CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 11, 1999

• 0908

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I'll call the committee to order. We have a quorum.

We intend to hear today from the departmental officials. Before I proceed to that, I would like to get the consent of the group to discuss one small item that follows from our meeting yesterday.

In regard to the list of initial witnesses we would like to invite for our study of the business immigration program, I want to establish time logistics so that we can set up the process of inviting the witnesses. That way, there will be no lapse in terms of usage of time for next week. If we can achieve this within the next couple of minutes, we will proceed. If not, I will put it off until toward the end of the meeting.

There are four witnesses we would like to consider inviting for our study of the business immigration program. If we have agreement, we can advise the research staff to start the mechanism for invitation.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you so much.

We will now proceed with the scheduled business for the day, and that is to hear from Citizenship and Immigration Canada on the item before us: an information meeting on countries where there are conflicts that may well cause an increase in the number of political refugees and where there are violations or possible violations of human rights.

• 0910

Before us again is Mr. Jeff LeBane. In addition, we have with us today the director general of the refugees branch, Gerry Van Kessel. I also see Ms. Duquette, Mr. Herringer, and Mr. Francis.

Mr. Kessel, welcome to the committee. Please proceed.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel (Director General, Refugees Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to make a few opening remarks, which I hope will assist us in the discussion we will have this morning.

As you are very well aware, Canada has a long history of responding to refugee situations. To some extent, the response of the government depends on the circumstances of the actual refugee situation that we're discussing. For example, it is not this department alone that responds to refugee situations.

We are well aware that CIDA responds in the context of providing assistance in terms of humanitarian relief. It supports international organizations, and it provides development aid to try to get at the root causes that lead to refugee situations. The Department of National Defence deals with peacekeeping when that is required. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade deals with diplomatic efforts that are needed to try to resolve situations that lead to outflow of refugees.

What Citizenship and Immigration Canada does is somewhat different, and I'd like to spend a few moments on that. Our role is principally that of offering protection to the refugees themselves. By “protection”, we mean inviting to Canada or accepting into Canada persons who need protection. It needs to be clearly understood, however, that there are distinctions in this, and I will spend a few minutes talking about that.

I'd also like to say that as we look at refugee situations abroad and at refugee situations that affect the department, we naturally look at those situations from the context of those that involve our responsibilities, much more so—as you'll appreciate—than the responsibilities of DND, DFAIT or of CIDA. Whether we get together on these issues or whether there is in fact no need to do so simply depends on the circumstances.

When I say we respond to refugee situations, again, we respond in two ways. The first is overseas. When we have people abroad for whom resettlement in Canada is the appropriate solution to their particular protection needs, we, along with a number of other resettlement countries, provide that protection. That is again important to understand, and I'll spend a little bit more time on it in a few minutes.

In Canada, the protection we provide is given on the basis of being a signatory to the Geneva Convention and under the guidance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those two declarations indicate to us the kind of process that we must follow in determining whether or not people meet the definition as outlined in the convention.

When we talk about resettlement from abroad, we are talking about a commitment that this country makes to resettle people. When we talk about the convention and our responsibilities in Canada, that's an obligation that comes as a result of being a signatory. There is a distinction here that is important to make.

The result for the people we deal with is in a sense the same. We offer them protection from, in the terms of the convention, refoulement—that is, removal from the country—if doing such a removal would be in conflict with the convention.

I would now like to turn to the program abroad, and I'll take you very quickly through how we deal with refugee situations abroad.

The first thing we do when we look at people to be resettled is ask the question, “Do you meet the definition?”—and the definition is set out in the convention—or “Are you in a refugee-like situation?” These are the so-called designated classes, and I'll be pleased to deal with any more questions about those. It has been a common feature of our resettlement program that we look at the convention and on other occasions at what we call “designated classes”, in which we define the kinds of people to whom we want to offer resettlement.

We then ask the questions, “Can you meet our resettlement requirements? Can you establish yourself within Canada within one year?” The next questions are “Are you able to meet our background requirements? Are you a criminal? Do you represent a security risk? What is your health situation?” If all of the requirements are met, and if the person falls within the target that we establish annually, the person is then processed and can come forward to Canada as a government-sponsored refugee.

• 0915

The total number of such refugees has been set at 7,300 in recent years, 5,300 of whom come to the rest of Canada and 2,000 of whom come to Quebec. The funding the federal government provides is $44 million for the 5,300 who come to Canada other than Quebec. Quebec has its own arrangements with respect to the funding of its 2,000 refugee share of the 7,300.

That is government sponsorship, but we also have private sponsorship whereby private groups are able to sponsor refugees to be resettled in this country. What then happens is that these groups promise to provide for the settlement assistance these people need for a period of one year, as does the federal government.

We have another category that we call joint assistance, and it is for people on whom we work together with private sponsors to assist refugees in particular need of help to come to this country. The ones most commonly falling under this program are in the women-at-risk program. The countries from which most of these people have come in recent years have been the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Iran and Russia.

How do we determine where we get our 7,300 from? What we do is talk to NGOs, to the UNHCR, and we talk to our own staff to find out where the particular need is. This is very important, because I would like to draw to your attention to the distinction between the bald number of refugees and the actual numbers that the UNHCR designates for resettlement in a third country. On the former, the UNHCR has under its care some 22 million people. The latter is actually quite small when those first numbers are considered.

For the UNHCR, the first solution is whether or not the people can be sent back, and whether or not they can be sent back safely. The second solution is to try to resettle them where they are. As a final resort, in the words of the UNHCR, “only when the only durable solution to their protection needs is resettlement in a third country are they put forward for resettlement in that third country”. And the numbers, I assure you, are actually surprisingly low at the present time when you consider the 22-million-person figure that I just provided.

How we distribute them in Canada is based on discussions with our own field staff and with the provinces, as well as, in a sense, on what we've done in the past. This is the way we manage this.

I'd just like to say one more word about private sponsorships. Private sponsorships are an area of particular difficulty for us, and I acknowledge that immediately. I think they are of particular difficulty because of two problems. The opportunity for people to sponsor is a really unique idea; I believe only Canada provides for it in its legislation. The challenge that we have is this: You are all aware of the pressures there are on family reunion, and you are also aware of the fact that the conditions for family reunion through the family class mean that not everyone can be reunited with his or her family in the way we would like. One of the common features that we see is people sponsoring their relatives as refugees, but then we run into two difficulties. The first one is whether or not they are refugees—and remember, this is a refugee program. The second one is whether or not the individual can meet our settlement requirements—the need to resettle within one year—if he or she is indeed a refugee.

Those are particular difficulties that we're having, and we're spending an awful lot of time with NGOs right now to revitalize these programs in an attempt to deal with some problems. I think you will appreciate that when we have scarce resources abroad, as my colleague well knows, we prefer not to be dealing with a movement in which there's a high refusal rate and in which the the result is that a lot of our activity ends up with negative decisions. That presents particular challenges.

• 0920

Let me turn just very briefly—because I think you're probably aware of most of the details—to the in-Canada situation and our responsibility versus that of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The responsibility of CIC is to deal with policy matters to provide advice to the minister; it is not to deal with the actual processing of the cases.

The Immigration and Refugee Board is a fully independent agency and is responsible for the processing of the workload it receives, and so on. Our responsibility is to deal with the cases when they arrive, turn those cases over to the board, and when the board has made its decision, deal with the result of that decision. If it's a negative decision, certain things are set entrain. If it's a positive decision, another thing is set entrain called landing. That is what happens in that particular case.

I'm sure you're aware of all the complexities and details involved in various aspects of this. I'd be glad to deal with them if you have any questions about them.

We are at the present time involved in a major legislative review, as you're aware. The public document the minister released on January 6 deals with a number of proposals designed to deal with some of the challenges we face and improve the system, as we look ahead. These are proposals, and we are in a process of consultations with various NGOs, provinces and other interested bodies for about the next seven weeks. We're looking to see how we can make the system better.

Finally, as we take a look at refugee situations, such as the situation in Indonesian, one of our questions, from the perspective of the responsibilities of the department, is whether this is a refugee situation we're facing here. Is this a situation in which the UNHCR is requesting assistance from resettlement countries? If this is a situation people have fled from, are they're staying away or going back? So you have different responses to different situations.

When you take a look at the great lakes area of Africa you may have another response. The response of CIDA may be very different from the response of this department, in terms of resettlement and so on.

Those are the opening remarks I would like to make. I hope it's also clear from what I've said that we are not necessarily experts in the conditions that exist within individual countries. We are experts in the response we make from within the mandate of the department. We're quite aware of what's going on in the former Yugoslavia, for example, but particularly from the perspective of the impact that has on the programs we're responsible for, the various activities we undertake, the people we have in the area who are responsible for the processing of cases, and so on.

I hope that's been somewhat enlightening, Mr. Chairman and members. My colleagues and I would be pleased to take any questions.

The Chairman: Thank you so much, Mr. Van Kessel. It certainly was enlightening.

We will now have questioning by members. Mr. Benoit has the floor.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, gentlemen. I would like to start by asking some questions that have just arisen from your presentation.

In terms of women at risk, how many have there been per year on average for the last few years? Also, how do the people who apply normally get in touch with your department? How is that connection made? Tell me a little more about that.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Under the women-at-risk program, 258 women and their dependants came in last year. I would just like to stress that in 1996, only two years previously, the number was 65. We've made very conscious efforts, together with the UNHCR and our NGOs in Canada, to attempt to provide help to more people.

• 0925

We have a special acronym for this called WAR, women at risk. One of the problems you often have with a special program is the procedures that are designed to accelerate processing sometimes seem to be so complex that they delay processing. We are spending—particularly my colleague, Rick Herringer—an awful lot of time with NGOs on speeding up processing, and we are now undertaking pilot programs to see just how we can do this faster.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How are the contacts normally made between the people who handle those cases and the people who apply?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: On a broad view of what happens, we have an understanding with the UNHCR in certain parts of the world, where the UNHCR will refer cases to us for resettlement. In other parts of the world people may come individually and submit applications to us. There will be NGOs in Canada that are aware of situations abroad or of people abroad for whom they think resettlement would be the appropriate solution. So there's a whole combination of possibilities. I think about 25% of our referrals abroad are through the UNHCR.

Mr. Jeff LeBane (Director General, International Region, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Just adding to that, it's very much in the interest of refugees in a lot of countries to contact the UNHCR first. They can contact our missions first, but most often we will refer them back to the UNHCR. We do that because in these countries they are afforded a protection within a country; they have a status with UNHCR and will get some care, funding or resources to support them.

If they are not under the mandate under the care of the UNHCR, there is the risk that those people will be removed from that country. There are countries that allow only a very small period of time for registration. So as a general comment, we refer them to the UNHCR first—not in all cases but in the majority of cases—to give them a certain protection sur place.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Were all of the 258 last year chosen abroad?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I'm talking about refugees overseas generally—all types of refugees.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Would women who arrive at our borders, say at an airport, qualify under this program?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So they're all chosen abroad.

Mr. Jerry Van Kessel: These are all people who are resettled from abroad. They do not include people who make refugee claims from within Canada. This is what we would call a resettlement program, whereby they come to our attention abroad, as Jeff has indicated, normally through the UNHCR. We see that they meet the criteria of the program and we process them under it. We also provide them with special settlement assistance and so on, because they normally need help beyond that provided to other resettled refugees.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just looking at the overall number of refugees that have been accepted in the last few years, a very high percentage are people who have arrived in Canada and are asking to be accepted as refugees. It would seem, from just a logical point of view, that legitimate refugees would usually find it quite difficult to find their way here. They first of all have to come up with the money, and then find their way to the Canadian border. Are you concerned about the number of refugees that are chosen because they arrive at our borders and ask to be accepted?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: We're talking now about people who come to Canada to claim refugee status. That is always a particularly challenging one for all western countries, simply because of the need to manage a process that lives up to our convention obligations, which are pretty clear, and at the same time recognizes that fairness in process is exactly what also attracts others.

There are a lot of people in the world who want to live a better life in countries like Canada and are what we call “economic migrants”, who will attempt to make refugee claims for the simple and very understandable reason that they want better lives. As this appears to be the only avenue other than illegality that may be available to them, because they can't meet our normal criteria, they would apply.

• 0930

So a challenge for us is how do you balance fairness with effectiveness? How do you ensure that your processes are not such that they attract people who really have no business being in the system? We've had examples in the past, and they're very difficult to deal with.

It is a balancing act, which all countries find very difficult to manage and on which it's very hard, if at all possible, to reach a consensus as to where the line should be drawn between effectiveness and fairness. It's a very difficult situation.

In that context, are we concerned? Yes, we're always concerned with trying to make sure the refugee determination system is one that helps people who need help and at the same time deal as efficiently and effectively as we can with those people who do not need protection.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You've talked about the restrictions of the UN convention, but there is a lot of leeway in the department to determine what kind of a hearing people will get. The minister talked about that in her presentation on her examination of the system, and she indicated that there would be, in fact, a lot more screening done in the department before the applicants ever get to the IRB. So there is a lot of room for screening on the part of the department.

Could you comment a little more on how this screening will be changed from what it is now to what it will be if the minister follows through on the very vague outline she presented on January 6?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: I think there are two aspects to that. The first one is the nature of the screening we do when people arrive, to try to determine what their background is, particularly with the issue of undocumented ones, where identity may not be known, and so on, the taking of fingerprints and the attempt to find out whether there may be problems of criminality or security in that particular instance.

We propose to do that in a much better way than we're doing right now—not merely take fingerprints, but also in fact check up on those fingerprints to see if there are any hits in various databases that would help us in ensuring better protection for the Canadian public. At the present time, those are done in detail only at the time of a yes decision by the refugee board and as we proceed to landing, to make sure that people meet the normal background requirements.

What we are looking at very seriously right now is how we can do that better and try to make a better determination at the front as to what people's background really is and whether they meet the eligibility requirements for going on into the system.

The second aspect we are looking at is how we collect information overall from refugee claimants with respect both to their background, but also to the basic elements of the claim that they're submitting to us about their refugee status, so that we do this initially, we collect better information, and we share that information better with the refugee board.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Why has it taken so long to make those changes, both of them, the fingerprint information and the check before? It makes a lot of sense that you would do that before you go to all the expense of having this hearing go a long way through the system. It can drag on for a long time and cost a lot of money. Why has it taken so long to talk about this change or to finally say we're looking at this change seriously?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: I'm not aware of why it has taken so long to talk about it, but the reason it takes time to do that is simply because there are various systems implications, information technology implications and budgetary implications, and human resource implications that are involved when you make a fairly significant change in your process.

• 0935

It seems to me that the most important reason for making this kind of a change is probably not with respect to saving the money down the road for getting into the system, because I don't think there are that many we find that are ineligible for reasons of security, for example. In the overall context, they're not that large. But it is important from the perspective of public protection, making sure the public is protected from people who would abuse the privilege of being in this country. And that's where the money comes. But I assure you this is an issue that is being dealt with internally and is moving ahead.

I hate to say this, but it does not falls within my normal course of duties. I see at various meetings where the issue is at, but that's really all I'm able to say about it.

The Chairman: I now yield the floor to Ms. Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): First of all, good morning. It is a pleasure for me to see most of you again.

My first question concerns your comments about the problems encountered in the area of private sponsorship. In my opinion, the Ismaili program under which Ismailis sponsored members of their community from Pakistan several years ago was successful. Moreover, the fact that this program is still ongoing today attests to this fact. You indicated that there were some problems with respect to family sponsorship and I would appreciate further clarification of this.

My second question concerns the recourse available to an applicant whose claim has been rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board. As I understand it, the claimant can appeal to you, invoking humanitarian grounds and the danger he would face if he had to return to his country of origin. I'd like you to comment further on the process, on what in fact takes place and on the circumstances which lead you either to accept or reject claims of this nature.

I would have a third question for you, although I realize that you have answered it to some extent. I wouldn't venture to say that you have responded negatively, but our agenda stipulates that this is to be " an information meeting on countries where there are conflicts which may well cause an increase in the number of political refugees and where there are violations or possible violations of human rights".

You stated that ultimately, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees determines which countries fall into this category and that initially, it acts as an intermediary between the refugees and Canada. Could you give us some idea of the criteria the UNHCR relies on? I know that my Bloc Québécois colleague intended to ask the same question, but unfortunately, he isn't here this morning. I know it's a question he was intent on asking and even though he's not here, I hope we can get an answer, if at all possible. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Perhaps I could ask Rick Herringer to talk about the Ismaili program first and why that was more successful.

Are you able to do that, Rick?

Mr. Rick Herringer (Director, Resettlement, Refugees Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Sure.

The Ismaili program was a very specific program where we had actually signed an agreement with them to undertake the resettlement of several Ismailis, not only in Pakistan but also in the former Soviet Union and a couple of other countries in the surrounding area. The Ismaili community was particularly well prepared to deal with the issues of preparing the cases, helping us to identify the individuals who needed to be resettled, and providing us with the documentation we needed in order to assess that.

The overall program was extremely successful, and we've learned an awful lot of lessons from that in terms of trying to assist other private sponsors who are in similar situations, to help them revitalize the private sponsorship program and assist more people under the private sponsorship program similar to the Ismaili movement.

There was a similar program where we were involved in what we called “blended initiatives” with the NGO community in Canada, which was the program in the former Yugoslavia. What we've done over the course of the last year and a half is engage the NGO community in Canada quite substantially. We have to actually have them sitting on several working groups with us to work at not only making their private sponsorship kits more readable, but getting communications and information out to the various private sponsorship communities in Canada, while at the same time providing them with additional training in order to do this and also increasing the communication between the missions abroad and the private sponsorship movement in Canada.

• 0940

So there are several initiatives we're engaged in right now to try to revitalize the private sponsorship program so that we have successes like the Ismaili program in the future.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Are there any difficulties?

Mr. Rick Herringer: The difficulties in the Ismaili program—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I wasn't referring necessarily to that particular program but to private sponsorship more generically.

Mr. Rick Herringer: The difficulties are based on a number of things. A number of missions abroad are tasked to do a large number of different things. They have a number of priorities they have to deal with, and they deal with those priorities very well. But in some cases it's very difficult to deal with all the priorities at the same time and make sure that you're processing all the cases as quickly and as effectively as you can. So there have been some difficulties in the past.

There have also been some difficulties in Canada with how we've developed our sponsorship kits, and we're looking at how we can make them more user friendly. In some cases it results in processing delays both in Canada and abroad.

But we're starting to address those issues right now in the private sponsorship program we're developing with the CCR and with the sponsorship agreement holders to try to improve that process by engaging in a communication and information-sharing process among the missions, the NGOs in Canada, and national headquarters in Canada.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Are you telling us that in fact it's a communications problem and nothing else?

Mr. Rick Herringer: A large part of it is a communications problem. When you have so many priorities at the mission level, it's very difficult to communicate with everybody at the same level and keep everybody informed as to how the cases are being processed. There's also just the shear volume of cases missions have to deal with, which is extraordinary in many cases. We're trying to address that in other ways. One of the ways we're considering is to engage international NGOs abroad to help us identify and prepare cases for the missions so that in actual fact they don't have to do the case preparation themselves. The cases are already prepared before they get there.

I think one of the ways we're looking at this as well is by studying eligibility criteria for the private sponsorship program and the whole issue of family reunification and recognizing it for what it is. It's a family reunification program that is very much front and centre. People are in refugee-like situations. They aren't necessarily UN convention defined individuals, but they do require resettlement in the sense that we want to make sure they're reunited with their families again.

These are all the things we're addressing right now with what we call the refugee resettlement model, and it works hand in hand with legislative review.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: I'd like to add one comment. One of the problems with private sponsorships is the fact that if you have a requirement that people have to be capable of resettling within one year and if, for example, it's a private sponsorship for your parents, that can be a problem. It can lead to refusals, and, as I'm sure you are aware and certainly we are aware, to frustration. One of the proposals is to relax this policy requirement of being able to resettle within one year. If that comes into place, I think one of the things we will see is fewer refusals on such grounds.

One of the more difficult things to deal with is making some of these judgments around how long it's going to take people to resettle and what kind of support they are going to need before they can become successfully established. I think this proposal would be of some assistance to those persons who are now having problems being sponsored by private groups because of the resettlement problems.

• 0945

The issue as to whether or not they are refugees will always remain to some extent. I think it's easy to understand why people will sponsor their relatives. It's not hard to understand. Our job becomes very difficult at times, because the conditions that may have led the sponsor, if it's a family member, to be a refugee may be very different from those for the family member who's being sponsored. It's a very difficult area.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: You raised the issue of refugee-producing situations overseas and our looking to the UNHCR to take the lead. As Mr. Van Kessel indicated, in many cases the UNHCR prefers a local solution rather than resettling refugees outside of an area, and we try to work with them so that we're not contradicting them.

There will always be special cases that require resettlement outside of the region. I'll go back to former Yugoslavia when civil war broke out and the whole structure of that country collapsed. We had a situation in the early to mid-1990s when hundreds of thousands of people were flooding into central and western Europe, and these countries were looking to the UNHCR to provide some order because the numbers were so overwhelming. So in 1995 the UNHCR evaluated the situation as to what was happening in the former Yugoslavia and the outflows of people and came to the conclusion there was a real need to resettle huge numbers of people outside the region. They issued a global appeal in 1995, the first appeal, to resettle 50,000 refugees from the region, people who were truly refugees. Perhaps mixed marriages had suffered brutally. But for these people there was no local solution, either immediately in former Yugoslavia or on a temporary basis.

So they went out, like Indochina, with a global request, and of that 50,000 we committed to take 5,000 people, which was a very significant number. We committed also to do it within a very tight timeframe, before winter came on. Given the numbers, we looked to the UNHCR to be the great organizer on global solutions. The United States, Australia, and other countries all over the world responded. Ireland made a very significant response, along with countries such as Bolivia. But we had to work with our partners, because we could not have resettled 50,000 people within a three-month period. So working with UNHCR, we resettled 5,000 people in the program Mr. Herringer alluded to, and we did it within a very tight timeframe. We didn't stop there, but the UNHCR officially said to the world there is a need for resettlement outside the region.

The Chairman: We'll start our five-minute round. Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): There's so little time and so many questions.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: It seems there are days in my riding when almost every refugee problem either comes through my riding or ends up living in my riding, so I have literally dozens of questions.

Let me deal with one of the more vexing ones, the settlement of the Romanies, who provide unique challenges to one's concept of what is or is not a refugee. Can you give this committee an update as to, first of all, the influx of Romanie refugees, how that has been sorted out, the numbers in, the numbers out, the numbers that went home, and the numbers that have been found to be refugees? I noticed a Globe and Mail article recently, which I read several times and found to be incoherent, as to what the department's response was to the finding that these folks were in fact refugees.

That's only question number one.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: I don't have all the data you requested with regard to the Romas.

Mr. John McKay: Could you just give me the general picture and then give us the data afterwards?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Sure.

Mr. John McKay: Thanks.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Let's go back to the summer of 1997, when we had an influx of Czech refugee claimants who were by ethnic origin Romas. I think we're aware of the TV program Nova in the Czech Republic, which painted Canada in the rosiest of terms, shall we say, and people started arriving in very significant numbers very quickly. The policy response on the part of the government of that time was the imposition of a visitor's visa on the Czech Republic, which in fact stopped people from coming.

• 0950

At the present time what we are seeing is an influx of Romas from Hungary to Canada. That influx has not been as rapid or substantial as that which we saw from the Czech Republic. Some people are asking questions around the imposition of a visitor visa, but that remains very much under study.

In the case of the Hungarian Romas before the refugee board, as we took a look at what was happening, what we wanted to be assured of was that all the evidence that could possibly be presented in front of the IRB decision-makers was presented. As a result of that, four experts came from Hungary to appear before the hearing, including, I believe, the head of the Roma community in Hungary. They presented their evidence in a so-called “lead case”.

What a lead case is, in terms of the refugee board, is a case in which the evidence that's presented can be used again in other like cases. While each case is considered individually, the evidence presented in one lead case can be relevant to another case.

So that's what we did, because we wanted to be satisfied that all the evidence possible was presented in front of the IRB decision-makers, and the IRB decision-makers are bound by law to make the decisions only on the basis of the evidence presented. There's provision in the law as well for the minister to request an intervention before the hearing to ensure that all the evidence is properly presented. If we have particular evidence we wish to present, then we can do so.

The result was that about three weeks ago, I believe, the decisions in these two cases were released. That is where you've read the follow-up stories, because there was a press conference a week ago tomorrow, if I remember correctly, at which there was dissatisfaction expressed by the negative decision that the board rendered at that time. Now the question that arises for us is—

Mr. John McKay: Capsulate for me the negative decision.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: The negative decision in a sense says that the claim that was made to refugee status does not meet the definition, that Hungary does provide, as a state, sufficient protection. So there's no question here, in the opinion of the members in these two cases, that in fact there isn't state protection for the individuals, so the requirements to claim persecution under the definition were not met.

That is in essence what it says. But it went on to make some more general statements regarding the situation in Hungary, and so on. In a sense, it recognized that the evidence presented by the Hungarian witnesses were substantial and were not contradicted by contrary information presented.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally now has the floor.

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

Mr. Van Kessel, you indicated there were roughly 7,300 government-sponsored refugees per year. Is that right? Are there numbers on how many privately sponsored...

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Yes. Let me get my numbers here.

Mr. Rick Herringer: The target for the private ones is 2,800 to 4,000.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's the target. Do you know whether those targets were met?

Mr. Rick Herringer: No, we fell short. There were just over 2,200 last year, in 1998.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

You talked about the criteria of the program. Do you have records as to how many individuals would come to you and then be resettled or determined not to meet the criteria abroad?

• 0955

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Yes. Of the decisions we made last year, with respect to private sponsorship, 47% resulted in refusals.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's for private sponsorship. What about government-sponsored individuals? Of the pool of people who came to you abroad, 7,300 were accepted. What percentage of the total would that be?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Jeff may wish to add to this, but I'd just like to make the statement that with government sponsorship it's very different, because the pool of people that's potentially available to be resettled or may consider itself eligible for resettlement can be much higher than the 7,300. So various mechanisms exist that allow us to screen cases so they may fall out of the system.

For example, one of our colleagues was telling us when he was in Guatemala he would get literally thousands of applications, and he had a method for determining which ones were most in need. In a sense, his refusal rate may have been 98% because the demand was so high, but the fact is there's a set number we target each year. So in the case of people who apply themselves and may never meet the criteria, whatever that may be, you'll appreciate the refusal rate doesn't mean that much.

In the case of private sponsorship it's different. It's an actual case that's sponsored and presented that we have to consider and do consider. With government-sponsored cases, it simply depends on the volume we have. One of our challenges is always that when you have a target of 7,300—whatever one might think of that target—and you have 100,000 people potentially eligible, how do you manage that process? That's why I say we don't have a refusal rate.

I don't know, Jeff, if you want to add anything to that.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: We can try to get you a refusal rate. But as Mr. Van Kessel has said, there are a lot of filters, and when we get referrals from the UNHCR, they have a very clear idea of our requirements and procedures. I'm not saying we accept every case, but they know our procedures and they don't want to waste their time. They will look at our resettlement opportunities with other countries. So it's a slightly different context we're looking at.

Mr. Grant McNally: I guess I'm wondering what that filtering process is, when you have this huge pool of people who are potentially applying and you have a target of 7,300. I know we don't have a lot of time, but what would some of those filters be?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: We would look to the UNHCR for referrals. In situations where we've gathered our own expertise, like former Yugoslavia, there are certain profiles and standards you develop. In minority areas with mixed marriage situations—I'm talking about the former Yugoslavia—we know the chances of inviting more problems with reintegration are great, where they have suffered persecution in the past. We have that information and can resettle directly.

The Chairman: I would like to give the floor to Ms. Augustine. But before that, I think the committee would be interested in having a quick outline of the filter process, sort of in bullet points. I think it's an important point Mr. McNally has raised.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the officials.

I have two questions. I'd like you to speak about the distribution in Canada—how that operates and how the decision is made as to where the particular group will be settled.

My other question is on the developing of expertise within the IRB. Since the UNHCR makes the referrals, how do we in turn, through our own policy and our own expertise, decide on those refugees? How well do we interface our IRB decision-making with the referrals that come to us?

• 1000

The Chairman: Mr. Van Kessel

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: With respect to the distribution in Canada of what I assume are the government-sponsored refugees from abroad, Rick may wish to add some detail to this, because his area undertakes this task.

First of all, of the 7,300, we know that 2,000 will go to Quebec. We consult with the provinces on the other 5,300. We talk to them about the share of the 5,300 that will go to their provinces. We take a look at past patterns of settlement and then talk with the provinces about the allocations—the specific cities within the province itself.

Rick, do you wish to add anything to that?

Mr. Rick Herringer: It's an ongoing consultation process with the provinces and the various regions within the department. As Mr. Van Kessel has already said, it really depends a great deal on the trends that have taken place in the past. For instance, we wouldn't be sending large numbers to Newfoundland because there would be a lot of secondary migration out of Newfoundland, say, to another province.

We have to take all those sorts of things into consideration. Last year, for instance, the Manitoba government wanted an additional 50, so we compensated them. We agreed to take 50 out of Toronto and put 50 more in Manitoba. It's an ongoing process and we can adjust our figures quite readily to suit the demands of each province.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Do you look at the labour market?

Mr. Rick Herringer: The labour market is certainly part of the considerations, as well as accessibility to services within the area—the capacity of service providers. We contract with service providers to provide resettlement assistance services to the individuals. Then there are the consultations with the provinces, so it's a combined thing.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: With respect to the second question—I hope I've understood it correctly—when we get a referral abroad from the UNHCR or anywhere else, the first decision we have to make is whether the person is a convention refugee. What's critical to that, of course, is that our people who work in the international region have the training and expertise to be able to make those decisions. One of the things we've recognized in recent years is the training we need to provide our people has to be enhanced. Rick and his people and the international region people are working right now to ensure there is better training and more training, so they're more capable of making the difficult decisions involved in determining eligibility.

We are talking to the refugee board about sharing some of the training that has been done, but in the past it has not been shared. I acknowledge immediately that the relatively little time we are able to spend on training is at odds with the considerable period of time the refugee board is able to spend on training its members.

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a very interesting presentation because I think most of the Canadian public would think of your department as being more reactive than proactive, yet the opposite appears to be true in many instances.

The figure of 22 million people under the care of UNHCR is quite staggering, really. It's almost the size of our country, for goodness' sake. Let me ask my questions in order. Maybe you can make note of them and—much to the delight of members of the committee—I'll be quiet and listen to the answers.

On the 22 million, I'd like to know a little more on the who, what, why, where, when—that type of thing, particularly in relation to the types of problems. Some of them are obvious, and you made reference to former Yugoslavia. I've been there, seen some of the problems and understand that, but maybe you can expand a little on that.

• 1005

The other thing I'd like to know is how do you work with other countries? Is there in fact competition for refugees, either in terms of skills they may possess, particular needs, particular ability to adjust vis-à-vis climate issues? I don't know if you look at all of those kinds of things. Is there in fact a competition?

When the word goes out that 50,000 people need to be resettled out of the regions they're in and we say we'll take five people, it sounds almost like a board game. I'd like to know whether or not it is competitive.

We've heard stories of other countries who perhaps are not as generous, open, or willing to participate in this program. What's the relationship? Do you work with other countries in trying to determine how best to help the people who have been identified?

Finally, how do you communicate? Is there a strategy to communicate what you do and the various issues you've outlined? That communication strategy I'm talking about is to the Canadian people. As MPs, we certainly find ourselves on the front line dealing with the problems when they blow up in the front page of the newspaper or when some kind of criminal activity takes place, and then we find ourselves backtracking. I wonder, if you're so proactive in the process of identifying, processing, and accepting refugees, why you can't be more proactive in the area of communicating your good work to the Canadian people.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: May I answer your last question first?

I think on occasion we have been successful in communicating what we are trying to achieve on resettlement. When we were approached to help resettle the 50,000 people from former Yugoslavia, the refugees, and we said we would take 5,000 people, we worked on a model called 3/9. That's where the private sector, private organizations, and churches worked with government. They shared the costs. We had a very limited timeframe.

Departmental officials met with the major church organizations that formed part of the CCR. We had meetings, and we explained to them what we were trying to achieve and that we needed to work with them. We asked for their support, and they—the Anglican synod, the Catholic bishops, the conference of Lutherans synod, JIAS, and the Mennonite Central Committee of Winnipeg—went out to their constituencies or church communities across Canada and said we wanted to engage with the government to help these people, that this was something good, something positive.

The response was slow taking off—I'm going back to September 1995—but by the end of October we were getting hundreds and hundreds of sponsorships from across Canada. I remember the small towns, like Woodstock, New Brunswick—six sponsorships coming in to help to respond.

So that's a success story, and it was applauded by these major church organizations. That's an example.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: When we talk about 22 million people, we're talking about several groups of people.

By definition, a refugee is someone who is outside his or her country of normal residence. So that's one group of people. But there are also what are called internally displaced people, who are also the responsibility of the UNHCR. That's what comprises the 22 million people.

The statistics I'm providing here are from the UNHCR. You get some idea of the numbers: total refugees in Africa, 4.3 million; 500,000 in Tanzania. Then they provide the various countries of origin: 264,000 in Uganda; 223,000 in Kenya; 663,000 in Guinea; in the former Zaire, Congo now, 675,000; Côte-d'Ivoire, 327,000. So you get an idea here of Africa, that there are lots, in many parts, but particularly south of the Sahara and north of southern Africa. There are some in southern Africa itself, but there are not that many refugees.

• 1010

In Asia there are a few more. The number is around 4.8 million. They are comprised mostly of Afghans who are in two countries, Iran and Pakistan. For example, Pakistan has 1.2 million Afghans. There are only 2,000 non-Afghan refugees in all of Pakistan. Iran has 2 million, with 1.4 million from Afghanistan and half a million from Iraq.

If you take a look at the internally displaced, again there are two million people in Africa who are still within their country of normal residence but who are defined as internally displaced. In other words, if they were outside their country of normal residence, they would be called refugees, so the definition is that technical aspect of being inside or outside. In Asia there are 1.7 million. They're all over the place, and there are all kinds of numbers. The largest one is half a million in Azerbaijan. In Europe there are a million, relating largely to former Yugoslavia and people who are still there.

This is not a very orderly breakdown, but it gives you a sense of magnitude in terms of where the people are, what those people are doing, and so on. If you take a look at our response in central Asia, for example, we're not there. These are people who are displaced and so on. Historically, however, we haven't had any ties to that region. To be honest, we don't know an awful lot about that region.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: You asked about climatic and environmental situations. That's one of the issues we struggle with. We have situations of internally displaced people or problems of just getting to those people. Is it safe for our staff to get to them? Can they be relocated? We have the situation in Angola. There have been displacements for decades now because of civil war. The situation in southern Sudan has been ongoing for decades now. How do you get into those very remote areas? The infrastructure is not there. Some people are starving to death. How do you reach those people?

The Chairman: Mr. Van Kessel, please.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: I would like to deal with one other question: Is there competition, or do we work with other countries? We work with other countries, and we work with the UNHCR. The UNHCR has an office of resettlement, and we work very closely with that office. That office also has meetings at various places around the world to deal with resettlement issues within those particular regions, and we also work very closely with the office. Rick has gone to several of those meetings, and people from our missions abroad have gone to those meetings. They go just to stay informed on what's happening and what the UNHCR thinks.

The question of competition is about whether or not we work with other countries. We are working with other countries, but we are not doing so well enough, in my opinion. As I said to the UNHCR only two weeks ago, there is something not quite right about the fact that the various resettlement countries—the major ones you know, but there are the Nordic countries that also resettle refugees, if not in numbers as large as ours—go in one after the other to see who we select.

The question of working more closely together makes sense from the UNHCR's perspective. The UNHCR must get very frustrated with resettlement countries as we come in and ask them for help at referrals and so on. It's us, then the Americans, then the Australians, and then the Swedes, the Finns, or whatever other country may come in. There has to be a better way of dealing with this.

Secondly, I'd also like to say that—

The Chairman: I hate to interrupt, but we have to get to Mr. Benoit. If we have time later on, I will get back to that subject. I'll make a note of it.

Mr. Benoit, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have two more topics I want to ask some questions on. The first one has to do with sponsorship, and the second has to do with choosing members of the IRB in terms of the criteria they are judged on. I'll try the sponsorship one in this segment, though.

• 1015

Family reunification is an issue of great concern. I have met with people who are desperately trying to reunify their families, and all too often it seems painfully slow. On the other hand, we hear from what I guess you could call the general public, which is really concerned that too often when a family is reunified through sponsorship, the sponsorship isn't honoured.

I'll just start by asking a question that came up earlier. You made a comment on sponsoring parents, saying it's a tough call as to whether they should be handled through the refugee stream or some other immigration stream. Were you referring to elderly, dependent parents?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.

Would it really be such a tough issue to deal with if sponsorships were honoured? What are the different criteria? Are the sponsorship programs quite different if someone is a refugee or is applying as a refugee, as compared to coming through another immigration stream?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: It's a very good and very difficult question, and I would welcome the comments of my colleagues here. However, it's my conclusion that, in a sense, people in Canada try to sponsor through the family class the family members that are sponsorable. The question then is what happens if they are unable to do that. Why are they unable to do it? They may be unable to do it because there's financial difficulty in meeting the low-income cutoff. They have to have a certain level of income. If they don't meet that level, they can't make it. It's in those kinds of situations—ones in which they are unable to meet the requirements of the family class of sponsorship—that some of them will turn to their friends, to a church or whatever, and will ask for help to get their parents in through private sponsorship.

Say we get a private sponsorship for a parent. What then happens is that we get the application abroad. First of all, as I said, that person may not be a refugee. For the sake of argument, though, let's presume that the person is. The next thing is that there are two things that have to be looked at under sponsorship. First, we assume that the sponsor is able to provide for that individual for a required period of time, which we'll say is a year. The other thing is a trade-off for that. The individual being sponsored as a refugee has to be able to look after himself or herself after a year. If that condition isn't met, a refusal results. That's the kind of thing that happens.

In the family class, a sponsorship at the present time has to be honoured for ten years. With us, it's one or two years, depending on the kind of case that we're dealing with. I therefore don't think it's an issue of not honouring here. If we felt the sponsors didn't have the financial wherewithal to provide the support, we wouldn't approve the sponsorship, because that's the trade-off.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So the $100 million or so in sponsorships that aren't honoured, that are written off every year, are from other immigration streams.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Those are strictly in the family class itself. Those are not refugees, no, because a refugee sponsorship is different in terms of the duration of the commitment to provide for social services, for accommodation, and so on.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So as far as you know, very few sponsorships under the refugee stream, a very a low percentage—

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There's very little reliance on social programs during that period. Sponsorships are honoured.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: I think I can say with a considerable deal of confidence that, yes, the sponsorships are honoured for that one- or two-year period. I think we face very few breakdowns.

Is that right, Rick?

Mr. Rick Herringer: In terms of the sponsorship breakdowns that we've had since I've been in the branch, which is for two years now, I think the number is three, and we picked those up under the government assistance program.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: When a group such as a church organization is sponsoring, if it sees that there's a problem, that there's a financial or other type of issue, that group itself will very often make the effort to transfer the authority for that sponsorship.

• 1020

Mr. Leon Benoit: So if I want to ask about the family class sponsorships, I guess you may not be the right people.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: We would certainly be glad to leave it to Joan Atkinson, who I understand spoke to you yesterday.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, she did.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Yes, her responsibility is in that area.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, then I'll ask that of the appropriate people. I'm really interested in getting into a discussion on it and, at the same time, on whether or not the department has considered some ideas that would make the program work better while allowing people to sponsor family members much more quickly. I really don't think they necessarily have to be conflicting issues.

The Chairman: I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems we sort of have a dilemma if your best chance to be accepted as a refugee in Canada in particular comes when you apply from within the country. For those reasons, it becomes very attractive. You mentioned that the fairness of the process might counter efficiency. There's no question that's there, and I imagine we do spend a lot more money on people who apply from within than we do on people who apply from the outside, just because of the process we put them through and everything else.

Yesterday we were given some statistics on people who were rejected refugee claimants, but who were subsequently accepted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The numbers are fairly substantial. You mentioned that you're going to be doing more security checks at the front end. Would it be possible to look at the humanitarian and compassionate grounds at the front end as well, so that people don't have to go through the process if certain things are obvious?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Again, that's a very good question. I say that because it's one we should have looked at over a considerable period of time.

At the present time I think there is a real reason behind why we don't have a kind of front-end screen that makes a certain case a humanitarian and compassionate one that we want to pick. Fundamentally, the reason is that so many of the humanitarian and compassionate cases that we do pick up are based on grounds developed because of the duration of their stay in the country. In other words, it's not surprising that people of marriageable age who come to this country will, if they're here for two years, find people they wish to marry. However, that is more likely in the second year than it is in the first year.

Secondly, an individual can make a claim for humanitarian and compassionate grounds at any time. A person can land this morning and make a claim this afternoon. There are no time limits on that. But what we see here again is the fact that we're trying to balance, in a sense, two issues that are fundamentally opposed. What you will have are people who will make a refugee claim, and for whom the answer is no. They will then go to the Federal Court and will make a humanitarian and compassionate grounds application. In a sense, what you have is what we call “dual intent” in our business. The dual intent here is to try to find a reason to stay. Part of that is applying through a process that takes some time and will prolong the stay. Those are the kinds of things we're balancing.

I haven't seen the data you have there, but most of the humanitarian and compassionate approvals that we have are for reasons of marriage. I would think the figure is probably about 80% or something like that.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Are children also involved, perhaps?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Yes, some of them will be children who accompanied or whatever, but many of them are in what I would call the immediate family category. So this is the dilemma we face.

• 1025

My own guess would be—and it was my guess several years ago when we looked at this—that in fact the refusal rate on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, if we only did it at the front end, would be very high compared to when we do it now, which is more when people have the opportunity to determine when they apply.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I was thinking about some obvious cases, but I understand what you're saying. The same could be applied to risk assessment and risk opinion.

My final question is about how there seems to be a great divergence in terms of the IRB and the decisions of different centres. It's something that would certainly not be acceptable if the judges were doing it. To what extent could we standardize training and research for all the offices in a central location so they all get the same information?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: First of all, I'm sure that my colleagues in the IRB would be pleased to answer the question of how you manage discretionary decision-making. Just as a general statement, I think it's one of our most difficult challenges generally. Many of the decisions we make are discretionary. By that I mean their decisions based on a judgment call. We get a set of facts and we set those facts against the criteria, whether it's the convention definition or whether it's humanitarian and compassionate guidelines. It is really difficult to manage.

It allows you to fit cases in without having to have a definition of each and every circumstance, which you can never have. That is what the Americans tried to do. Or we could have a more discretionary system with the problem that has of what I would call uneven decision-making.

I know the board is very concerned about this, and they are doing a number of things in the attempt to even out the decision-making. It's just like us: if we have one office that is so-called soft in terms of its discretionary decision-making, people are going to show up in greater numbers than if they hear there's an office that's so-called hard in its decision-making. So that's really fundamental.

For us, critical to all of this is proper monitoring of the decisions, comparing what the approval and refusal rates are in one post and another, and what they are with one officer and another. It's exceedingly difficult.

What would happen if we were to centralize all decision-making? You would probably still have the problem of uneven decision-making from one set of decision-makers to another, and how do you even that out? But you would have the additional problems, it would seem to me—and it's true in the immigration program as well—of distance. If we made all decisions in Ottawa, and we don't have the local knowledge of what it's like in China, for example, that decision-making is not going to be as good. But does that create new challenges in terms of how we apply discretionary decision-making in Beijing, versus in Delhi, versus London? Yes.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Could I continue? I think it's important. I wasn't asking about centralizing decision-making, I was asking about providing the same information or having the offices work on the same information across the country.

The Chairman: Mr. Van Kessel, briefly please.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: My answer to that would be that people of honour who have the same set of decisions and the same set of information and the same set of criteria will often differ in terms of their interpretation. That's one of the challenges of discretion. That's certainly my experience.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: To follow up on my original line of questioning, why did you pick the Hungarian Romanies as lead, as opposed to the Czech Romanies?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: It was really for one reason. The question of what motivates people to come to this country to make a refugee claim is a really interesting one, and like everything else in our business, it's mixed. The one thing is that if you were able to get an early decision, and it's a decision that might make people think twice about coming here, that's a long-term strategy. What we're dealing with in the Hungarian Romanies situation is one in which we didn't get a large very sudden influx of people, a volume of people. The Czech Romanies situation was a different situation. Quite frankly, at that time, with our resource situation, what we call “ministerial interventions” were limited to criminal cases, war crimes cases, and so on.

• 1030

We had not, until the Hungarian Romanies, intervened in cases where some of us questioned whether sufficient information had been provided to the decision-makers and whether we shouldn't. In this case, we decided that additional information needed to be provided, and we set out and did it. We didn't in the Czech Romanies case. Part of it is our evolution of thinking about providing evidence to the decision-makers.

Mr. John McKay: That created a bit of an absurdity for yourselves, though, in that the Czech Romanies are pretty well dealt with, and for the Hungarian Romanies there are now signals being sent out that this is not going to be an easy ride. Had that signal been wound back a year previously, maybe we wouldn't be facing the Hungarian situation that we are now.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: I understand exactly what you're saying, and one of the questions... When I talk about mixed motives of people applying for refugee status, it's also the question that what we see, both in the Czech movement and in the Hungarian movement, is quite a high withdrawal and abandonment rate, people who stay here for a while, then go home, and so on, and don't pursue it. That's what I mean by mixed motivation: What is really behind the people that are coming in making refugee claims?

Mr. John McKay: I'm going to switch areas to money, particularly settlement money.

As you know, in the greater Toronto area we have a huge homeless problem, somewhat fuelled—I emphasize, somewhat fuelled—by refugee influxes. One of the areas of falling between the cracks is the point of landing at Pearson to the point of filing a claim. By default, the municipality picks up the shelter costs, picks up all the rest of the costs.

That is turning into a major point of aggravation, because not only does the municipality end up picking up the shelter costs, the local schools end up funnelling people through. I have schools in my riding that put through 200% or 300% turnovers annually, and I won't go on to expand on all of the difficulties this particular point of policy makes.

My rather pointed question is, on the money that has been allocated, the $105 million, of which roughly $50 million is already gone, in principle is there any reason why any of that money, the balance of that money, could not be reprofiled, shall we say? I think that's a new buzzword in bureaucratese. Could that money be reprofiled to shelter? Is there any point in policy or law as to why that could not be done?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: I think that's probably my question, but I'm not sure you're going to be happy with in a sense my non-answer, because I'm just not familiar with the terms and conditions that are associated with the provision of that settlement money. This settlement money that is provided in Ontario, as it is in other provinces, is designed to do a certain number of things. As to what the constraints are in terms of terms and conditions that are imposed by Treasury Board on us, I simply am not aware of that.

I recognize the difficulties that exist. I was in Toronto as well, hearing a presentation about this particular problem a year ago, and I understand that it continues to exist. It's one I'd like to take back with me to deal with along with some of my colleagues.

Mr. John McKay: The homeless issue is on the front lawn. It's here, and legitimately so, and I don't think we can continue to kite this problem.

So insofar as the federal government is concerned, insofar as our responsibility for these folks as they come out of Pearson Airport and out of every other airport in Canada is concerned, where is the department's thinking in terms of that issue?

The Chairman: Mr. Van Kessel, very briefly.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: The department's thinking in terms of the financial implications of this is how does the settlement service that we now provide apply? And secondly, under the health and social transfer act, what is applied here? These people are counted in that transfer act as persons for whom the federal government transfers money. The real question then is if that is adequate. Does it get to where it needs to? I know what you mean in the context of the gap that exists from the time of arrival and the time the claim is actually submitted, because it's at that time we get permission to work, and about 50% take that up.

• 1035

The Chairman: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Just following up on what Mr. McKay is saying, it was a very good question. And you're right, it's not just Pearson, but it's other airports across the country. There's not only the gap between the arrival and the time the claim is submitted, but also a gap between when somebody can actually make the claim as well. If they're here on another reason, visitor's visa or whatever, and then sometime later on make a refugee claim, then it starts that whole wheel moving too.

I want to go back to one thing you mentioned earlier. I know you're mainly dealing with out-of-the-country claims, but you had mentioned, in terms of an inland claim, one comment about security checks only done when a yes decision is made. Maybe I misheard you. You were talking about a proposed database that would enter this information in at the front end, as opposed to the back end.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: France, you may be able to add to this, but my understanding is that at the present time we do take fingerprints and so on and we keep them on file. We may check them against RCMP information, I think, but not security information. We haven't in the past. In other words, the background check that involves CSIS would only start after the process toward landing would take place. What this left open was the question of what about cases, few as they may be, where there is negative security information? What do you do about them? So that's what the proposal is, to do that immediately, and that's what we're working toward. I can't say exactly where it's at, but we're not that far from it.

Mr. Grant McNally: So are you indicating that after a yes decision of the IRB, once that whole process goes through, all the appeals and all the procedure on that side, the security check is then done?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Yes. The trigger from doing a security check is the application for landing, for permanent residence, and the trigger for that is a yes decision by the refugee board.

Mr. Grant McNally: We know that there's a backlog in the IRB right now and there are several thousand people in the mill, so to speak, and there is no differentiation between who goes into that mill. It's whoever says “refugee” who goes into that mill. So there could be a fairly long period of time when an individual is in that process.

I know you indicated it's a small number, and I would agree with you that it's a small number. Unfortunately, the small number who go that route cause a lot of trouble in the different areas if they are using that as an abuse of the system, which we've seen of course in the Vancouver area and other areas as well. So you're indicating that this timeframe could be quite long between when they start the process and the time they—

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: The processing time right now at the refugee board is 12 months. The average processing time of a case from the receipt of a completed claim to a decision is 12.2 months. That's the average processing time. And it means that the bulk of the decisions are made at that time. What it means is that while people may go on to appeal to the Federal Court for leave and so on, in actual fact if it's not a yes by that time not much changes after that. So it's really 12 months for cases to start going into the landing stream.

The Chairman: The next one is Ms. Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Following up on Mr. McNally's question, we shouldn't forget that when a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board reviews a claimant's file, he can invite the minister's representative to attend the hearing. What this means is that a representative of the department, or of the minister, attends the hearing and can present information relevant to the claimant's file, which may contain information about that person's criminal background. Therefore, there is already a provision in place to allow the Board to deal with the concerns raised by Mr. McNally. I simply wanted to bring this important piece of information to your attention.

• 1040

My next question might be somewhat premature since it concerns legislation which could be tabled by the minister sometime in the near future. It has to do with the guidelines drafted by the minister respecting the Immigration and Refugee Act. As you know, the minister is proposing to "patriate", as we often say, or transfer responsibility for determining humanitarian grounds and the risk factor to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I'd like to hear your comments on this matter, since currently, this responsibility rests with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. What is your view of this proposed change? Could you list the advantages and disadvantages it presents?

[English]

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Thank you very much. I'd be pleased to attempt to answer that.

One of the things people have complained about, and certainly not incorrectly, is the length of the process and the repetition of similar steps with similar criteria. The refugee board does its thing, and then we have the post-claim determination process, which looks at risk, which is different, yet I find some difficulty sometimes in really being able to nuance the differences. Then we also have the possibility of a risk review under the humanitarian and compassionate aspect. Then, if that were not enough, people always have the possibility just before leaving Canada of saying to us, “Look, things have changed. You have to take a look at my case.”

The proposal is to consolidate as many of those decisions as possible into one step within the refugee board, where, after all, the expertise lies on these kinds of matters. It's not easy to develop the right level of expertise in these difficult areas.

What we are proposing is that the refugee board would decide whether or not you are a convention refugee, and if not, do you qualify under the definition of risk, and does the convention against torture apply to you, and are there any other human rights instruments that are particularly applicable that through a policy decision and through legislation the government wants the board to apply?

The strength of the proposal is obvious: it reduces steps. This helps the bona fide claimant get a decision more quickly, and it reduces the opportunity for those who are mala fide to prolong their stay in Canada by simply applying for another step in the process.

Are there weaknesses? That is exactly why it's still a proposal, because that is what we're taking a look at. I would submit that the complexity of this is fundamentally around legal issues.

For example, the convention itself is one that defines quite clearly people who are excluded, people who are ineligible for consideration. The convention against torture is absolute; there are no exceptions. So suppose we run into a situation in which we have granted under one of these categories a protection or protection-related decision to these people and we want to move to withdraw that protection, as we have the authority to do. These horrible terms “cessation” and “vacation” and so on are legal terms, but they basically mean reversing the decision. How do you go about reversing a decision if you haven't defined the basis upon which the original decision was made? If the decision was made under the convention against torture, you can't revisit it. That's it.

• 1045

These are the kinds of complexities we see. We are working closely with our lawyers and members and staff of the refugee board to see just what all of this really means when we apply it. We are getting information from Sweden, which has been doing this for about a year or a year and a half, to see what their experience is.

Part of our recommendation to the minister will be based on the outcome of these discussions. At first glance—and we have put it forward—we think it's a good, sound idea. But this is one that needs a little more testing. I'm sure if it is not to proceed, we'll be back to give you an explanation of the details of what the problem is. But right now, we think it's a sound proposal.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi has the floor.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to go back to the question I asked before, because I think it's important and I didn't quite get the part I wanted answered. In the bureaucracy, the civil service, we have people in the department. They come together for training and information exchange. They have pretty good policy manuals and what have you. For some reason we haven't had this in the IRB. It's the same in terms of research into country conditions: in some cases we are weak.

To the extent that we could assist in making sure the resources were available for them to do that, in your opinion would that maybe help eliminate some of the wide variances in decisions in different centres?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: The short answer is yes. But certainly based on my discussions with the UNHCR and other countries involved in asylum issues, the IRB is given an awful lot of credit for the quality of its documentation centre. It is considered one of the best in the world, in terms of putting the information together and so on and having the information for members for decision-making and so on.

I'd also like to point out that we work very closely with the IRB in terms of providing additional information. If an IRB member asks us, “What were conditions really like in that country?” and so on, the request is put through my office to posts abroad and the information comes back. It's my understanding that works quite well.

On training, there's a truism that you can never do enough training, and in one sense that's true. So training becomes very important in terms of improving decision-making. What are all the steps? I know, speaking to my colleagues in the Immigration and Refugee Board, there's concern about this, and they are trying to undertake measures to deal with it. I am not fully versed on all aspects of it, but there's a concerted effort to try to provide more information.

It was our concern, going back to the Hungarian Roma case, that the proper information be provided that led us to make the decision to intervene the way we did to make sure the proper decision-making was there, because decisions shouldn't be made on the basis of incomplete information.

I don't think I'm answering your question as well as you'd like.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No, actually you're doing fine.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Just to circle back in on the homeless issue and the report of Anne Golden, which makes all of us in the GTA squirm, her point in the report is that people who land and make refugee claims should be treated in the same fashion as government-sponsored refugees for the purposes of shelter. We're going to have to figure out what the response is to that, at which point we're going to be coming to the department and it's on your doorstep. Let's go directly to the point. What will the department's response be to Anne Golden's rather pointed questions?

• 1050

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: You may recall from the legislative review advisory group report that there was a recommendation in that exactly along these lines, that the federal government assume responsibility for social services of refugee claimants. I think the fact that it's not in the proposals that came out on January 6 makes clear just what the decision was with respect to that issue.

Having said that, though, this is an issue in which our department is involved with other departments in examining this issue and looking at it in more detail. Naturally I am not able to predict whether this means something different will come out of that from what I've just informed you of. So this is one that is under examination.

The Chairman: There are four minutes left. Another committee is going to be meeting here. With the indulgence of the committee, may the chair pose two questions?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Are they important questions?

The Chairman: As to the nature of this study where conflicts may be in countries, how do you determine the occurrence of conflicts? Who determines that? How do you develop a response if there is no handy response, and who implements the response? How do you go about ascertaining what government mechanism exists so that you are prepared to monitor conflicts? You mentioned four government departments involved in this possible response team, so who takes the lead? Who is responsible for the initial lead?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: When a significant conflict overseas arises, it can involve the Department of National Defence, and it can clearly involve the Department of Foreign Affairs, who would play a very important monitoring—

The Chairman: Is there a committee of cabinet? Is there a coordinating body? How does it start?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Depending on the build-up, the first evaluation, the first reporting would come from the Department of Foreign Affairs on local situations. That would be the basis.

In a situation like former Yugoslavia, where we might have a military presence, that reporting would also be supplemented by reporting from National Defence as well. That would be the beginning of it.

The Chairman: You indicated about establishment within a year or two. Where the case is being determined and you have established thereafter that indeed persecution exists, which principle is superior and supreme, the establishment of a persecuted case, irrespective of establishment...

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: For a case abroad, what happens is the two decisions are made together. In other words, when we have a case abroad that meets the refugee definition, and therefore our belief is that protection is required, that there is persecution, the next question becomes, “Do you meet our resettlement criteria, yes or no?” If the answer is no, then there's the refusal.

What happens, though—

The Chairman: Are you saying, then, that the resettlement can supersede a real case of persecution?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: What you must realize is, as Jeff indicated earlier, in the overwhelming majority of cases these are people who already have protection under UNHCR's mandate, and they fall within that.

One of the proposals in the January 6 document talks about urgent protection cases and the need to develop better procedures with respect to that in those cases where this protection doesn't exist. That's where we want to do a better job of spiriting people out of the country, or wherever they are, on a much quicker basis.

• 1055

When people are in refugee camps, we won't talk about the quality of life. In terms of protection, they have protection. But even within camps, there are cases—women-at-risk cases, for example—in which they have to get out. Part of the pilot project we're working on is getting them out within 24 to 48 hours.

On getting them out, it's really important to understand the distinction. A negative decision on our part does not imply persecution. That's where the difference is in Canada. If we were to say no in Canada to someone who meets the refugee definition, and we send that person back to their country, then we'd be sending them to persecution. When we are saying no abroad, we are not sending them back.

The Chairman: Yes, I do get it now.

This is my last question. You have identified the issue of true positives admitted to Canada. Of course hopefully there is a true positive. Then there is also a true negative, who you refuse and return, and nothing happens. Do you monitor that nothing happens?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: Are we talking now about people who came into Canada as refugee claimants?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: No, we do not monitor negative decisions as a matter of routine. For example, for the Chileans we refused in Montreal, we do not monitor their situation back in Chile.

The Chairman: Therefore, we cannot say with confidence that it is in fact a true negative, that the decision was right. We cannot say that with confidence if we do not monitor.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: There are international organizations that do monitor returns of people back to their countries.

The Chairman: Do we try to get the results from them?

Mr. Jeff LeBane: Those are usually made known by the monitoring organizations.

The Chairman: Then on the issue of those who were refused and returned, do we monitor how many were indeed persecuted? I would like to know the false negative results.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: We do not do so on a case-by-case basis. On an exceptional basis, if I may, the follow-up to your question would be whether or not we get information back that we sent someone home and the individual did suffer the persecution that was claimed. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I am not aware of any cases whatsoever.

If you take a look at Canada's approval record in terms of the decisions we make at the refugee board, the benefit of the doubt given to refugee claimants by this country exceeds that of any other country by a considerable margin. I think that needs to be stressed.

But to specifically answer your question, we do not monitor returns on a case-by-case basis.

The Chairman: As a last supplemental, is there merit to doing monitoring?

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: The basic problem you run into is how to keep in touch with people who have left this country and have gone back to another one. How do you know what happens with the volume of people we're talking about? I think that's the basic challenge.

The Chairman: Okay. With that answered, I would like to thank you all on behalf of the committee.

The meeting is adjourned.