policy is not going to be for them should they choose to destroy documentation, land in Canada, and say, because of their circumstances, there's no way the communist government in Beijing would issue documentation for them? How are you going to exclude them in this regulation?
Mr. LeBane: In the landing process we're proposing for the Somalis and the Afghanis I think there are two key points and two messages. First of all, and perhaps most important, is that there is a very substantial and important timeframe from the date of the refugee determination to landing. That's five years.
Secondly, that country list has only two countries on it, only Somalia and Afghanistan. It's not open to the whole world. It's open only to those countries which have had a sustained civil war situation and in which we've determined, in consultation, persons can't get documents.
It's not open to other countries. We're trying to reflect the reality of world situations. At this point persons from countries such as China are not eligible for this type of consideration, nor persons from Sri Lanka or Iran.
As you know, there's a sunset clause. At the end of the two years these two countries would fall off the list unless the minister determines there's a legitimacy...there's a need to keep those two countries on the list, or other countries, for that matter. Every two years we would work on a consultative basis with the Department of Foreign Affairs to seek their views, and with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and with the NGO community.
It's not open to the whole world. At this point it's restricted to only two countries.
Ms Meredith: Let me follow up on that thought. Because you have done it once, because you have indicated to the international community that Canada is prepared to give landed status to people who have no documentation and continue to insist they have no documentation, you're sending a message internationally. Even the sunset clause is conditional. So the message you're sending internationally is that if you apply enough pressure on the Canadian government they will allow an expansion of this program. If you can determine the country of these individuals, if the NGOs put enough pressure on the Canadian government and convince you the internal strife in the country is such that documentation.... You say that China is not a country. What about Vietnam or Korea or some of these countries that do have internal strife? Would that argument not fit them?
.0935
I just see that we have opened an area of vulnerability. We have made exceptions. We're discriminating based on the country of origin, which is going to open us up for someone saying that because their country has the same situation, why are we excluding them from this kind of regulation? I just see that we've opened the door to a lot of contentious issues when perhaps we should be insisting on other means of addressing that.
Mr. LeBane: When the minister decided to create this class, it was in a positive sense in terms of recognizing that there well may be other situations in years to come that are similar to those of Somalia and Afghanistan, where Canada has afforded protection and where the Government of Canada may want to use this class and the sunset clause to provide the opportunity for these people to be integrated into Canadian society. There is a bar. So the class is forward-looking to the future to respond to the possibility of other situations.
In years to come, would it be conceivable that Vietnam or China could be on the list? It is conceivable. I don't know what the future will bring, but it would be a reflection of the consultations with our key partners as to whether those countries should be on the list. Again, we go back to Somalia and Afghanistan, which have been clearly identified as countries in which there is no real availability of valid travel identity documents.
Indeed, a few years ago the United States stated that travel documents for their government and for their purposes were not valid documents, period. The Somali government had lost that ability.
So we're looking at those countries that are unable to legitimately issue documents because of extended civil war periods. Countries like Vietnam and China, perhaps in years to come, may be considered for inclusion on the list, but at this point in time, those countries have the ability objectively to issue documents.
The other comment I would make that is that after consultations with the office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees here, they do applaud this move. Canada, like any other country that signed the covenant, is required to provide protection to refugees, but the covenant goes on to state that where it's feasible and to the degree possible, a signatory country should also go beyond that. It should seek to integrate and land them in society. So the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has encouraged us in this direction.
The Chair: Miss Bethel.
Ms Bethel (Edmonton East): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm wondering if you could perhaps give me an idea of how many convention refugees we have in this country who are undocumented.
Mr. LeBane: We know in the Somali and Afghan community that approximately 7,500 -
Ms Bethel: No, I understand that. I wanted to get a sense of it overall.
Mr. LeBane: The numbers beyond that would not be significant. I don't know if there's any -
Mr. Butt: The data systems we have don't enable us to just go in and say how many people are undocumented. We are making a change to the data system, so in the future, we'll be able to do that.
Ms Bethel: My concern there is -
Mr. Butt: Right now, we'd have to go in and say give us all the Somali cases in which there has not been landing because of a lack of identity documents. Give us all the Sri Lankan cases. We'd have to do it country by country and case by case.
Ms Bethel: So you don't have a sense, then.
Mr. Butt: We don't have a global sense. We haven't gone in to check each and every country. We have reacted to the larger populations, which are from Afghanistan and Somalia.
.0940
Ms Bethel: It would seem to me to be a rather important piece of information to get a sense of the -
Mr. LeBane: I can answer your question in two ways. First of all, no other community has lobbied and demonstrated an inability as a community to get documents. That's not to preclude individuals in personal situations who may be unwilling to try to get documents.
What I did look up that may be of help is where individuals can seek humanitarian and compassionate relief under subsection 114(2) of the act. The minister can delegate discretion onH and C grounds for landing, which can include persons who don't have documents.
I can give you an idea of how small the numbers are. I looked up two countries, Iran and Sri Lanka, for the year 1995.
In 1995, for Iran, there were only 110 case requests for special relief under subsection 114(2) of the act. I don't have statistical information on what percentage of those cases were on the basis of documents, but of the 110, 92 were given positive discretion and 18 were refused.
For Sri Lanka, the numbers again were quite small. There were 183 cases for discretion, of which 130 had positive discretion and 53 were refused.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms Bethel: I think it would be very helpful to have overall statistics. From what you say, you will be able to provide that in the future with the data you're keeping.
Mr. LeBane: Yes.
Ms Bethel: I would be also interested to know why, with good, clear criteria, subsection 114(2) could not be used for all of these, because I do believe it is an equity issue.
Mr. LeBane: That remained as an option for the minister. The minister could have pursued that route if she had so chosen.
I guess there are several key reasons why not to go with subsection 114(2). First, the delegation is to individual officers to make decisions across the country. When you do that, you cannot guarantee a uniformity of decision-making.
Second, you're working on the assumption that all of those officers from day one would be fully informed on the situations in those countries. One of the commitments we've made to the Somali and Afghan communities is that if after five years, you are eligible for landing and your landing process will be a fast one.
Ms Bethel: It seems to me that under subsection 114(2) the refugee board then would have to define criminality, or at least consider criminality in terms of war crimes or civil criminality as to whether they're unwilling or unable, and consider the humane and compassion aspects. Is that so? Do they consider those three factors?
Mr. LeBane: It would be immigration officers, as opposed -
Ms Bethel: All right, immigration officers. Do they consider all of those three factors? What other factors do they consider?
Mr. Butt: If you're talking about an individual application under subsection 114(2), it depends on the particular request being made. If a person were asking for relief from the requirement of a satisfactory identity document, the issue of criminality would already have been dealt with in the initial application for landing. So the only issues would be whether or not the person had a good enough reason for requesting an exemption.
I think the problem with that approach is, as Mr. LeBane said, ensuring consistency in an environment where you can delegate your authority to a range of officers, but the Federal Court has told us that we can't constrain the exercise of that discretion. We can give direction or guidance to officers, but we can't limit, control or fetter their discretion. That's the problem with using it. When you give it to a large number of officers you have two problems: one is inconsistency and one is the amount of time an officer takes to make that decision.
.0945
In this case the only issue the officer has to deal with, essentially, given that criminality and security have been already considered in the initial application, is whether five years have passed from the point at which the CRDD made a decision. It becomes a very expeditious process. We can deal with these people who have already met the convention refugee definition and have already had criminal background checks, although we will update those to ensure nothing has happened in the meantime.
Ms Bethel: What about the Immigration and Refugee Board? How does it determine what it considers?
Mr. Butt: The board has made a decision on the merits of the claim. I think there has been some question about how it addresses the question of identity.
Ms Bethel: Does it have good, clear criteria on which to make those decisions?
Mr. Butt: It has the information provided and the definition.
Ms Bethel: Does it have good clear principles?
Mr. Butt: It has access to the information we gather at the point of entry. It has the capacity to make inquiries through our posts abroad for additional information on country conditions or, if necessary, on individual cases. It does have a mechanism to gain as much information as possible about the situation and where appropriate about the individual involved.
Ms Bethel: The last question I have is why is it five years and not three? If it takes one to two years to determine refugee status, why would we add an additional two?
Mr. Butt: We believe that five years is a good benchmark. Many persons argue for a three-year timeframe as opposed to five years, but we believe five years gives us time to ensure that these persons are not a danger to Canadian society. As I said earlier, we work with Somali or Afghan communities to see how well they demonstrate respect for Canadian laws.
Ms Bethel: Thank you. I would hope that sometime we will be able to get a clear understanding of what kinds of principles the Immigration and Refugee Board considers and how it makes its decision around subsection 114(2).
Mr. Butt: The Immigration and Refugee Board does not make a decision with respect to 114(2). That's the minister delegated to officers of the department.
Ms Bethel: All right.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): I think you're looking at two processes, the refugee process and the landing process.
Ms Bethel: I am concerned about the act.
Ms Minna: I just wanted to clarify for my colleague that we're looking at two different processes. One is the refugee process, which is separate from the landing process. This is what we're talking about.
The Chair: Mr. LeBane.
Mr. LeBane: Just in response to the last question on the board's determination process, the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board issued a statement on November 15 on the issue of undocumented claimants and how the board, under its own authority, was going to proceed in addressing the issue of undocumented claimants, what their needs and requirements would be, and what role the department had to ensure the provision of proper information.
As I understood last week when the minister was here, Madam Mawani, the chair, will be coming forward and she may want to address the message she sent out.
The Chair: We haven't invited Mrs. Mawani yet, but maybe we should.
I'd like to use my time on the government side, since we are short-staffed today.
.0950
The question of documents is my preoccupation because there have been cases where we have accepted certain types of documents that we are not accepting in the case of the Somali and Afghanistan communities - for instance, birth certificates or school certificates. Is there a particular reason? I know you've gone over this point two or three times, but if there have been precedents in the sense of having accepted these documents, why are we being harsher in terms of those two communities?
Mr. LeBane: I wouldn't say we're being harsher. There are indeed some people who have left Somalia who have been able to provide some documentation to the satisfaction of the board. I can give you some statistics where the immigration department has been able to land refugees from Somalia after the refugee determination because it has had some documentation.
We've tried to be as generous as possible. We have moved away from passports, travel documents, identity documents, birth certificates and education certificates. We've tried to be as liberal as possible in that regard.
I can give you some statistics. It's not everyone who is completely unable to provide documentation, but it's the great majority. In 1995, 808 Somalis had documentation who were landed. In 1994 there were 451. For the first six months of 1996, 213 were able to provide some documentation that has satisfied the immigration officials individually.
The Chair: Documentation - would you like to put that on the record?
Mr. Butt: I don't think we have any explicit answers to that question. Generally speaking they would be not be passports or travel documents because passports or travel documents issued in the name of the Government of Somalia would be rather doubtful documents. I think everybody would agree on that situation today.
They are offering birth certificates, municipal identity cards and a variety of other documentation that has been verified by the officer involved, sometimes with the assistance of people from the Somali community. They can help us with translations, their own expertise and their own history in terms of knowing what kinds of documents can be relied upon.
Those sources are canvassed in order to help verify whether a given document is authentic. We can also use the RCMP to determine whether there have been any alterations to the document that may not be visible to the naked eye.
A variety of things can be done with those documents to verify whether or not they are authentic and preferably predate the time of the person's arrival in Canada, because obviously documents that were issued only after the person made a refugee claim give rise to some doubts or suspicions.
Those factors are all taken into account and ultimately the individual officer makes a decision whether this document meets the requirements of the legislation or not. If the answer is yes, then the person can be landed. If it's no, then the application simply remains in abeyance pending the person producing some other documentation.
Over the last three years we've developed a population of some 7,000 Somali refugees who have not been able to meet that particular requirement.
The Chair: They haven't produced any documentation.
Mr. Butt: They produced something that perhaps was not acceptable, such as a document where the RCMP identified changes that had been made to the original, or the Somali community may have said ``This document wouldn't have been issued at the time it's alleged to have been issued''. It might well be fraudulent on that basis. A variety of different pieces of information may lead us to say a document is not acceptable for purposes of landing as a convention refugee.
Mr. LeBane: Every year several hundred are able to provide documentation, but the great majority are simply unable.
The Chair: Was there any consideration given to having exemptions? For instance, for Somalis who arrived as children, was there any consideration given, instead of them being blanketed under the same rules?
Mr. LeBane: Any minors who came into Canada as part of a family unit are positively affected by this provision. Children are included if they are part of a family and the principal applicant chooses - we would expect that person would - to include them. So the children benefit from this proposal.
.0955
The Chair: To totally exclude them from providing any documents.... If they've arrived here as minors, what kind of criminal record would they have? What I'm saying is there would be no security risk involved in the case of minors. Why are you including them under the blanket of five years?
Mr. Butt: I think it depends. If you're talking about a minor who came in with the rest of the family, then we're going to deal with them as a family unit.
The Chair: I know, but why are you including them with the family unit when they're minors? They would not be a security risk. In other words, there was no consideration given to an exemption.
Mr. Butt: No, the issue is that they have no documentation in their own right -
The Chair: Obviously.
Mr. Butt: - to establish who they are. So one aspect we would look at is their inclusion as part of the family unit. A distinct landing process for them per se was not considered.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: I have a lot of problems with the five-year time.
[Translation]
I think that my colleague, Ms Bethel, also pointed this out. Canada has a piece of legislation which gives us the necessary tools to deal with war criminals or other kinds of criminals. In certain cases, citizenship or permanent residence can be removed. Bill C-44 makes it possible to deport someone who has committed serious offenses. Even if he has obtained permanent residency.
We in the Bloc Québécois are going to propose that the time frame be reduced to three or two years. I do not understand the reason for the five-year time period, because even if you make a mistake and grant permanent residence to someone, you can remove it from him or her the next day, the next month or the next year if the reasons for doing so are included in Bill C-44 or in the Criminal Code. How would you respond to that point?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: Certainly you can argue for a shorter period of time. It was an option that was considered. But it was viewed that the five years provided sufficient time to ensure that this person is willing to comply with and respect Canadian laws, that they do not break our laws, and to work with the Somali community to ensure that these persons are not concealing their identity. Yes, you can revoke; that is true. But it would provide ample time.
It is in place of the normal background checks we do for every immigrant who wants to come to Canada. There is no background check done on these persons because we can't establish their identity.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You referred to the Somalian community. I met those people a few days ago, and some of them are here today. You consulted them, but they are very worried. From what they told me, they do not agree with this regulation. In fact, they will be appearing before the committee at a later date. They told me, for example, that this regulation prevents family reunification, that there are children 12 years of age today who will not be able to be sponsored because they will be 19 years of age or older before they can ask for this regulation to be implemented.
They also told me that young Somalians who have been accepted as refugees are not able to continue their education after secondary school because they are not eligible for loans or scholarships. In many cases, they cannot even obtain work here, as a result of which you are to some extent condemning certain Somalians to live on welfare. There are many problems. Did you take these situations and demands into account when you met the Somalian community?
.1000
[English]
Mr. LeBane: Yes, I personally have had two very lengthy meetings with the Somali community.
One of the objectives the minister is trying to achieve here is to integrate as quickly as possible those who have been here for, as it stands now, a five-year timeframe. She recognizes that it is important for the young Somali community to be integrated, that they have access to student loans so that they go on to post-secondary education.
Mr. Nunez: No, they don't -
Mr. LeBane: No, in terms of them landing - the integration.
Mr. Nunez: Yes, landing.
[Translation]
As you can clearly appreciate, if a young Somalian cannot go to university or if it is difficult for him to find a job, you are practically condemning him to a life of delinquency. I think that you should be careful about this aspect of the regulation, a regulation which is discriminatory towards other countries. Can you tell us how they deal with this problem in the United States, Australia or New Zealand?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: In terms of the United States, for persons who appear at their ports of entry and have no travel documents or any documents at that point to establish who they are - and I'm talking about present legislation, because I know the last American Congress produced significant changes in their legislative process - their application is held in abeyance for one year. It is not put into immediate process. There is a negative inference that is drawn from that. If after one year the person still has no documentation, the case goes forward and is heard by an immigration officer. If the officer is satisfied that in fact this person warrants protection, then there is provision for landing.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: And in the case of Australia?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: Australia has taken a different approach. Their circumstances are different because they are essentially an island. The only types of persons who can get to Australia, because they have a universal visa requirement, are boat people from China, New Guinea.... So you're talking about a very small number of people.
Australian policy up until now has been to hold them in detention camps until they are able to demonstrate or provide documentation.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In such cases, is article 27 of the 1951 Geneva Convention respected? You said that you consulted the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. What was their opinion about this regulation? I don't know if they will appear before us to give their opinion, but I hope so.
[English]
Mr. LeBane: Yes. The local representative, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, had commented that it was their hope that Canada would look to some type of integrated policy or some type of integrated action beyond simply affording protection.
We have responded. The minister has heard those concerns and we are putting in place a package to provide an integration opportunity for those persons. I can't speak for what the United Nations High Commissioner will state or comment, but we certainly have responded to their general concerns of providing some opportunity that we would be in the spirit of going beyond protection.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You say that you have given the number of refugees who will obtain permanent residency, but how many will not be able to use this regulation? How many undocumented recognized refugees are there?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: We know today the great majority of Somalis and Afghans do not have documents. As I said earlier, within the Somali community several hundred each year are able to provide documents. There is no significant evidence from other communities of having similar problems.
.1005
I can give you some statistics on the Somali community, which we have to be careful with, but between the year 1989 and 1995 there was a total of 16,000 favourable decisions given to refugee claimants from Somalia, and between 1989 and the end of 1995, 8,900 were landed.
Now I want to be careful about this. This is where we're getting the number of approximately 7,000 Somalis, but we have to be careful because up until February 1993 persons who did not have travel documents had the opportunity to be landed, so there's some skewing of the statistics. Not having travel documents was not an impediment to landing up to February 1993. So within that period a considerable number of persons were landed.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You mentioned the organizations you consulted before publishing the regulation, namely the CIRB, the Canadian Council for Refugees and representatives of the Somalian community. Could you tell us the total number of organizations and their names?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: We consulted with the Canadian Council for Refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees through the local office here, and the Somali community. And when I say the Somali community, I mean their umbrella organization in Toronto called Midaynta. And we consulted the provinces - Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec specifically.
The Chair: Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to follow up on a couple of issues that have been raised.
My understanding is that it takes a number of years for the refugee claimant to have his case heard and to be accepted as a refugee. Right?
What is the average period for a Somali or an Afghan to go through that process?
Mr. Butt: I don't think we have a number that's different for Somali and Afghan cases. The average processing time with the Immigration and Refugee Board is just under 12 months now for all cases.
Mr. LeBane: To be very precise, it's 11.8 months right now. Last year it was approximately 11 months.
Ms Meredith: Would it be fair to say that cases of persons without documentation or with inadequate documentation would take longer?
Mr. LeBane: No.
Mr. Butt: Not necessarily, particularly in the past. The Immigration and Refugee Board has a process called expedited processing whereby people from countries with high acceptance rates are dealt with without a full formal hearing. I know that in the past Somalia was a prime candidate for that process. So in 1993-94, perhaps on the average, Somali cases would have been dealt with more quickly by the board than the average case, whether or not they had documentation.
Ms Meredith: So then what you're saying is that through an expedited process there wasn't any clarification as to whether or not these people were who they said they were.
Mr. Butt: I'm certainly not saying that. I'm saying that there was a determination but it was done without a formal oral hearing before two members of the board. There was an inquiry or an investigation conducted by a refugee claims officer who made a recommendation to deal either positively or negatively with the individual case. I'm not saying that there was anything in the process that was inherently problematic in terms of dealing with questions of identity. They were dealt with as required.
Ms Meredith: So these people have been here roughly a year prior to even getting the determination.
Mr. Butt: The overall average for processing today is around one year.
Ms Meredith: Forty percent of the community are children. Forty percent are women.
Mr. Butt: Yes.
Ms Meredith: So when you're talking about the benefits of this landed status, it's either that the children have access to grants or bursaries or scholarships for academic advancement or -
Mr. LeBane: For post-secondary.
Ms Meredith: - for family reunification, which means that under our current regulation they would be bringing their spouses over. For 80% of the claims - 40% are women, 40% are children - it means you would be bringing the spouse or the father to Canada. That is the big benefit of this particular regulation change.
.1010
Mr. Butt: As opposed to the situation where they now cannot bring the spouse to Canada, yes.
Ms Meredith: That would be the benefit of having landed status as opposed to not having landed status.
Mr. Butt: That is one of the key benefits. The minister's primary concern was that we have several thousand people who have no opportunity for full integration into Canadian society. So the immediate full benefit with landing is that you have an opportunity for full citizenship, family reunification; your children can have the benefit of loans for post-secondary education; working mothers, the 40% who make up the female population, who are women, have access to day care benefits.
Ms Meredith: Then taking that under consideration, why would you not say we are taking those individuals and we're giving them landed status today, or tomorrow or next week? You can qualify that and say if anything happens over the next five years, that landed status will be removed for due cause. If that's your concern, integration into Canadian society, why could you not say okay, we recognize this - you are anyway - we determine that these people will be given landed status so they can see the benefits of grants and bursaries for the children and so they can integrate, and all the others? I don't see what difference the five-year provision makes, because you can put a qualification on the landed status to deal with the issue of criminality or respecting Canadian laws.
The other concern I have, and I would like you to address it, is in the sponsorship of families. Do refugee claimants such as the Somalis and Afghans have to qualify in the same way as for any other family reunification sponsorship, in that they have to be earning x dollars, they have to be able to make a ten-year commitment to looking after the financial needs of the individuals they're bringing into the country?
Mr. LeBane: To your first question, the class we are proposing to put in place is to deal with prescribed countries. We're looking at responding to persons who have been declared refugees from those countries. We're looking at the group as a whole. We're not getting into, if you will, gender or special subgroups. It was a universal response.
I don't know if that answers your question.
Ms Meredith: Indirectly, no, because what is the difference in saying you have landed status tomorrow but it's a qualified landed status; if we find out you are a war criminal, that landed status will be taken away from you; if we find out you're breaking Canadian laws in the next five years, that landed status will be taken away from you? You could go back one more step and say not only is it being taken away from you, you will be asked to leave the country. You can do that and still recognize the fact that you've made a commitment to these people that you're going to give them landed status. Why wait? Make it conditional.
Mr. LeBane: That's one option you can argue.
Ms Meredith: Now the next part of my question -
Mr. LeBane: On the next part of your question I have to give a bit of background. One of the objectives of the minister was to seek the integration of those persons in Canada and their dependants who are here - their children, the 40% - quickly. We are looking only after they have been landed - and the expectation is this will be a fast process - and then to turn around and seek family reunification, after the landing of those here, to resolve the problem of integration.
.1015
They will make normal sponsorships. Some of the people abroad will most likely have the same problems and the same issues of identity documents. We are going to ask officers, on a case-by-case basis, to sympathetically look at what the persons are completing in terms of their documents or applications abroad and at what principal family members who've been declared refugees have been saying over the period of time on their personal information form, on their refugee claim form and on their application form.
We're not trying to perpetuate family separation. We're going to look at it case by case, but it will be on the basis on a sponsorship with normal criteria.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Minna.
Ms Minna: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to pick up on a couple of points made by Ms Meredith a few minutes ago.
You said earlier that in February 1993 the option of applying the discretion was changed. I believe that was as a result of Bill C-86. I'm trying to see how these two correlate. We still have section 14, where there's a certain amount of discretion for people who ask for discretion.
Mr. LeBane: It's section 114.
Ms Minna: Section 114. Could a large number of the Somali community have applied for discretion and did they apply under section 114?
Mr. LeBane: I have no evidence that any significant number applied.
Ms Minna: If they had, could they have been processed under that even if there had been a backlog?
Mr. LeBane: It's a decision of the individual officer whether relief if warranted, whether there's sufficient humanitarian and compassionate consideration to make that decision. Let me point out that C-86 legislation was brought in with the clear purpose that persons who did not have documentation could not be landed.
Ms Minna: All right. I just wanted to clear that up, because there seems to be discretion, but on the other hand there doesn't seem to be. Bill C-86 took that away, so I - for the purposes of my colleagues - just wanted to understand how that was working.
I have come across a number of cases where the people have said to me that upon arrival they had documents. I think in one case a marriage certificate and a number of birth certificates were confiscated by the department. Then when the people applied for landed status they were asked to produce documents and said to the department, ``But we don't have them. You have them.'' They were then told that the documents were confiscated documents and they would have to provide others. Is that possible?
A voice: I've not heard that.
Ms Minna: I've had a half dozen cases that come in and out of my office. I just wonder if there is a problem with this.
Mr. Butt: That the document has been confiscated or seized by the officer at the port of entry to prevent its improper use does not prevent it being available for consideration, although, of course, if the document was seized because it was fraudulent or considered to be fraudulent, then it would not be of any value in meeting the requirements for landing.
It depends on the individual case. It's not the fact that it was seized so much as the reason why it was seized that becomes the factor that determines whether it's useful. But certainly, you can't say the mere fact it was seized prevents it being considered.
Ms Minna: So in those kinds of cases one has to clarify what the purpose for the seizure was, whether it was because it was fraudulent. This has come up a few times and I just wanted to clarify what the policy was.
Mr. Butt: There's nothing in the legislation that would prevent consideration of any document already in the hands of the department.
Ms Minna: In the system.
Mr. Butt: That's right. The reason why it was seized may have a determinant effect on whether or not it's suitable or satisfactory for purposes of landing.
Ms Minna: Okay. My other question has to do with education. My understanding - and I may have this one wrong - is that for the purpose of college and post-secondary education, the students reaching that age who do not have landed status are prevented from getting access to loans. That seems to be the only impediment. My understanding from talking to some people is that universities are actually treating the students as foreign students.
.1020
Mr. LeBane: I can't speak for the individual, but in terms of differentials for university fees, if universities are charging a higher fee than what a Canadian citizen would pay, that's wrong, at least for Ontario. We've looked into this.
I have a document from the Province of Ontario, ``Policy on International Student Fees''. It says:
- Students Exempt from Institutional International Tuition Fees
- Certain categories of international students will continue to be eligible for provincial funding
purposes and will not be required to pay more than the applicable domestic level of tuition fees.
- International exemption students include visitors and their dependants...
- And these dependants are listed, including those who are officially recognized as convention
refugees.
Ms Minna: I'm glad I asked this. As I said, one of the people who made representation is in fact an Ontario MPP who has had a number of constituents with this problem. I insisted to him that, no, this was not the case, and he insisted, yes, they were being treated as foreign students. I thought I had better clarify this.
Mr. LeBane: I have the document.
Ms Minna: Maybe I could get a copy and send it on to him.
Mr. LeBane: Yes.
Ms Minna: Thanks.
The Chair: Again, I will use my prerogative to ask a question. I'm sorry to say, it so far hasn't been answered. I think it's a key question most of the members have.
If five years is the appropriate time to ensure that someone in this country is not a criminal, why aren't we starting the process the minute they're landed? To me, that is a key question for these regulations.
Mr. LeBane: The minute they're landed?
The Chair: The minute they're recognized in Canada. For instance, some of them have been here for two years.
Mr. LeBane: I understand.
The decision was taken that the refugee determination process was one process that looked at the issue of whether the person met Canada's requirements for protection. At the end of that date, that process, which is separate, we would then look at whether the individual in question was able to meet immigration requirements for landing, to meet many issues. The issue of the availability of a travel document or some identity document we looked at as a separate process. Meeting the immigration requirements for landing, a separate -
The Chair: That's my question. Why are we separating the two processes?
Mr. LeBane: Because we have viewed them as two distinct processes. One is refugee determination and the other is meeting the requirements for landing.
The Chair: You've based your argument on the security and criminality factors. In the time it takes to go through the IRB process, immigration officers in the meantime, I assume, are also checking whether that person has any criminal record or is a security risk to Canada. I still don't understand why you have separated the two processes.
I mean, one process does not stop the other. That's what I'm saying. The two are running parallel. The security check is done at the same time the IRB is determining the refugee claimant.
Mr. LeBane: The purpose of each process is different, though. The purpose of the first process is to determine whether a person is going to be accorded refugee protection. The purpose of the second process is to determine whether the person can be landed as an immigrant and can obtain subsequent benefits.
The Chair: I know, but why not land them in three years, after they have been determined a refugee claimant? Let's take that scenario. They've been determined, which has taken two or three years. You've already checked on the security risk at that point.
Mr. LeBane: This is one option that was considered. The minister, in terms of going to pre-publication, believes a five-year timeframe provides greater assurance in terms of trying to establish identity.
The Chair: But what more are you going to find out in three years that you don't know in two?
Mr. LeBane: You will have the cooperation of the local community. We have spoken to those persons. Changing circumstances and situations overseas may or may not allow for some background information checks. In the absence of knowing who those persons are, you can only see how they live, to a certain extent, how they respect Canadian laws. That can be over five years or three years. We have looked at five years.
.1025
The Chair: But we have said, as Mr. Nunez has said, that even after three or five years they can still be deported under our laws.
Mr. LeBane: There could be a revocation.
The Chair: So even three years or five years will not make a difference on that point?
Mr. LeBane: That's right.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I will continue on the same subject because I consider that this five-year time period is inexplicable, as is the date on which it is to begin. Why do you not consider the date when the claim for refugee status is filed rather than the date of determination? The checks you carry out are the same in both cases, it is the same police forces who deal with them, and the main point is that we have legislation which provides protection should problems arise. I think that the committee should propose another amendment, because this one works against the settlement of new arrivals in Canada.
As you can see, they cannot become permanent residents, do not have certain rights, for example the right to university scholarships or loans, and must wait three years before they can vote. Sometimes the refugee determination process lasts one year, two years, and even three or four years. I have seen cases which took four years, and there are no doubt some which take even longer. That takes a tremendous amount of time.
You have already answered and that is your choice. But did you consult some organizations who told you: ``No, that doesn't make any sense, it must be changed''? I would also like to mention that you said that you consulted the Somalian community in Toronto. There is also a very significant Somalian community here in Ottawa. When I met them, they told me that they had asked to be consulted and that the Department of Immigration refused to meet them. Is that true? There are two questions here.
[English]
Mr. LeBane: I certainly have not refused to meet anyone. I would point out, though, in Toronto, when I met with representatives of the Somali community, particularly at the first meeting, and I believe that was in mid-April, there were representatives from Ottawa and from Montreal. It was not just a Toronto meeting.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I would also like to ask whether you have considered other possibilities. During your consultations, did people tell you that the time period was too long, for example? Did some organizations also tell you that?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: Other options put forward were options that were mentioned here today. They included, besides five years, an option for, as an alternative, three years to landing. Another option for consideration was five years from the date of the refugee application. Finally there was a proposal that proof of identity be based on affidavits. All of those were considered, and at the end of the day the recommendation was five years to landing. Those were the key proposals put forward as variants.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I will repeat my question because I think that there may be a misunderstanding here. I would like clarification on certain points. You said that 50% of the 7,000 Somalians in this situation may receive permanent residency over the next two years. What will happen to the other 50%, who will not be able to benefit from this regulation?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: At this point approximately 7,000 persons in the Somali community are seeking relief. We know in the first year from the date of proclamation 1,800 persons, if in fact they decide to apply, and if they have not applied, would be eligible for immediate landing. In the second year another 1,800 would be eligible, for a total of 3,600, which is indeed slightly more than half who would have relief within the first two years.
.1030
The sunset clause provides for those two countries to fall off the list after two years unless the minister determines that the situation warrants that they should still be on the list. At this time, given ongoing developments in Somalia and Afghanistan, I would think those two countries will continue to be on the list. In the following two years the remainder would be landed.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You said earlier that you were going to expedite processing of applications for permanent residency. What is the time frame here? How many months will it take for permanent residency to be granted to the Somalians or Afghans?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: If, first, a person - and approximately half of the community have applications already - has paid the required fees and there is no other bar, what we are looking at then is a solemn declaration - it's in the regulatory package - that the information is true, that it is consistent with other information. Once we have that solemn declaration and the only bar to landing is the issue of a passport, immediate landing would take place.
It becomes in effect a paper process. There is no need for an interview. It would be carried out likely between Vegreville and Mississauga. We have the resources. There's no additional resource requirement. We have the resources, so it can be a very fast landing process.
Mr. Nunez: How many months?
Mr. LeBane: Less than six months.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Will they be able to file their application even before completing the five-year waiting period? Of course, the decision will be taken only at the end of the five-year period, but can they begin the process beforehand?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: They can make an application.
The Chair: Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to go on record as stating that I do have problems with rewarding people who come to Canada without documentation of any kind. That having been said, this government has made a decision that it is going to take the collective group of Somalis and Afghans, the 7,500, and it is going to make an exception. As a Canadian, I would feel much better if that was recognized, the process was expedited, they were given landed status conditionally, and they got on their way to becoming integrated Canadians, and that's it.
But I'm uncomfortable with bringing in regulations that allow other people to use coming to Canada undocumented and being processed through the system, because you are setting a precedent. Whether you have set it as two countries or not, and whether or not you have clarified why, you're setting a precedent. You are saying in the future we will consider people coming to Canada without documentation. If the government has decided it's going to deal with the situation we have today, deal with it today, but don't keep the door open for this kind of situation recurring.
I think we as a country should be making sure when people get on an airplane from Britain or from wherever they have the documentation that is required by Canadian law - not by British law or by whatever other laws, but by Canadian law - and if they come to our country and they make a refugee claim, they should have the adequate documentation. If they don't, then they shouldn't be allowed from countries where we know they are a source of refugee claimants. They should not be allowed on that airplane, or if they are on the airplane, not allowed to land in Canada.
I don't see why we aren't dealing with the problem in the future from that end. Why the five years? Make it a condition of landing now. Let's deal with it. Let's not make it a problem we're going to be dealing with next year and the year after and the year after, from other countries where people see this as a weakness in our immigration law.
.1035
I don't think I need an answer.
The Chair: I would like to have one. Mr. LeBane, is there conditional landing?
Mr. LeBane: No.
Ms Meredith: But why couldn't you make it a conditional landing for this particular case?
Mr. LeBane: When the minister made her announcement she was looking to a solution to resolve this problem. She has chosen to put this process on the table. But she also talked about a balance; and what you talk about.... We don't want to invite abuse. So she did put forward in her announcement administrative measures both in the country...and expectation overseas to protect the country from abuse. We've talked about disembarkation, gate checks, trying to track where persons who are uncooperative, persons who have destroyed their documents...the routings they are taking. We're working more closely with the refugee board.
On the other hand, we do not want to deny access to Canada for persons who are legitimate refugee claimants, who have very valid reasons for having false documentation or who came with documents and.... One of the realities is that people are abused, people are exploited. So persons do get on airplanes and they have documents. They get off the airplanes.... They are legitimate refugee claimants. Persons who are the conduits, the ``shepherds'', say to them at the last moment, ``Give me your passports'', and blindly, out of fear, they listen to those people. Should we punish those people? We have to be more vigilant about those shepherds who abuse the system.
Ms Meredith: We could make our laws such that a person cannot disembark without the identification with which they got on the plane. If nothing else, it would stop the couriers. It would stop the people abusing other individuals.
If they have false documentation, that's not the issue. It's when they have no documentation. Even with false documentation you can do a certain amount of tracking. It's when they have no documentation and you know somebody, for the large part, is being a courier, is transporting these individuals, and getting paid for it. If we had a process that would not allow that to happen...and there are processes worldwide where they take away the documentation when they board the plane, so that documentation is secured until they disembark.
Maybe we should be looking at other options, but for solving this problem, for this particular case, why not just make it that this is what we're going to do, you are landed citizens, and prevent this process, which is asking for further abuses down the road?
The Chair: Ms Minna.
Ms Minna: Thank you. Actually mine is more a point of clarification from what Ms Meredith said.
I found your comment about doing it now interesting. When you were talking about dealing with the issue we have now and landing conditionally, was part of your recommendation also that future refugees or people coming without documents not be allowed to land at all?
Ms Meredith: That's right; that we follow the recommendations in Bill C-86 that undocumented individuals not be given landed status. We have a problem here now; let's deal with it. But why would we encourage another problem, of another 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 people from some other country, five years down the road, because of a weakness in our system?
Ms Minna: If I'm not mistaken, that would also entail the changing of our refugee system, because if a person says ``I'm a refugee'', he or she is into the system. You're back to where we are now with this system, with the backlog.
Ms Meredith: Well, it needs changing too. That's a different argument.
Ms Minna: I just wanted to clarify it. I wasn't sure which it was. That was all.
Mr. LeBane: One of the challenges the government has is first of all we want to keep open opportunities for legitimate persons who do need refugee protection and who come here. One of the challenges we have is that persons who board a plane in London, for example, have documents, and when they disembark they have documents. But huge airplanes carry hundreds of persons. Airplanes arrive at the same time. People come into international airports and it's very hard to track the movements of people. There are persons who are visa-exempt, or unscrupulous Canadian citizens who take those documents, sometimes from legitimate claimants, and just walk through. It's a very difficult, challenging exercise. So we don't want to stop.
.1040
The minister is putting in place a class that is open, looking down the road to help people who are in legitimate need if another situation like Somalia arises in five to ten years. I mean, that's one of the purposes for the creation of the class.
The Chair: Any other questions? Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You mentioned countries from which people arrive without documents. Apart from Afghanistan and Somalia, which have already been mentioned, there is also Vietnam and China. As regards Europe, are there cases of people without documents coming from Eastern Europe or from Latin America?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: I don't have any precise statistics, but I would assume people are transiting throughout the world from whatever point directly to Canada, from all parts of the world. We know the movement of people is a global exercise.
To reach Canada from, for example, Afghanistan, you can come to Canada by transiting through Europe or through Latin America. This applies to any other group. It's a global movement of people.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In terms of the impact of this regulation, it should be noted that a person without permanent residency would have very little chance of finding a job. Have you considered that issue?
[English]
Mr. LeBane: Persons who've been accorded refugee status in Canada have the right to work.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Yes, but employers are often afraid and think that they may be fined. They do not always understand the difference between refugee status and permanent residency.
[English]
Mr. LeBane: These persons have valid documents to work.
Mr. Nunez: Okay.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunez.
[English]
I would like to thank Mr. Jeff LeBane and Mr. John Butt for joining us today. Thank you very much for informing the committee of the new regulations.
Members, I'd just like to remind everyone that this afternoon we're meeting in Room 112-N. We have both an Order in Council appointment and two lawyers to discuss the regulations regarding landing of undocumented refugees. Thursday we have a double slot for witnesses. The Order in Council appointment is at 3:30 p.m., and at 4 p.m. we'll hear witnesses.
So we're running a very tight deadline. That's why we're going to have two slots on Thursday, if need be.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Have you invited the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?
The Chair: I received your letter, Mr. Nunez. The Commissioner cannot come, but he will send his testimony in writing. All the other organizations you mentioned in your letter are invited to the consultation group and belong to the Canadian Council for Refugees. The CCR will appear before the committee on Thursday. If they wish to come, our clerk will call them back. The reason why I decided to have two periods on Thursday is to enable more witnesses to appear before the committee, thus helping us to continue our work.
Thank you.
[English]
Ms Meredith: Madam Chair, we were not advised of this meeting this afternoon, other than the one.
The Chair: Because we had no confirmation until this morning. They're witnesses. They're part of the process.
Ms Meredith: It's very awkward to schedule a meeting when -
The Chair: We had scheduled a meeting this afternoon anyway.
Ms Meredith: But only for reviewing.
The Chair: You know, Ms Meredith, we made the decision concerning this particular subject last Thursday. We had to call the witnesses at the last minute. They are only now confirming which day they can be available.
.1045
Ms Meredith: But even if we know in the morning.... Something should be coming to our office first thing in the morning.
The Clerk of the Committee: I just got hold of them during the meeting, now. I'm sorry.
The Chair: It doesn't happen very often. It just happened this time.
We're adjourned.