CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 11, 1998

• 1534

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), consideration of a request by four members of the committee to convene a meeting. That is the first item on our agenda.

I will ask the clerk to read the letter we received from the four signators, please.

The Clerk of the Committee: Okay.

Dear Ms. Sirpaul:

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), a meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration shall be convened within ten (10) days

—of February 18, 1998—

for the purpose of examining the appointment of Anna Terrana to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The Chairman: You've all heard the motion.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Who signed it?

The Chairman: It was signed by Grant McNally, John Reynolds and Deepak Obhrai. It looks like Norman also signed it.

We need a motion to accept it, from one of the signators.

• 1535

Mr. John Reynolds: I so move.

The Chairman: It's accepted by John. Now the motion is on the table, and it's debatable.

Go right ahead. Who's going to be first?

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Chair, if I could beg the indulgence of the committee for a few minutes, I'll try to be brief.

Mr. Chair, on February 18 I did send, in accordance with Standing Order 106(3), a letter to Ms. Sirpaul, the clerk of the committee—and it was signed by four members, as was just mentioned—that we might be able to review the GIC appointment of Ms. Terrana to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I would quickly refer to Standing Order 111, which says:

(1) The committee specified...shall if it deems inappropriate, call the so named appointee...to appear before it during a period not exceeding ten sitting sitting days.

(2) The committee...shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee...to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed...

I raise this issue today not out of partisan interest, but rather in the public interest. I respect the time and the energy of members present, and assure you that I would not raise this for any frivolous or partisan gain.

I'll outline for you quickly my rationale for bringing this issue before the committee today, and substantiate my concerns with those of the Auditor General and the legislative review group and concerned Canadians.

In chapter 25 of the Auditor General's report, he states that board members make complex decisions that could have a major impact on the life, liberty and security of the claimant and on the integrity of the system, an impact that makes their role akin to that of a court judge.

It's my assertion that IRB members are not always selected in the same way that court judges are, and it is therefore up to this committee to ensure that the appointee—in this case, Anna Terrana—and other future appointments are qualified to serve in a judicial role on the IRB.

In the report we're examining, not just numbers, it speaks of restoring the public's faith in the immigration system. This faith has eroded for many reasons, and we on this committee have been seeing some problems with the current system that has resulted in a backlog of 30,000 refugees.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of patronage is a concern, I think, for members from all parties. In fact, I might mention briefly that in 1993 there was a Liberal member of Parliament, a Mr. Derek Lee, who made a reference to some appointments and stated:

As I see it there are two bottom lines in the way these appointments should be made. The first is that we demand quality. The second is that we require accountability in the appointment process. We need to ensure that when appointments are made they are reviewed by the House in some mechanism, by committee.

So there we are: Quality, we insist on it; accountability and review of the appointment, we insist on that.

During that same debate, the current government House leader, the Hon. Don Boudria, stated to the Tory House leader, Erik Nielsen, that the order in council process gives no power to a committee, not even the power to make a recommendation to the House under the order in council that happened.

As a committee, I believe it's our obligation to use all the abilities allotted to us to ensure that appointments serve Canadians and are based on merit and competence.

I'll briefly conclude, Mr. Chair, that in reference to the IRB appointments, the Auditor General stated in his report:

There must never be any doubt about their competence or their independence. It is therefore essential that the selection of Board members be based on merit and that the selection process be transparent.

Mr. Chairman, I've been contacted by some people in the Lower Mainland in B.C. who have some concerns about this appointment, and I believe it's my obligation as an MP to raise these concerns today. It's our obligation, as the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, to scrutinize this appointment in the public interest.

I ask all members of this committee to vote in favour of this motion in order to put to rest any misgivings I might have, or we might have, over this appointment. By voting in favour of this motion, we would then allow Ms. Terrana the opportunity to demonstrate, as the Auditor General has stated, that there is no doubt about her competence or her independence.

I move, seconded by Mr. Reynolds, that this committee call the presence of Anna Terrana to review her appointment to the IRB, in accordance with Standing Order 111.

The Chairman: The motion is on the floor. It's open for debate.

I think the first person we have on the list is Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Chairman, I want to support the motion put forth by my colleague, the member of the Reform Party. I really can't see why anyone could possibly object to this motion, given that members of the IRB have fallen under a constant barrage of criticism over the years for being political appointees.

• 1540

Successive governments, we're told, appointed people to the IRB based solely on the fact that they had an allegiance to a certain party, and they had little or no qualifications for the job.

Given that the advisory group is recommending that the current IRB be replaced by a group of protection officers, it says to me there's a valid reason to have these qualifications of any subsequent appointments to the IRB totally scrutinized.

It's not your average board; it's a very sensitive area we're into here: citizenship and immigration. I think all of us should have an interest in this, and we should be willing to bring before the board these people who claim to have the qualifications to do the job. Let's see that they do and let's have the opportunity, all of us, to question all of these individuals on these qualifications.

Hopefully all of us will vote unanimously in favour of doing this, because it's a good motion.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I also support the motion. While I don't presume to know Mrs. Terrana's qualifications—perhaps she has some—I think it's wise for this committee to review appointments and to ask questions.

I can't forget Mrs. Terrana's rather odd behaviour before she was thanked by her voters. She compared the leader of the Quebec government to Adolph Hitler. Perhaps you recall that her statement made the headlines. Obviously, this comparison was quite hurtful from a human rights standpoint. I think we could have a very fruitful discussion if she were to come before this committee and we could ask her some questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, please stick to the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, go ahead and recognize us and we will decide for ourselves what we want to say. In any event, we will support this motion and we hope that all committee members will do likewise.

[English]

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Are you finished? Oh, all right. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am always brief, Mr. Chairman. Occasionally, you get nervous. Basically, I am always brief. This proves that you don't listen to me.

[English]

The Chairman: No, I do listen. I just interjected there because I would appreciate it if we would stick to the motion and not talk about the qualifications of the candidate. You'll have the opportunity, when she comes, to deal with that issue, okay?

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are several things I wish to say. First of all, perhaps I should recall for the benefit of the members opposite that the appointments system is an open, transparent and legal process. As you all know full well, the appointments process begins with an advisory committee that has been duly set up to receive all application from candidates. After examining these applications and meeting with the candidates, the committee makes recommendations to the minister. As far as I'm concerned, the system is a transparent, legal one. It is recognized as such and takes into account the merit and competence of the candidates.

However, I take exception to one of the remarks made by a committee member. It is not a foregone conclusion that the Immigration and Refugee Board will disappear simply because a recommendation to this effect was made in the document that we have all read. This is but one of over 100 recommendations. We have to remember that the board was set up precisely because it was felt at the time that the officials responsible for deciding the fate of refugees were not doing their job properly. That's when the board was established. We mustn't jump to the conclusion that this committee, or the minister, will bring about the demise of the board.

• 1545

To call a new candidate or new appointee before this committee is a good move. This would ensure the transparency of the process. I agree that Mrs. Terrana should be called before this committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Madam Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that we call the question. I think we need to be transparent. I think those of us who know the individual we're talking about know she will come before this committee and will equip herself and answer members' questions in the fashion we want to establish. There is nothing to hide here, so let's invite her to come, if that was the intent of the motion, for us to speak to her about her qualifications and her role or whatever the member's intent is at this time.

The Chairman: Can we have an indication from the Liberal Party side? Are you all in favour of this direction?

Ms. Jean Augustine: We have no problems.

The Chairman: Very good.

And the opposition side: you're all in favour?

Mr. Stoffer, do you mind indicating whether you are in favour of the motion?

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Absolutely. I was going to speak on it, but that's okay.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Unanimous; very good.

Thank you very much. We can now proceed with our agenda, which is the third report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. You all have a copy of the subcommittee report. I won't go through it. I think you've had it in your possession for at least a few hours, because a meeting was held yesterday. Are there questions on any of the items that appear in the subcommittee's report and pertain to future agenda?

Mr. John Reynolds: I have one comment. I notice in the budget for the meetings here that it's costing us $75 for the two buckets back there and a jug of orange juice. The bucket of water tastes like coffee. You can't even make tea with it. I think we're being ripped off. I don't know who we're getting it from, but if it's the parliamentary restaurant, we should have somebody... The cost could be normal, but you can't even make tea with the water back there. It seems like a lot of money. Maybe the private sector could do a better job.

The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds, could you introduce that topic at the next subcommittee meeting? Maybe we can deal with it.

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes. Maybe if we bring it up now the clerk can find out between now and the subcommittee meeting what we can do about it.

A voice: We can discontinue the service.

The Chairman: Yes, but maybe there are other options or alternatives.

Mr. John Reynolds: I would like to know what the other alternatives are.

The Chairman: Let's take a look at it. Thank you very much, Mr. Reynolds.

Since there are no questions pertaining to the subcommittee's third report, let's have a motion to adopt it.

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings).

The Chairman: Let's go on to the next item on the agenda, a motion to adopt the budget.

I do have some reservations about the budget. We are going to be bringing in quite a number of witnesses. I think the reservations could be dealt with by processing any financial obligations after April 1; in other words, expense accounts and so forth. Maybe we'll be able to handle it. We're going to have far more than ten members from the community coming before this committee before March 31. However, without going through that ritual of changing everything, I think you should leave it in the hands of the chair and the clerk and the finance department to handle this financial issue.

The total amount we are asking for to bring witnesses in at present is $70,000. I could point out to you that if we feel we need further funds we'll decide that at the subcommittee level in the very near future. We won't leave it until May or June and then put in the second request to make sure that we have a sum of money locked into the budget for future months until the end of the fiscal year in 1999.

• 1550

Could we have a motion accepting the budget? No, wait, I think that's already in the third report. All right, then, I just draw it to your attention.

We now go on to the next item on our agenda. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are considering recommendation 155 of the report of the legislative review advisory group entitled “Not just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration”, particularly issues relating to removal and detention.

We're very fortunate today to have with us, for their last session in this part of the year, witnesses from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We're very pleased to see that they are returning to continue, and I hope we come to some kind of conclusion regarding their presentation.

We did provide you with some guidance regarding the content of the presentation, Mr. Grant, so I'm going to turn it over to you and your colleagues. Please continue.

Mr. Brian Grant (Acting Director General, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): First of all, thank you for inviting us back. We would of course be delighted to come back if we can help you in future with your deliberations.

What we have distributed today is what we've called a removals process map. This is what the committee—or one half of it, anyway—requested last time, so if you're agreeable to it, what we would propose to begin with is a walkthrough of this map.

What this shows are the legal or procedural steps during a removal. I will ask Susan Leith to walk you through it. Of course, if you want to stop us at any point in order to ask questions for clarification, we'd be happy to answer then, or you can ask them at the end.

The second thing you asked was for us to provide the administrative steps of removing somebody. We've found a document that I think will be very useful to the committee. It's about twenty pages long, but I unfortunately can't give it to you today because I only found it in English. There is a French version that we will find, and as soon as we have it you can have this document.

Just to give you some background, basically what this document does is put together a step-by-step description of how you go about arranging a removal—obtaining travel documents, obtaining tickets, visas, etc. The goal of this was to assist the systems people to develop the new system that Mr. Borowyk described to you the last time we were here. It really takes you through it step by step. It assumes no prior knowledge, so I think you'll find this document very useful. We can talk about this today but, by your rules, we cannot share this document with you.

In addition, we have a number of other documents that we are finalizing now and that the committee has requested. They are related to the number of removals, the number of people working in enforcement, etc., and you should have them within a day or two. We're just finalizing the translation and the preparation of those. I apologize that they are not ready today, but they should be here in a day or two.

So if it's agreeable, we'll start with this chart we have distributed.

Ms. Susan Leith (Director, Investigation and Removal, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): In regard to the charts you have been given, there are four pages. The first two are in English and the second two are in French. The first page I'm going to be referring to is entitled “CRDD/PDRCC/Removals Process Map (No Federal Court Action)”. I'm going to start with that chart because it's the most simplified, most straightforward process.

At our previous appearance, we were asked to provide you with a process map that describes the removals process. Just before I start, for those of you who weren't here before, I want to summarize again that there are three types of removal orders—a deportation order, which is a permanent bar for a person to return to Canada without the consent of the minister; an exclusion order, which bars an individual from returning to Canada for a year; and a departure order. That's an order that requires that a person leave Canada within 30 days. There's no permanent bar to their return to Canada, but if the person does not leave Canada within the 30 days, this order becomes a deportation order.

• 1555

It's important that everyone understand that before I start my chart, because the orders are indicated in some of the boxes of the chart.

Across the top, you'll see four boxes that indicate that CRDD processing takes 14 months. Those boxes aren't necessarily on the chart indicating in sequence the amount of time that it takes.

Everybody follows me so far? Okay.

The Chairman: Ms. Leith, we have some new members of the committee here, who are substituting. Would you take those acronyms in each box, and be sure that you identify what they are?

Ms Susan Leith: Yes, I will. Okay.

The Chairman: Thanks.

Ms. Susan Leith: CRDD processing is where the claim that the person has made to be a refugee is heard by the IRB. The CRDD stands for the Convention Refugee Determination Division.

The next box, PDRCC application—that's the risk review that a person can apply for prior to their removal from Canada, when they've been determined not to be a convention refugee. When they make that application for a risk review, it's a personalized review of their circumstances. They have 30 days to make a submission once they've filed their application. That's the next box at the top, in terms of timeframe.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): PDRCC stands for what?

Mr. Brian Grant: The class of post-determination of refugee status in Canada.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I knew that.

Mr. Brian Grant: That's why we call it PDRCC.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Why is it a “C ” instead of an “S”, then?

An hon. member: It sounds like a former state of the Soviet Union.

Ms. Susan Leith: So the first line in the chart indicates “Claim to Convention Refugee Status Made”. That's where a person who is in Canada or who arrives in Canada makes a claim that they wish to have determined by the CRDD.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is that the CRSM?

The Chairman: Mr. McKay?

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I'm trying to get in my head where the 30 days where you actually submit your application...

Ms. Susan Leith: That's at the tail end of the process.

If we could just start with the claim to convention refugee status, a person submits their claim, and the members of the board listen to the claim made by the person. Remember, we talked in the past about the fact that the client provides a personal information form to the refugee division, and the board members make a decision on the claim. That's the first box. For a person who claims refugee status, if that decision is negative, in other words that they're not a convention refugee, they go into the next box, and that moves them into what begins to be the removal stream.

The second box represents that the client has received a negative decision from the board—in other words, they've been determined not to be a convention refugee. At that point the client can decide to leave Canada voluntarily.

• 1600

The box directly below that says “Voluntary Compliance Removal”. That person could be subject to a departure order. In other words, they have 30 days to leave. Or they could be subject to a deportation order if the original reasons why they're in the enforcement stream are because the allegations made against them were very serious allegations. They would be subject to a deportation order. For example, that would be someone with a serious criminal conviction.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So that decision has been made in the second box, and they still get 30 days to leave? They're released into the community for 30 days?

Ms. Susan Leith: No.

Mr. Brian Grant: Yes, with voluntary departure.

Ms. Susan Leith: A person could be in the community, or at that point, they could be detained, depending on whether—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The severity?

Ms. Susan Leith: Yes, and depending on whether it was determined that they might be considered a danger to the public or unlikely to appear.

Mr. Brian Grant: The order we're talking about here is a voluntary departure order. Basically, the idea is that when you finish all of the process and the final “no” comes, a clock starts to tick at that point. You have 30 days in which to effect your own removal.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What I'm trying to understand, though, is that if the decision is negative, I would assume it's for a fairly serious reason. Am I wrong on that?

Ms. Susan Leith: No.

Mr. Brian Grant: The decision is negative in that the person is not a refugee.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

Mr. Brian Grant: The determination that they're inadmissible under the Immigration Act would have been already made about 14 months earlier, probably when they came into the country. They didn't have the proper documents. The senior immigration officer said they were inadmissible under the Immigration Act. They were given their order. It was held conditional until we determined whether they were a refugee. Once that's determined, this order becomes effective.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you.

Ms. Susan Leith: So now underneath the voluntary compliance box, you'll see a circle with the word “non-compliance”. If the person doesn't leave within 30 days on that departure order, then that order automatically becomes a deportation order.

Now, I'm going to take you back up to the negative CRDD decision. I just described this as a person who has just accepted the decision of the refugee board, said they were leaving, and leaves.

At the time a client receives a negative decision from the refugee board, they can make an application for a risk review. That's the PDRCCC application you see in the box. They have 15 days to make that application. Then they have another 30 days in which to present a submission as to why they feel they are at personal risk, why they should not be removed from the country.

That application is reviewed in the next box, which we've called the “Risk Review Processing Window”. That's the timeframe in which that's reviewed.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are board members the ones who review the applications?

[English]

Ms. Susan Leith: Those people are referred to by title as post-claim determination officers.

[Translation]

Mr. Brian Grant: These officials have undergone special training.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Therefore, a ruling in this matter is not handed down from the bench.

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: No.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It isn't?

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: No, it isn't. The Department of Immigration reviews the application and ultimately makes a determination.

Mr. Réal Ménard: And these officers are specially trained in this area?

Mr. Brian Grant: By the department.

[English]

The Chairman: Please continue.

Mr. Grant McNally: Could I ask one quick question? Say the person doesn't apply for their risk review within that time period. Perhaps they don't understand they have that option, for language reasons or whatever. Then the 30 days clicks over and they get the deportation order.

• 1605

Do they have the opportunity at a later date for a risk review, if they find they're going back and they're in trouble if they do go back? Or is that just it after the 30 days goes?

Ms. Susan Leith: If they miss the initial 15-day period after the negative CRDD decision, they cannot apply for a risk review. However, they could apply for a humanitarian and compassionate review at any point in time in the process and indicate their reasoning, saying that they're at risk during that agency process, the humanitarian compassionate process.

Mr. Grant McNally: Which body does that then go to?

Ms. Susan Leith: An application for a humanitarian compassionate review is submitted to an immigration officer.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay, do you want ask a question right now?

Mr. John McKay: We're looking at the report. As I understand the report, that process would be squeezed onto the refugee determination process as a simultaneous event. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian Grant: That's my understanding of the report.

Mr. John McKay: That's the understanding. And this risk review and that convention determination process would be done by a department official—

Mr. Brian Grant: It's an official.

Mr. John McKay: —in the report.

Mr. Brian Grant: Yes. In the report.

Mr. John McKay: Right now, though, they're separate. The determination is done by the board and the risk review is done by the department.

Mr. Brian Grant: That's right.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Ms. Leith.

Ms. Susan Leith: At the risk review stage, if the officer who is performing that review determines that the person is at risk—off to the right of this page you'll see the box that says “landing”—the person is processed towards landing in Canada, or in other words, for permanent residence in Canada, if he or she is determined to be at risk. I'm not going to address that because of course I'm here to discuss removals.

So in the risk review processing window, if the person receives a negative decision—in other words, they're determined to be not at risk—then he or she moves into the removal stream. They go down to the voluntary compliance removal. Again, if they're subject to a departure order, they have 30 days to leave the country. If they don't, the order becomes a deportation order.

That's the simplified version of what happens when a person is determined to be not a convention refugee, how they move through the removals process. It's simplified because this client that we've just taken you through the map with did not make an application to the Federal Court for a review of the refugee decision.

I will go on to the second page if there are no questions about the first.

The Chairman: I would like to see if there are any questions. I'm sure there are.

I'm going to leave it as a round-table discussion because if there are four or five people who would like to zero in on one specific concept, I don't want to miss it. Strike when the iron is hot. All right?

First, Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle: What would be the average timeframe from the moment that the application is received until the application is turned down and the individual is deported? What's the average timeframe we're talking about here?

Mr. Brian Grant: An application for...?

Mr. Norman Doyle: Refugee status, or to become a Canadian or whatever term you use. From the moment that—

Mr. Brian Grant: From the moment a person arrives, basically.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Yes. From the moment you receive that individual into the country to the time he has to leave because he's not qualified to be here: what's the average timeframe we're talking about here?

Ms. Susan Leith: It would be difficult to give you an average time for the whole process, but I can break it down.

• 1610

For example, as you see on the process map, currently the timeframes at the Immigration Refugee Board are 14 months. In other words, from the time the documentation is received by the board from the client, it takes about 14 months before a decision on that person's claim is made. When the person arrives in Canada, the timeframe in which the documentation takes to get to the Immigration and Refugee Board is a fairly short period of time.

Mr. Norman Doyle: So when there is a removal order given, do you know the exact moment the individual leaves the country?

Ms. Susan Leith: When the removal order is issued?

Mr. Norman Doyle: Yes.

Ms. Susan Leith: When a person arrives in Canada and makes a claim to be a convention refugee, a report is written, a senior immigration officer reviews the report, and a conditional removal order is made right at that point in time by the senior immigration officer. As Mr. Grant described, the conditional removal order is made and then it's held in abeyance until a decision can be made on that person's claim to be a convention refugee.

The time period from when that order occurs to when the determination is made as to whether or not the person is a convention refugee is on average 14 months. After that, if the person files the risk review application, there's at least another 45 days before it's reviewed. Then, depending on the area in which that risk review application is filed, there are different timeframes. For example, in British Columbia there's less of a backlog than there is in the Ontario region.

Mr. Norman Doyle: What kind of control do you have over the individual? Are you in complete control of that individual from, say, precisely the moment the deportation order is given until he's finally put on a plane and out of the country again? What happens there?

I'm not totally up to speed on any of this, but just reading the AG's report, he says we don't have sufficient or capable tracking facilities for these individuals. What happens to the whole process?

Ms. Susan Leith: When a senior immigration officer issues that conditional removal order, the person is often released on terms and conditions. It could be by way of a cash bond. In other words, the person submits a cash amount, $2,000 to $3,000, and there are various terms and conditions that the person must comply with until their removal from Canada, or until they're landing in Canada. There could be a performance bond, which is similar to a promise to pay. Someone would sign the bond on their behalf and if the person didn't comply with the requirements then we can estreat the bond; or sometimes the person is released on what's referred to as an acknowledgement of terms and conditions.

Basically, the terms and conditions that are imposed would be terms and conditions such as: must report any change of address in advance of that change of address; must report when required to do so; must report for removal when required to do so. So in that regard we do have control.

Mr. Norman Doyle: It doesn't always work out, I guess. There will be some fleeing—

Ms. Susan Leith: There will be some clients who won't comply with the requirements. Definitely.

Mr. Brian Grant: When you think about control, there are different levels of control currently in the system. There's very close control if there's some concern. So if you're talking about a criminal, then for the criminal there will be very close control. He will be incarcerated in a prison, or we may be holding the person in a jail, but under the authority of the Immigration Act.

When you have somebody who has come and made a refugee claim and the claim is yet to be decided, there is a control, but it's perhaps less visible and the control is that it is assumed that the person has reason to show up because they're hopeful they will be found to be a refugee and then they can stay as a permanent resident. So as long as that decision is outstanding, and as long as they feel they have an opportunity there, then they're likely to show up for procedure.

• 1615

It's when that starts to go negative that they may disappear and not show up for removal. Then you have to rely on trying to find them, on issuing warrants for their arrest, that sort of thing. Currently, we wouldn't hold those people in detention, as seems to be suggested in the report.

The Chairman: Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

How do they decide that the person is a danger to the public? Who decides that, or who considers that the person is dangerous to the public?

Mr. Brian Grant: A danger to the public is considered by a minister's delegate.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: How does the minister's delegate find out?

Mr. Brian Grant: It's been delegated to the director general of case management.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: Then it's specifically where they can have the evidence or any documents to prove that he is dangerous to the public?

Mr. Brian Grant: They consider all of the submissions that are made. The person is informed and they're entitled to make a submission. They make a submission on whether or not they should be considered a danger to the public.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: On what grounds? On what evidence? I don't quite follow. Do they have any evidence from anywhere, so then they take that?

Mr. Brian Grant: You're going back now to changes that were made in 1995 under Bill C-44. The discussion at that time was that there were certain people who, because they represented a danger to the public, should not have access to an appeal before the IAD, the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

At that time there was considerable discussion in committee and elsewhere that resulted in a decision that the decision-maker would be guided by four aspects of the crime. First, the crime, to be a danger, must be punishable by 10 years or more. Secondly, it must involve weapons, violence, drugs, or sex. Those are the four criteria that the decision-maker takes into account.

So the first thing is that the person is being convicted of a crime that is punishable by 10 or more years. We're talking of serious crimes here.

Then you start to look at the nature of those crimes. Did the person use a weapon? Was there violence involved? That's the sort of criteria that are used.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: Is that a punishable crime of 10 years in either country?

Mr. Brian Grant: It would be 10 years in Canada, or the equivalent of 10 years in Canada.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: What would somebody have in any other country...and then he comes over here?

Mr. Brian Grant: The person could be considered a danger to Canada. The person is inadmissible to Canada, provided that the crime is a crime where it was committed and it's also considered a crime in Canada. Then we would have to work out the equivalences between us.

For instance, the crime may be punished by a certain sentence in another country and then by a different sentence in Canada. So we would look at how it would be treated in Canada.

For example, if something was treated as 10 years in jail in another country and we treat it as 6 months maximum, we're going to take the Canadian interpretation of that. So you draw these equivalences across.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: Can he still apply for the compensation on humanitarian grounds with the review committee?

Mr. Brian Grant: Currently, you can make an application for humanitarian compassion at any point to be considered for that.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just out of curiosity, with the voluntary compliance after a negative decision, how many people would volunteer on a yearly basis to leave Canada after they've tried to get in? I just find it rather amazing that once someone has a negative decision they'll just say, okay, you caught me, I'll leave. I find that hard to believe.

Ms. Susan Leith: I have that breakdown. In 1997 we removed from Canada 7,968 people. Of those, 30% left during that 30-day time period, 26% were subject to deportation orders and 14% were subject to exclusion orders, which is the one-year bar from returning to Canada.

• 1620

As I said, 30% received departure orders. Then the remaining 30% were deemed deportation orders. These are the people who failed to leave within the 30 days. That was another 30%.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Here is my next question. The Auditor General reported that 31,200 people were turned down since 1993, and for 78% of them, we don't know their whereabouts. There are no confirmed departure dates. I guess I'm asking, why don't we know that approximately 25,000 people are possibly in this country who are unaccounted for? That's in the Auditor General's report.

Mr. Brian Grant: There are a couple of things to bear in mind here. That's in fact what we're working through now with the map.

The first thing is to remember what the Auditor General said. He took a very specific measure that's interesting, but you have to qualify what exactly he's measuring. He said that of the people who came in after 1993, under the Bill C-86 rules, how many of those people who made a claim from that point on were removed in the same period of time? The figure he came up with was somewhere around 4,000.

In fact, the number of people we removed as failed claimants over that period of time was closer to 17,000.

What's the difference? The difference is that the process moves along and can take, as we've seen in the very simplest example, a couple of years for somebody to move through. Actually, we were removing during that period—the Auditor General didn't count this—people who made claims in 1992, 1991, 1990, etc.

The answer is not that the people have made a claim and just disappeared and we have no idea where they are. The answer is that they're making these PDRCCC claims to the Federal Court. We'll get to this in a minute. You'll see that they're in all of those boxes. So many of them have not been removed because there is still a stay against their removal because they're still working through the process.

I will admit that some have gone through that, and they have absconded. What happens is that they have just not shown up for removal. In that case, we issue a warrant for their arrest. That goes into the CPIC system, the police system, and it's wired into every police car in Canada. If they pick somebody up, they check against that. We also send that information to the United States border guards so that they can check anyone trying to go into the United States against that system as well. It's basically a warrant for their arrest.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: What's your best educated guess of how many people would be in Canada in that situation?

Mr. Brian Grant: That's really a guess; I don't know about the “educated” part.

It's a long, long border, and we don't have border controls. We've talked in other sessions about how this is something that concerns a number of countries. It's something that you've seen, for instance, in some of the recent legislation Congress has passed in the United States, specifically section 110, whereby they're asking U.S. Immigration to record every “alien”, as they call them, who enters and leaves the United States. They're trying to get an extra control.

We're talking with the United States to see whether there might be more sophisticated ways than just writing names down. We wonder whether we can use technology to look at who's in one or the other country and follow it that way.

Failing that, it's a long border that people can cross fairly easily. It's difficult to stop people in all cases crossing at border points, but there's a long area between border points. There are Indian reserves that straddle the border. There are long expanses where there's very little out there.

So it's extremely difficult. I don't even know if I can give a guess. I'd hasten to say it was an educated guess.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

My last question is one that I ask at every committee I go to. In your own humble opinion, do you feel you have enough people and resources to do your job adequately, as set out by the guidelines? I ask everybody that. I ask them all that, and I get the same answer. I'm wondering if you're going to answer the same way.

Mr. Norman Doyle: You never have enough people.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's what I want to hear him say.

Mr. Brian Grant: In my own humble opinion, we work with whatever resources we have. It's really a question of how ingenious you are, not how many people you have.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I take that as a “no”, then, right?

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Madame Folco.

• 1625

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: First of all, thank you for drawing up this map as I requested at the last meeting. It will help committee members a great deal to understand how the process works.

However, there is no mention of applications made on humanitarian grounds. A person who has been denied refugee status may at any time during the process file an application on these grounds. I wonder if it might be useful in the future to add another page describing how applications for a humanitarian and compassionate review work.

For instance, I note here that it takes 15 days to process an application for a risk review and 30 days for the submissions process, whereas it doesn't say how long it takes to process the application. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume the process is similar to that in place for applications for humanitarian reviews. I think it's important for committee members to understand by looking at this chart that an individual can at any time file an application for a humanitarian and compassionate review. Could we have a similar chart showing how this process works, a chart which would give us some idea of the time frame involved from the moment a person files an application?

[English]

Mr. Brian Grant: It's very difficult to do that. As you say, the person can make an application for humanitarian and compassionate consideration as many times as he or she wishes. It costs $500, but they can make hundreds of them if they want. There's no limitation.

It is important, though, for members to realize that because somebody has made an application under H and C, subsection 114(2) of the act, it does not mean that the removal is suspended. The person can still be removed pending a decision on that H and C.

[Translation]

It is difficult to show on a chart the different types of applications that can be filed.

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: That's not what I asked you. I asked you about how much time elapses between the time an application is filed and a determination, whether positive or negative, is made.

Mr. Brian Grant: The process continues when an application for a humanitarian and compassionate review is filed. It may take only a few days, but it can continue with the federal government's agreement or as part of other reviews being conducted at the same time.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have no questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I have a very general question for you. It's a question I get asked a lot.

The process seems extremely complex to me. It reminds me of a computer program with all the yeses and nos, and ones and zeros.

Mr. Brian Grant: We have described the simple process.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I realize that and that's what worries me. Is it absolutely essential that the process be this complex, in view of the international agreements that we have signed, or is it that we have let the process get extremely complex?

[English]

Mr. Brian Grant: There is an international obligation not to refoule a person who makes a refugee claim. There is no obligation in the UN convention to determine that in any particular way. So the approach Canada has chosen in the past through the Immigration and Refugee Board, a two-member hearing, etc., was a Canadian choice. It was not dictated by a convention. That's number one.

• 1630

Two, there are certain protections offered by the charter that find their way onto this sheet. So the charter told us in the Singh decision in 1986 that the person has a right to face their decision-maker in an oral hearing. It doesn't say who has to make that, but they have an oral hearing. So that works its way onto the chart here.

The next thing the charter sets down for all people in Canada is due process, which means that you have a right to have a decision reviewed in the Federal Court, if you choose. Most of it is within Canada. It's laws within Canada on due process that are followed.

Does it have to be like this? No, it doesn't, and the whole point of this report is suggesting another way of doing it. If it's simpler or more complex is for everyone to judge.

In terms of other countries, one of the things that has bedevilled many countries in dealing with this is that very question of reviews, of appeal after appeal after appeal. Canada does better than some and worse than others.

Currently in the United Kingdom, for instance, they have a fairly efficient system up front, but once it hits the appeal system it gets very slow working through the appeal. Part of the challenge in all of this, as the authors of the report note, is that you have certain protections built into a system in terms of appeals, reviews, etc., and then you bring a very large number of people through that in a very short period of time. What is the effect of that?

That's really the conundrum everyone faces. How do you process that many people and offer that many opportunities for review?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand.

Because we have all these constraints, starting from the Geneva convention on to the charter and on to due process and so on, don't you have the feeling that in fact we are encouraging people to fuel this complexity by using it? In other words, don't you feel that because we have such a process more people are going to be tempted to try it here? It would be tempting for them to try it somewhere else where it's a bit shorter and much more radical. “Radical” is not really the word I'm looking for; rather, “plus expéditif”.

Mr. Brian Grant: We know there are people who try to enter the system who do not need protection, who are not refugees. By anyone's measure, including Canada, which has the highest acceptance rate, there's still a large number of people who are found not to be refugees. So we know that, yes, people will try it. We know that from the experience of some other countries.

The United States, for example, has an interestingly different experience from us in that people will enter, make a refugee claim and then disappear, because they're not as interested in their refugee claim. They're more interested in being able to work illegally, because there's a large labour market there.

So, yes, the presence of a system like this can be exploited and probably is exploited by people for economic reasons. Is Canada worse than other countries? Last year Canada had about 22,000 refugee claimants, I think, with what everyone says is the most generous system in the world. The Netherlands had 36,000 during the same period of time for a system that is far less generous than Canada. So it's really difficult to draw a direct link and say, yes, our system is the best and therefore we're abused more than anyone else. There are people who manipulate it, but it's difficult to make a very direct link.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Merci beaucoup.

The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.

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

Going back to the Auditor General's report, I know the numbers can differ, but you talked about the 20,000 people who've been ordered deported and there were still 16,000...and he was critical about the fact we didn't know where some of them were. You mentioned the fact that you issued arrest warrants for people who don't comply. How many arrest warrants are outstanding right now in Canada for people who haven't complied? Of the over 16,000 people, say, who passed through the system, how many did we actually issue arrest warrants for?

Ms. Susan Leith: Of persons for whom there is a warrant for their arrest for removal, there are currently 12,757 in the CPIC system. That's the Canadian police system.

• 1635

In 1995, I think, as Mr. Grant said earlier, we created the Immigration Warrant Response Centre, which operates on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week basis, in order to assist our law enforcement partners.

Our warrants for arrest are Canada-wide warrants. Therefore, at any point in time when an individual who has a warrant for their arrest for removal is stopped by a police officer for something as simple as a speeding ticket, when their name is run through the police system that warrant will come up. The police officer phones the warrant response centre immediately, and the person is arrested for removal.

Mr. John Reynolds: Is that on the American system, too, if they get picked up in the United States?

Ms. Susan Leith: No, not on our warrants. There is a connection between the two systems, but the warrant that's issued in Canada is only valid for Canada.

Mr. John Reynolds: But if an American policeman were to pick them up and run a check on them, it would show up that there was an arrest warrant out for them in Canada for a specific offence, so they could take them to the border and deport them themselves, if they wanted to.

Mr. Brian Grant: There is a connection, but it's not quite as clear as your question may be implying. If you have a police officer in Atlanta and he goes into his computer in his car, he's not going to find the person. But there are ways they can link up to our system and come across. As part of the work we're doing with the United States, we're now looking at whether we can improve that and make that information flow a lot better so that an officer would have the information from the other country.

Mr. John Reynolds: It seems to be very important, because, as you said, there are so many open spaces, and we have examples of people committing crimes, who got in here and then crossed over there, and vice versa.

Mr. Brian Grant: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you. That's it.

Mr. Brain Grant: The approach we're taking is that you look at the perimeter of the continent and what information systems you put on the perimeter as people pass across that, and then within that, if somebody comes against the law, that you have your systems hooked up and talking to each other.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Is there any substantive difference between the evidence that's looked at for refugee determination, a risk review, and a humanitarian and compassionate review?

Mr. Brian Grant: First of all, we are not the experts on this, so I'll give you a very short answer, and we'll be happy to have the people who can answer.

I don't want to go too deeply into this other than to say that the reason there are the different ones is that there are different criteria. So if somebody makes a claim for refugee status they then are judged based on the definition in the UN convention—membership in a social group, and so on.

When you get to the risk—

Mr. John McKay: Yes, but the facts themselves may well be the same, though.

Mr. Brian Grant: The facts should be the same, yes.

Mr. John McKay: Is there any principal reason why a person who's doing a convention determination review could not also do a risk review, and could not also do an H and C review?

Mr. Brian Grant: Mr. Chairman, I will have to call for assistance here, because it really is out of our area. This is a protection question, not an enforcement question. I feel very uncomfortable answering, although we can provide the answer and would be happy to, either in writing or with another witness.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John McKay: I think that's a fairly critical question in light of the report, which squeezes this process substantially. If you don't feel comfortable answering the question, that's fair, but I would be very interested in the response to that question. It strikes me, looking at this with some objectivity, hopefully, that all that's happening here is three different people, at three different times, with three sets of criteria, are mining the same box of evidence, because not much has changed.

They were either at risk or they weren't at risk when they walked in the door; they were either in fear when they walked in the door or they weren't; and there are other humanitarian and compassionate issues that may arise or could well arise that have nothing to do with whether or not they are at risk, or whether or not they are in fear of their country of origin.

Mr. Brian Grant: Mr. Chairman, the question is a good one, and we will endeavour to answer it, either in writing, if we can, or we would be happy to provide the committee with a witness who knows the area.

The Chairman: Okay. Will you be in touch with the clerk and let us know?

Mr. Brian Grant: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Because of the time factor, I'm going to ask all the members to turn to the second page, please. This is a Federal Court action model.

• 1640

Ms. Susan Leith: This process map starts at the same point where the person makes the claim to be a convention refugee. They receive a negative decision. This map talks about what happens when the person files a Federal Court leave application. Two possible scenarios could happen.

First, the person can file the Federal Court leave application. In other words, they want the decision of the refugee board reviewed by the Federal Court.

The top box indicates that the client did not make an application for that risk review. That doesn't happen very often.

The box underneath shows that the person has applied to the Federal Court for a review of that negative decision. They have also applied for a risk review at the same time.

So now you can see how the process is starting to get complicated, because not only do we have a risk review—and remember, that's being assessed by the departmental official—but the person is also filing an application with the Federal Court to have the negative decision by the refugee board reviewed by the Federal Court.

So far so good?

The Chairman: So far so good.

Ms. Susan Leith: Now the Federal Court makes a decision—shown in the next box to the right—the leave decision. When the client files the application, they have to receive leave in order for the judicial review to actually occur. That's the next box to the right.

Mr. Brian Grant: There's an arrow missing between those two boxes.

Ms. Susan Leith: Yes. I apologize for that.

At the point where the leave decision is made, if it's determined that there is no leave granted, the person can proceed either to leave voluntarily—that's the arrow going up on the chart to the voluntary compliance—or, in the case where the person filed for a risk review, you can see that from that leave decision they end up getting into that risk review processing window.

Now it gets further complicated if it's determined that the person's judicial review is granted.

We're then in the judicial review box. The time period for that judicial review is approximately 12 months. It takes that long for a decision to be made on those applications. The leave application, where the person is actually applying for leave to the Federal Court, takes on average about three months. If leave is granted, the judicial review then takes about 12 months.

While that judicial review is ongoing, the risk review by the departmental official can be conducted. However, we like to conduct those reviews as close as possible in time to when we anticipate the removal will occur.

The reason for that is that we want to make sure when we're doing the risk review that it's the most up-to-date information just prior to the removal. In other words, there's no point in reviewing whether someone's at risk in being returned to his or her country if it's going to be one year before we actually remove the person to that country. We like to try to do that risk review as close as possible to the actual removal.

In that regard, we have worked very closely with the officers doing those risk reviews to make sure that the priorities they use in determining what cases to review are consistent with our removal priorities—in other words, detained cases, criminal cases, etc. So we try to make sure that their priorities are consistent with ours so that the review is occurring in conjunction with our intention to remove the person.

• 1645

The Chairman: Very good.

Ms. Susan Leith: If, again, as in the other chart, there is a positive risk decision—in other words, the officer determines that the person is at risk—the person proceeds to that “landing” box. If it's determined that they're not at risk, and the judicial review decision is negative—in other words, it is not referring the case back to the CRDD to review that there was some error in the decision-making—then that person flows down to the voluntary compliance. They have 30 days to leave if they're subject to a departure order. If they don't leave, then that automatically becomes a deportation order.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: The difference is in the two words “leave”. When you put “Leave Decision” in the box there, what you mean is somebody physically moving or being removed.

Ms. Susan Leith: No, I don't. That's leave in the Federal Court.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. That's what I want to clarify.

Mr. Brian Grant: They're seeking leave from the Federal Court, and the court will decide whether it will grant leave or not.

Mr. John McKay: What are the criteria as to when you are going to the Federal Court for leave for your judicial review? Is this a review of fact, or a review of law, or a mixed review of both?

Mr. Brian Grant: It's basically a judicial review of fact and law, fact being the decision. It doesn't look at the facts of the case, so it's not an appeal of the determination. It's simply, was the decision made correctly?

Mr. John McKay: Correctly in accordance with the rules of natural justice and that sort of stuff?

Mr. Brian Grant: Exactly.

Mr. John McKay: So that's the sole issue before the judge at the time.

Mr. Brian Grant: That's correct.

Mr. John McKay: Do you have a number as to what gets past that stage?

Mr. Brian Grant: We can provide that. While we were giving that, I realized we should have brought to you the figure of how many people. A fairly large proportion apply. A fairly small proportion of those are actually granted leave.

Mr. John McKay: I should think so. I mean, it's a no-lose, no-brainer deal as far as making your leave application. You just get more free time.

Mr. Brian Grant: You're right. It's an area that we've looked at for several years. There have been some changes in the past. There was an appeal to the appeals division of the Federal Court, which is where more judges sit in in longer time. It's now restricted to the trial division, so that cuts it down, speeds it up. But, yes, you're always looking in that area.

There are a couple of boxes here that we didn't put in, but just for completeness I'll mention them. If you do go to the Federal Court, the Federal Court can rule against and say, no, they don't grant judicial leave, but they can certify a question. So if there's an interesting question in law, they'll certify it and it will go on to the appeal divisions, which can do the same thing to the Supreme Court. It's extremely rare, but it is legally possible.

Mr. John McKay: It is a tad remote, yes, and for our purposes of only academic interest.

Mr. Brian Grant: Yes. We left it out.

Mr. John McKay: Is the “15-days” box from the point of a negative decision to the point of a decision on leave to appeal, or the point of application for the decision?

Mr. Brian Grant: You have 15 days in which to make an application to the court.

Mr. John McKay: When you're in that box, how long does that take, once you've made your leave?

Mr. Brian Grant: Fifteen days.

Mr. John McKay: You've filed your documents, you're asking for leave to appeal—

Mr. Brian Grant: That's the 3.25 months.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. So we're roughly four months, or better than that.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Any further questions?

Mrs. Folco.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: I simply want to stress one point. Once the 15-day window for filing an application and obtaining approval has passed, along with the 3.25 months for the FC leave application and the twelve months for the federal court judicial review, once a positive ruling has been made and the person is free to re-apply to the Immigration and Refugee Board, how much longer does it take before that person can go before the board once more and before a second determination is made?

• 1650

Mr. Brian Grant: It all depends on the IRB's schedule.

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: I understand, but as a rule, how long does take? One month, six months, a year?

Mr. Brian Grant: I can't say exactly. We can check that for you.

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: Good. I think that's important, Mr. Chairman, because we are looking at the entire process. Clearly, it is quite complex and takes the great deal of time. Not only is it important to understand the outcome of the application, we also need to know how much time elapses between the time a person arrives in Canada and applies for refugee status until such time as he has exhausted all of his options, although that is not really the case because a person can always apply for refugee status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This is what committee members need to know. That's why I asked the question.

Mr. Brian Grant: Someone's application may be reviewed a second time, but this happens in only a very small number of cases.

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: I think it would be interesting to get some idea of exactly how often this occurs. I realize that the federal court rules in favour of only a small percentage of people, but I would nevertheless like to know how many positive determinations are made and how much time it takes subsequently for the application to move through the system.

Mr. Brian Grant: Fine, I understand.

[English]

The Chairman: My understanding is that it would vary upon each individual case. I don't believe for one moment that huge blocks of these are going together in a lump sum, you might say, or in a group being processed, step by step. I feel it's an individualized process. There was a wonderful example in the Toronto Star about three or four weeks ago—I'll bring you a copy of that—showing that it sometimes takes years.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That's exactly what I think the members of the committee should know.

The Chairman: Any further questioning?

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Am I wrong in believing that very few rulings meet the criteria for a judicial review? What criteria must be met in order for a ruling to be reviewed by the federal court? I imagine that not all decisions are subject to a judicial review.

[English]

Mr. Brian Grant: That would be covered by the rules of the Federal Court. I don't have that information right now but we could provide that. They would examine each case to see whether there appeared to be grounds to look at the decision.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine. That would be good to know, because as departmental officials explained to me, very few decisions are subject to a review. Very specific criteria must be met and it would be nice to know what these are.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, everyone, for your questioning.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our appreciation for the many hours you have devoted to this assistance program, helping us in the past as well as today to understand the complexity of the entire process. You've given us a tremendous amount of information. I don't know whether we are more enlightened or more confused, but over a period of time we'll be able to make the connections. You made an honest, valid attempt at helping us to perceive and understand them.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Brian Grant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've given us some more homework, which we will do as fast as possible. If we can help you more, please don't hesitate to ask.

The Chairman: Thank you. We will.

The meeting is adjourned.