CIMM Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 6, 2003

0905

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

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury (Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board)

0910

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

0915

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mrs. Krista Daley (General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board)

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

0920

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

0925

Mrs. Krista Daley

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Ms. Raymonde Folco

0930

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Grant McNally

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Grant McNally

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Grant McNally

Mrs. Krista Daley

0935

Mr. Grant McNally

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Grant McNally

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Grant McNally

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mrs. Marilyn Stuart-Major (Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mrs. Marilyn Stuart-Major

0940

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

0945

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mrs. Krista Daley

0950

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

0955

Mrs. Krista Daley

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

1000

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mrs. Krista Daley

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

1005

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

1010

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

1015

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.)

1020

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

1025

Mrs. Krista Daley

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mrs. Krista Daley

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mr. Art Hanger

1030

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Ms. Raymonde Folco

1035

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Ms. Krista Daley

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mrs. Krista Daley

1040

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mrs. Krista Daley

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mrs. Krista Daley

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mrs. Krista Daley

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mrs. Krista Daley

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Art Hanger

1045

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

Mrs. Krista Daley

Mr. Art Hanger

Mrs. Krista Daley

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

1050

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 082

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 6, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)): Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Mr. Fleury, Ms. Daley and Ms. Stewart-Major. I presume that you work with Mr. Fleury.

At the outset, Mr. Fleury, allow me to congratulate you, on behalf of my committee colleagues and myself, on your appointment. After reading your biographical notes, I believe that we could say that you are very well prepared to assume responsibilities which are, we will all agree, neither simple nor easy. Moreover these responsibilities require, in addition to good judgment, a great deal of rigour and the ability to listen well. I wish you the best of luck. Today's meeting will give us an opportunity to ask you several questions.

I should point out at the start that I will be wearing two hats. Indeed, I'm a Gemini, which makes me predisposed to that. I will try to chair to the best of my ability, while at the same time asking questions on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

So, good morning and welcome. Please proceed with your presentation, Mr. Fleury.

[English]

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury (Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board): Merci.

Madame la présidente, committee members, thank you for inviting us here today to discuss our departmental performance report.

I'd like to introduce Marilyn Stuart-Major, executive director, secrétaire générale, of the IRB; and Krista Daley, general counsel, avocate générale. Both will assist me in answering any questions you may have.

[Translation]

My appearance today is particularly timely; on November 27^th I will have been Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board for one year.

I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to highlight new developments at the IRB since March 31, 2003, to share my assessment of this past year, and my future direction for this great institution.

I believe you have also received a written copy of my opening remarks, which contains additional details about the IRB. In the interest of time, I will not repeat this information. Let me begin with the concerns and priorities at the IRB.

When I became chairperson, the IRB was dealing with a staggering backlog in its Refugee Protection Division, which peaked at more than 52,000 claims shortly after I arrived. The backlog was not a result of poor performance, but rather a combination of domestic and international factors.

Since 1999, the number of new refugee claims received each year has grown significantly. The 40,000 new claims received in 2001-2002 represented the highest volume in the history of the board, and almost double the number received four years earlier.

Further, IRB's funding base was set in the 1990s when the number of refugee claimants was consistently in the 25,000 to 27,000 range per year. The board introduced measures aimed at reducing the backlog. But despite efficiency gains, the backlog kept growing and processing time increased.

Heavy workload pressures at our other two tribunals meant there was limited flexibility to reallocate resources internally.

[English]

When I started as chairperson, the refugee protection division backlog was clearly a serious concern for the government, for Canadians, and for our stakeholders. It was clear to me that we needed to identify what we could do as a tribunal to improve. This remains today my top priority for the board.

A tribunal is a dynamic entity. Many people say that the IRB is all about how many decisions the board makes. That is true. What is equally true is how we make these decisions. In this sense, the IRB is equally about the administration of justice in Canada. The tribunal exists to deliver a simpler, quicker version of justice than the courts.

Tribunals, like the board, are also to be independent from government in their decision-making, but fully accountable to government for their performance, as evidenced by the tabling of the departmental performance report and our appearance here today before you.

The IRB vision statement is that each of our three tribunals will excel in everything it does. They will deal simply, quickly, and fairly with everyone. Through innovation, they will be leading-edge administrative tribunals and creative partners in building the future of the Canadian immigration and refugee system.

While significant improvements have been made over the years at the board, we were not fully realizing our vision statement and we needed new initiatives to increase our capacity to finalize more refugee claims without sacrificing fairness. This is the constant debate: fairness and the question of decisions. I feel we have to take further advantage of the innate flexibility of a tribunal. We have to become a more dynamic tribunal, able to respond rapidly to evolving changes, challenges, and realities.

[Translation]

Shortly after becoming chairperson, I decided that each of our three tribunals needed to develop action plans to eliminate duplication and improve both the efficiency and the quality of decision-making. In my remarks today, I will focus on the Refugee Protection Division action plan, which began with a complete review of our operations to determine how we could simplify and standardize how we work.

The result of this exercise, the action plan, is more than simply a series of initiatives. Rather, it represents a long-term transformation of the way we do business, a recommitment to our original mission and business statement.

[English]

In other words, back to basics.

[Translation]

It is not limited to process—it includes a human dimension, at all times, on a daily basis.

Having said this, the action plan is comprised of more than a dozen specific initiatives that are characterized by three themes, which are: standardization and simplifying processes; providing greater institutional guidance for decision-makers; and improving the efficiency of hearings.

Various initiatives of the action plan have been implemented over the past six months. We have already seen exciting results: the new initiatives combined with temporary funding were key elements to our success in increasing the number of cases finalized by approximately 30 per cent in the last year.

I am proud of what we have accomplished in this limited period of time. The challenge will be to sustain that level. We are currently projecting that the backlog will be reduced from more than 52,000 claims to approximately 41,000 claims, by the end of 2003-04. We are talking about 11,000 fewer individuals awaiting a decision, Mr. Chairman. This is significant progress.

¿ (0910)

[English]

When my predecessor last appeared before this committee you asked about what level of resources the board needed to eliminate the backlog. The IRB received temporary funding in the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Unfortunately, that funding of some $16 million per year will end as of April 1 of next year. We are presently in discussion with the Treasury Board Secretariat, as we must maintain this funding over the next three years to be able to continue to eliminate our backlog and to address corporate infrastructure shortfalls.

Our business case demonstrates that the expedient reduction of the backlog will result in significant savings to Canadian taxpayers and it will provide justice to those who appear before us. Simply stated, the backlog will have been eliminated and our processing time will finally reach the six-month goal. Without the continuation of necessary funding we are projecting that the backlog will steadily increase by about 4,000 claims a year, and although not within our purview, social costs will also increase.

The modest resources allocated to the IRB have been put to good use, and we are now beginning to see the results. The backlog is dropping steadily every month as a result of efficiency gains stemming from the action plan and from temporary funding. The reality is that we now have the capacity to tackle the increased workload, and without continued funding, our momentum could be lost.

To conclude, the contribution of IRB is essential to the integrity and security of the immigration and refugee process in Canada. Our mission is about one thing: rendering decisions simply, quickly, and fairly. I will ensure that this remains our focus so that the IRB delivers an effective system of tribunal justice, one that serves those who appear before us and Canadians in general.

I appreciate this opportunity to address you today. We are prepared and ready to answer your questions.

Merci.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Thank you, Mr. Fleury. I'm sure that you will asked some questions. Both your answers and our questions will no doubt generate a lot of interest.

Mr. Hanger.

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Yes, I do have some questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fleury and other members of the board, I know it's been a while since we've had contact--at least in my own case. I'm back on the immigration committee and I've always found this one of the most fascinating committees, given the fact that immigration is a key part of this country of ours. Not only does it have its challenges--and I can see you're attempting to address some of them--but there are a lot of people who pay attention to what is happening with this particular department.

Everybody has an opinion, I guess. It doesn't matter if you're in backwater Saskatchewan. It's not to say that everybody's from backwater Saskatchewan, but there are lots of opinions on immigration.

I've always been curious about the Immigration and Refugee Board. I see that the numbers have substantially increased, as you pointed out in your presentation, from the nineties. It seems as though the big spike came two years ago. Why would you feel that this was the case, that suddenly there was this huge spike in applications?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: It's the same pattern as we saw happening in the States and in Europe during the same period of time. As a matter of fact, in proportion, I would say that in Europe they had more than we had in terms of new inflows, and it's a direct relationship to the international situation at that time. There are roughly 40 million people in the world in a situation of migration. So it peaked for Europe, for the United States, and for us at about the same time in almost the same proportionality.

Now we're seeing a slight decline everywhere else, in England and in the United States.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Art Hanger: There's probably a lot more to be said about this spike. Preparation is one thing.

I had the privilege of being part of an identity theft conference here not too long ago. Identity theft is the world's fastest growing organized criminal activity. I know this is an issue the Immigration and Refugee Board has to deal with in a very substantial way.

Blank membership cards, blank letterhead, and blank school documents are documents that are often found by immigration officers when they deal with those who are applying. These documents are often sent to refugee claimants. There seems to be a disconnect at this point. Often this information is not indicated or presented at other hearings. It's a well-known fact that documents are easily forged. Why is that the case?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Obviously there is a problem internationally that we all recognize. For us, as board members and decision-makers, the question of credibility and identity is very important. It's fundamental.

As you know, the security issues are done up front by law enforcement agencies before a referral is given to us by the department. Much of the work is done there. We also have the services of the RCMP to identify documents. We try, as much as possible, to work on that premise.

I will ask Madame Daley to add to this. She may be able to give us additional information.

Mrs. Krista Daley (General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board): The only point I'd like to add is that the new legislation that came into effect last June 28, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, actually for the first time contains a legislative provision with respect to refugee claimants before the board. It indicates that our division must take into account the issue of identity, and if the person doesn't have identity documents, we must look at the issue of whether there's a reasonable explanation for why those don't exist or why they were not available in due diligence.

We actually have found that it's become, because of the legislative provision now, an intrinsic part of every hearing that we deal with at the board.

Mr. Art Hanger: There seems to be a disconnect, though, in the fact that information may come before a board about false documents or even about documents that were seized, but that information is not carried through at any other hearing. Then it becomes almost a moot point in the decision-making process as to why individuals going before a board hold or possess these things. This information is not flowing through the channels.

Mrs. Krista Daley: Perhaps, Mr. Fleury, I could follow up on that.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Yes.

Mrs. Krista Daley: If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that has seized those documents has information they want to present to the board, they can provide that information to us, and they do so. I don't know in what percentage of the cases that takes place, but certainly the Department of Citizenship and Immigration can bring that evidence forward to the board.

Mr. Art Hanger: If I am aware of a case or more than one case, who do I approach with this information that, in fact, evidence is not being presented before a board or a tribunal?

Mrs. Krista Daley: The department.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to say hello once again to Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury, the chairperson, and all of the other individuals here representing the Immigration and Refugee Board. I used to be a member of this board and my memories of the place are mixed.

I would like to make some comments but I also have questions. First of all, with respect to the backlog, in my opinion, Mr. Fleury, the number of individuals applying for refugee status, whether it be in Canada, Europe or in the United States, will continue to climb. Based on what I see—and I have kept abreast of the situation since leaving the board, obviously—the growing migration phenomenon, which has always existed but perhaps not caused the problems arising today, is one which has had an impact on all of us a little bit, but which, in my opinion, will be felt much more in the years to come.

I would therefore like to see the board—and perhaps you may wish to make a comment on this issue—engage in some long-term planning, for the next 20 or 25 years, considering not only the possibility of reducing the backlog to zero, which I feel is unachievable, but especially of responding as rapidly as possible to the growing number of claimants who will be arriving in Canada. This is both a comment and a question.

On this issue, I can recall the situation where, a few years ago, I had another problem, which has just surfaced at the board. This is not a problem with the board per se, but rather a problem pertaining to the relationship between the board and the department. When an applicant is turned down, he does have other recourse. He can appeal, he can request that he not be compelled to return to his country because of possible risks to himself, and he can also request that he remain in the country, in Canada, on humanitarian grounds.

These grounds result in an extremely prolonged stay in the country, which should not occur if this individual is not truly a refugee. A few years ago, I had in fact suggested that refugee claim hearings should be followed, in the event that the claim was turned down, by a risk hearing. Such a hearing could be followed almost immediately after by a hearing on humanitarian grounds. This would have resulted in an ongoing process that would have enabled us to monitor whether or not the claimant was still present in Canada or not. That would have enabled us to remove the person quite quickly in the event that the answer was no.

I have heard nothing about this and I would like to hear your opinion on the type of ongoing process that I have just described.

My third point is perhaps a mini-analysis on the performance of commissioners. Commissioners now almost always work alone. Obviously, there are some very good pros to that, but there are also some cons. I have heard that the time allotted to prepare files has been reduced significantly and so commissioners often find themselves in a situation where they are reading the files one or two hours before the hearing. Furthermore, they are being given increasingly less assistance from the RCO, as we say in the field.

I would like to hear what you have to say about these comments as well.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Thank you.

You are right about the international issue. I took the opportunity during my first year in this position to visit, for business reasons, five countries in eight days. I took time to sit and observe how the interviews were being conducted. I observed how the judges dealt with appeals. They were under tremendous pressure. You are right, the European Community is facing a tremendous challenge with respect to the international situation.

During my business trip to these five countries, I noted that they are facing the same challenges that we have with respect to the process, timelines and a lack of documentation. We are confronted with the same problems. The systems are obviously different as they must reflect the culture of the country. However, the European Community is basically working hard to come up with solutions.

That being said, you were talking about our board. You wanted to know what steps we can take to make sure we are not dealing with resource problems every year and to do some long-term planning in this respect. I am, of course, in favour of having a long-term plan. Fortunately, the process enables us to make adjustments every year and to obtain other funding from Treasury Board. That covers a one-year period. Our action plan spans a three-year period. We would like to be able to have resources covering a longer period. We discussed the matter with Treasury Board, but you are right, our resources are always allocated for a one-year term, we did not win the battle. Indeed, you cannot win the battle for a one-year period.

Once the decision has been rendered, could other factors be taken into consideration and could there be an ongoing process within the board? I was not there when the legislation changed. Perhaps Ms. Daley could answer that question, and tell us whether such a possibility was considered at that time. I know that we have added grounds pertaining to torture and other considerations. We consider the Convention, as well as other refugee conventions.

¿ (0925)

[English]

Mrs. Krista Daley: I'd like to clarify the new legislative scheme.

As you've mentioned, prior to the new legislation, the board determined the convention refugee ground only. Then after we had determined our case, and if it was a negative, there was both an H and C application and what was called a post-determination refugee claimant class application for that person, which was basically a risk to life.

The new legislation consolidated some of that decision-making in the board, so we now look at three different things. We look at the convention refugee ground, the traditional ground. We look at a ground of torture, whether the person fears torture if they return. And a third ground is this one called risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. So there has been in fact some consolidation within the board, so that when we have one hearing and we hear the story and the fear of harm, then we can make that assessment.

However, after us there is still the possibility of an H and C application, plus another division...it's not a division of the board, but within the department it's now called the pre-removal risk assessment section, which looks at exactly the same three grounds as we have looked at. So in essence, it's a review of the three grounds that we have looked at.

I think the legislative scheme now has a little more streamlining within it, and that has been one of the changes with the new legislation.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I would like to ask a question, Madam Chair.

[English]

How much time is there usually between the time when the refugee claimant is refused and the time when des motifs d'ordres humanitaires are refused? That's where the problem lies. In extreme cases it can take several years.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: We really don't have that. Perhaps we can ask the department.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: And the third question?

¿ (0930)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: I was expecting the third question and I cannot blame you. You have had some experience in our board.

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to say hello and to mention that this work, as you yourself can attest, is in fact very complex and psychologically very demanding.

The objective set out in the action plan is from three to four weeks. In Toronto people are currently working in teams. This is a team that brings together the employees and the coordinator. Despite the heavy workload, we are getting close to the three-week objective.

The action plan calls for three or four additional tools that we want to give to independent decision-makers. First of all, there are model decisions, which can provide a lead. As you know, under the act, the decision-maker is always independent. We respect that.

That being said, there are various approaches that can help. We issue persuasive decisions. We have models. Recently, we issued the chairman's jurisprudential guides for Costa Rica. These guides are very helpful to decision-makers in their work. Costa Rica was a country with an acceptance rate of only 2 per cent when we began this undertaking. We are currently working on a members' guide for Colombia.

All this to say that we are fully aware of the fact that, given the pressure put on the decision-maker, the amount of time given to study files and obtain the best information is of primary importance; the quality of the hearing is directly tied to the preparation.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Thank you, Mr. Fleury.

Mr. McNally.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks for the hard work you do. I know it's a daunting task.

I have a few questions for you. Is there any process that allows front-line workers or you yourselves to have input back to the minister as to solutions to the problems you see, any formalized process, such as a suggestion that can go back to the minister?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Can I spit it out? We are an administrative independent tribunal, and the people who provide the decisions are independent, and they have to be. However, I do have an executive director who works with the department in terms of issues, issues with respect to how the information is exchanged, as we exchange information that belongs to us. We have discussions with respect to the number of staff they have in terms of appeals. The department comes in on immigration appeals, and we have to make sure we have equivalent staff. So we need to know and talk to each other; otherwise, it won't work.

So there is a dialogue from the point of view of public servant to public servant in the regions, and in the national context, I have a meeting with the deputy minister and his ADMs, assistant deputy ministers, and my team. I've just started them again. We used to have them. We meet about every three or four months to compare notes on some big issues. And there again we're making sure of our independence, but we are co-dependent. They bring us the work, we issue decisions based on the cases that are in front of us, and then we give them back to them. You have to work together while keeping your independence.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm glad to hear that.

I'd like to ask you some questions about the numbers in your brief. Of the 36% that were rejected last year, what happens to those people? Where are they once they're rejected? Are any of them in detention?

Mrs. Krista Daley: Maybe I can just give the framework. Once a claim is rejected by the IRB, as we had commented earlier, there are these other processes. They have a leave for judicial review in the Federal Court.

Mr. Grant McNally: So that 36% is everybody. Once rejected, they may be going into these other streams through the process. Okay.

Mrs. Krista Daley: Sir, just to clarify one point, we don't track that process after us, because it's out of our control.

Mr. Grant McNally: Does the department track that, then? Or is it tracked at all?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: We inform the department of our decision vis-à-vis an individual, so it's not just that—

Mr. Grant McNally: The enforcement part of it would then kick over to the department. Once they leave your process, they're turned over to the department, and then it becomes up to them.

You mentioned the identity documents, the changes, Ms. Daley. If there are no identity documents, there are now provisions within the new legislation to seek out information about those identity documents. Does that mean that people who don't have identity documents or about whom you're uncertain go into mandatory detention? What does that mean?

Mrs. Krista Daley: No, what that means in the context of the board is two things.

If the department has concerns about the identity of the person—so this is in essence before they come to us—then there is a mechanism whereby they can detain for the investigation of identity. That is the power that rests in the department. Then one of our divisions at the board, the immigration division, reviews that detention on an ongoing basis.

With respect to the refugee process, the legislative provision provides that if a person does not have acceptable documentation, then we need to take into account their reasons why they don't have acceptable documentation and any steps they've taken to try to obtain that documentation.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Grant McNally: I'd like to stop you for just a second. If I come to Canada and I don't have the proper identification documents, it's no guarantee that I'm not just going to be sent on my way and told to come back for another process. If I show up and you have questions about my documents, you're uncertain, I give you the reasons—of course there's a lot of subjective interpretation about whether I'm telling the truth or not—but I could in essence then be set free to go, to come back at another date for my next step in the process.

Mrs. Krista Daley: The legislative scheme would provide that it's the department that would decide if they wanted to detain that person.

Mr. Grant McNally: There's no guarantee that I would be detained. I could just move on and come back for the—

Mrs. Krista Daley: Yes, unless the department—

Mr. Grant McNally: The reason I'm asking these questions is that I have grave concerns with the voluntary compliance side of the system. Obviously you don't have an ability to effect that change. We do, as legislators. Often the difficult cases are the ones where individuals are using the system inappropriately, not only giving those who are genuine refugees a bad name but also creating difficulty for you. It seems to me that as legislators we have an ability to address that question but have been hesitant--at least the government has been hesitant--to go down that route, which is a concern to me, given our security issues that have been obviously highlighted in North America over the last couple of years.

So there is no provision for mandatory detention, even in the new legislation. Is that right?

Mrs. Krista Daley: No.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Madam Chair, I too would like to express my good wishes to Mr. Fleury and his team as they carry out their mandate, like my colleagues who have voiced similar sentiments. I would like to ask two questions.

The first question is financial in nature. We read that your board spent 116 million dollars in 2002-2003, when in fact it was authorized to spend 137.9 million dollars. That is quite a substantial difference. Moreover, you have said that you do not have enough resources to fulfil your responsibilities, but you also say that you are negotiating with Treasury Board to obtain more money. Since you did not spend all of the money allocated to you last year, do you not think you are, to some extent, in a weak position?

You then alluded to the process for appointing decision-makers. It appears that you have not staffed all of the positions. Could you comment on this issue? This is quite a significant problem. You are asking for money but you have a surplus.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: I am going to ask Ms. Stuart-Major, who is the executive director, to respond to the financial question. I will comment on the issue of the board members.

[English]

Mrs. Marilyn Stuart-Major (Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board): As the departmental performance report indicates, there were total authorities of $137.9 million, and part of that money came to us in supplementary estimates during the year. There was $5 million for workload, $3.8 million for collective agreements. There was $1 million to implement our new integrated case management system.

We weren't able to spend all of that money during the year, because, as the report points out, there were fewer decision-makers than planned on the board during that year.

The other amount of $18.4 million, which was not expended, related to the translation of decisions. It's an amount of money that has a fence around it, and it flows from a decision of the court called Devinat.

In terms of future years, certain sunset money will drop out of our budget, as Mr. Fleury indicated in his opening remarks. We are in discussions with Treasury Board to ensure that this amount of money remains in our budget for the next three years. If that amount of money remains in our budget for the next three years, we believe we can reach equilibrium by 2007.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Providing that you spend it.

[English]

Mrs. Marilyn Stuart-Major: Oui, oui, oui. Well, I can say that at mid-year review, when we're looking at our budget, we certainly are spending the money. The decision-makers are in place; the staff has been hired. Certainly, we believe it is going to be a very tight year this year. I think there'll be very little money lapsing by the end of the year.

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: As regards the commissioners, I will allude to the situation under my predecessor, who tried to obtain commissioners as quickly as possible. There were two factors that played a role.

First of all, the workload in Toronto and Montreal was roughly the same for years. Toronto now has 68% of the workload. So fairly radical changes were required in Toronto.

Secondly, in reply to the question about the number of decision-makers, before a decision-maker assumes his duties, he undergoes four weeks of full-time training; the training is a type of mentoring. The decision-maker works on a panel. So we can say that the decision-maker is really autonomous after about six or seven months, sometimes more quickly. Given how much time it took to get the go-ahead and the requisite number, we were unable to spend all of the money allocated for the decision-makers.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have another question, Madam Chair, with respect to a particular category of refugees that we often read about in the newspapers, and I am referring to Palestinian refugees. I see in your notes, on page 6, that you list the themes for your action plan—and I would like to commend you on that—including a series of initiatives under the heading “providing greater institutional guidance for decision-makers”.

I would like to know whether you have made a serious effort to enlighten the decision-makers on the true plight of the Palestinian refugees, on their living conditions and the difficulties that they have encountered. I could give you files and names, but I know that you cannot discuss these in public. Therefore, it would serve no purpose for me to list those names here, but I have notes that demonstrate some rather inconsistent decisions, by various board members, in dealing with situations that were identical and people who came from the same camp, for members of the same family, people who had no other ties than the ones that they explained before the board members, and in response to which one of them said yes while the other said no. It makes no sense for those people.

I feel that this is a difficult and complex situation. The board members do not all share the same opinion when it comes to the underlying political issues in these situations; that, one can understand. But I think a little more enlightenment and monitoring are in order. You mentioned guides for Costa Rica and Colombia.

Have you prepared any similar information to ensure greater consistency in decisions relating to Palestinian refugees, since they have no country to return to? They would not be going back to Costa Rica or to Colombia, all they have to look forward to is a refugee camp.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: We recognize that consistency in board decisions is a challenge for us, one which we are meeting head-on. You mentioned the guides. I said earlier that there were persuasive decisions to help the decision-makers to become more consistent. Nevertheless, they are independent, their decisions are based on the weight and the interpretation of the evidence that is brought before them.

That being said, if you are asking whether or not we have taken the time to consider whether or not a guide is required in those situations, I would admit that we have not done that yet.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would say, in closing, that I hope it is something you will do because the need is pressing; the public is made aware of the situation on a regular basis. I repeat, for the time being, those people have no country to return to. There are refugee camps in different countries, but it is not their home, it is a refugee camp, and this has been going on for years now.

You should also review how the files are prepared in relation to certain categories of people as opposed to others. I know that, technically and legally, there can sometimes be difficulties in preparing a case, but there must be some means of overcoming that, in order to have a complete picture of the real situation.

I would suggest that you prepare a guide, some notes, to enlighten your board members in this area so that they might have a sense of what is happening to these people. These are not run-of-the-mill cases, they are special.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: May I add something?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): You may, I like granting you permission to ask me questions. Is that all right?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Of course, we do make every attempt to ensure harmonization. We have a geographic network arranged by country and by zone, where people from Toronto, Montreal or anywhere else in the country can discuss situations that they have experienced. We have highly qualified research staff who examine these issues.

I acknowledge your concern about our operations.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): You are not quite half way through your testimony, and I would like to ask you a few questions. The first one involves the refugee appeals section, which is included in the act and has been acknowledged as good legislation by most stakeholders. One of the aspects was the refugee appeals section.

To our great surprise, when the act came into force, the minister announced that this section would be suspended. When we asked why it would be suspended, we were told that the backlog absolutely had to be reduced. To opposition members, reducing backlog by setting aside a fundamental right for any Canadian citizen, that is, the right to appeal—even our worst criminals can appeal—seemed somewhat unbalanced. We also have problems with the fact that only one member hears the applicants. We were told that, once again, it was in order to reduce the backlog.

Following Mr. Charbonneau's questions and comments on the Palestinians, let us imagine—and I have a great deal of imagination—that you have 100 Palestinian claimants. I would guess that if five judges heard Palestinian claimants, you, as the chairperson, would be in a position to know how many were granted refugee status and how many were not. Is it possible for one judge to be much stricter, more demanding or less attentive? After all, we are only human.

Do you have any of that data? If you do not have the information, then why not? I suppose this information is not public. That is my first question.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: To answer your first question on the appeal, as soon as the government decides to act, we are, of course, ready to begin the appeal process. It will probably take one year for recruiting, hiring, setting professional standards, and so on. The basic research has already been done because we were ready to begin the process under the act. Funding is also an issue, and we have begun to prepare estimates. We are working hard on the backlog. As I said, we are doing our best to improve the quality of the decisions.

I would like to ask Ms. Daley to say a few words about our legal strategy and I will try to answer the question about the information we have on the 100 cases that you were asking about.

[English]

Mrs. Krista Daley: With respect to the various initiatives, we essentially have a list of six initiatives that form a part of the action plan and that are being used to deal with some of the consistency issues.

The chairperson's guideline is a new power that came about in 1993, and that was then confirmed in the new legislation. Jurisprudential guides is a brand new power in the new legislation, for the chairperson. Persuasive decision-making is another one. Another is lead cases, an enhanced use of a concept whereby decision-makers who deal with like cases can discuss the legal and policy issues attached to them. And lastly, if need be, we can seek intervention in the Federal Court itself to put forward our views to that court with respect to some of these matters.

¿ (0950)

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: The example of the 100 cases is appropriate. We, of course, examine all of the cases to determine whether or not there are trends or possible issues. Do we understand the entire situation? We do not challenge the decisions made by individuals. However, your question related to the decisions as a whole. We would have to look into it and analyze them.

These matters are indeed discussed. As you said, the chairperson is authorized to issued guidelines. Why would we not do it in this situation? As I said, we will have to take a look at that. It is something that we do from time to time.

I would like to say, with respect to the difference in decisions from one region of the country to another, that in 12 countries, the rate was 30% and higher. So we dropped that number to two. In view of the work that we do to compare notes, etc., we could quite possibly reduce the gap to less than 30%. We can't reduce it by too much. In the end, these are personal decisions. The specific nature and the merit of each case remain. As to trends that we might observe for a particular situation or country, I have no doubt that our results are beginning to improve.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): We had asked the minister to consider having two members for each hearing, while waiting for the appeals section to begin operating. The request was denied.

I wonder if you, as the chairperson, would be in favour of having an appeals section. Canada claims to be, and rightly so, a country which takes great pride in being a constitutional State where the rule of law prevails. So it makes no sense to put the fate of the most vulnerable in our society within the hands of a single person. It is not only a matter of compassion; it just does not make sense.

Yesterday or the day before that, the minister announced a new program to select refugees from outside the country, something that would help make the work of the members a little easier. Do you not think that Palestinians should be selected in the Palestinian refugee camps, either in Lebanon or elsewhere, and that the High Commission should be involved? Everyone around this table as well as the general public agree that the Palestinian situation is an extremely difficult one.

How can we tell people from refugee camps, once they arrive here, that they are not refugees? I cannot explain that to my fellow citizens, no matter who they might be. Try as I might, I simply cannot do it.

So I would like to know if you think this should become standard procedure when dealing with Palestinian refugees. Of course, that would not solve the problem of those who are already here. The fact remains that the conflict is ongoing and the camps are not about to disappear any time soon.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Policy-making is not within my purview as the chairperson of an independent board. It might be better to ask the minister. Moreover, I am myself a decision-maker and I would not want to prejudge any particular situation.

I am sorry, perhaps Ms. Daley might like to add something.

¿ (0955)

[English]

Mrs. Krista Daley: No, on that point I don't. Both of the issues you raised, both the refugee appeal division and the single member panel versus the two-member panel, plus the issue of selection abroad are really matters that are within the purview of the government.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): The best questions are the ones that the witnesses do not want to answer. They cannot and they do not want to. That is fine.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti.

[English]

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Merci, madame la présidente.

Good morning.

I want to focus on the refugee claimants. There are a lot of numbers. We're talking about percentages, numbers, but for me, in Montreal, this summer I got deportations practically every week of people who have been in this country--

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Every week is not bad. We get it every day.

À (1000)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: You're a lot better than I am, but I can tell you that people have been in this country for six years waiting for a decision to be rendered. It doesn't make any sense.

I'm talking about time. We can say we have reduced the numbers by 30%, we're going to reduce the numbers by 11,000 refugee claimants, but we're still talking about years here, and that is not acceptable. These people, when they come into the country, are refugee claimants and are allowed to work and go to school, and they have families. So what is going to happen if we delay decisions for this amount of time, going through the process, is that we're just going to put them into another system, because they're maybe going to be allowed to come in on a humanitarian basis or other visa. I think we're just spinning our wheels.

There have to be better answers than that we're working on it, and we have initiatives, and we have a plan. It has to be cut down. It is not acceptable, and we're maybe accepting claimants from places that are not refugee places. That's not up to me to determine, but when people have been in this country for four or five years, they've put together their lives and they have jobs, and they've had kids, and if they are rendered a decision that they have to go back to a place they don't even know anything about--Canada is their place--it's a huge problem. That's the reality. That's what has to be addressed.

You can talk about reducing numbers by 30%. It's hard to tell somebody who is in your office that you're sorry, it's 30%.

The factors change also on a file. When they first came in six years ago there were certain things in the file, and all of a sudden they've remembered other things. I'm not saying they're absolved of all the facts, just that our system has to improve and we have to find a solution.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: We're probably, as of this morning, at 14 months in terms of processing time, and that's a lot. I said in my opening remarks, and I repeat, it is unacceptable to everyone, taxpayers and everyone.

The action plan is not just an action plan to play; it's a serious transformation. We're using the guidelines of the precedent to the limit of the law and within the law. We're trying, as much as possible, to have our hearings better prepared, highly focused, and to conduct an inquiry--that this is not just a court. That change will bring some results. But I would not suggest to you that this is a miracle. It will not happen. At the end of the day, it is going to have to do with a balance between resources and my making sure that I have my house in order and we're giving it our best. That's what we're working on.

I'm working on what we can control. I cannot work on something I don't control, which is the flow that comes in. I don't control that. That's why we're trying to rebalance.

You're right, our objective has always been six months, and six months is still a lot for people waiting for a decision. But to get to the six months, at the rate I'm going now, and keeping the resources at the $16 million that I need in the longer term, I'm still three years down the road until I can say we're just catching up to the six months. It's serious. I can only today tell you that the action plan is a major transformation to the maximum of our mandate.

I also have staff who believe in this. That's why we're having 30% more decisions rendered within six months. But I would not want to tell the committee that in three years from now everything will be okay. All I'm saying is that we have a plan that will get us there.

The second thing I want to point out is that in every job I have had in the federal government I have believed in frameworks and I've believed in concepts, but we're as good as we deliver to Canadians what we say we are going to do. The action plans are not dream plans; they are very pragmatic.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: If they're pragmatic, then you can make the commitment that within three years...?

This is maybe overstepping my bounds. You're saying the problem is the inflow. Could we do a quick and dirty and say certain people from certain countries just do not qualify, or certain types, and just reduce it?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Yes, there are provisions in the act, and I'm going to ask Ms. Daley to point that out to you. There are provisions that you could use.

Mrs. Krista Daley: I'll just comment on that, so that we're clear in terms of our terminology. It's the department that determines who is eligible to have a refugee claim. So they do the front end, and then it gets referred to us. And there's actually a provision in the legislation--it was in the old legislation but it continues to be in here--that we could actually designate a particular country whereby, through the regulations, persons would not be eligible to have their claims determined. That's not within the purview of the board, certainly; it's a regulatory process that is with the minister.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Hanger.

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: Than you, Madam Chair.

I'm beginning to see quite a bigger picture of your workload here. I'm going through some of the figures that you have in your report, Mr. Fleury. For instance, on the immigration division, you have 29 decision-makers, as you point out here. And they expect to hold 2,000 admissibility hearings and 11,400 detention hearings or reviews in the course of the year. And one person sits and makes one decision, is that it?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: So each person is going to make 450 decisions.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Yes, and in that sector I do not have a backlog.

Mr. Art Hanger: In that sector, you don't have a backlog. All right.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: One of the reasons is that the reviews are done in 48 hours, 7 hours in terms of detention, and we have to meet that. Sometimes there are things that could prevent that happening, but we're there all the time.

Mr. Art Hanger: That brings me up to my second point here, and it's a reflection on what the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires those decision-makers to do. The immigration division considers the admissibility of persons alleged to have engaged in transnational crimes, including people smuggling, trafficking in persons, and money laundering. What kind of training have they received thus far to brief them on issues like this, and who does the training, and to what extent does the training go?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: First of all, yes, we have trained them. They were trained and they have the right profile and the kind of background to do the decisions as we go right now. In terms of extra training vis-à-vis the act, I was not there, so I'm going to ask Ms. Daley to comment.

Mrs. Krista Daley: During that period of time, all of the divisions of the board, including the immigration division, received three days to five days of training on the new legislation, which was a review, of course, of the legislative provisions. And as issues have continued to come up over the last year and a half, that division has continued to be trained on these. As with any new statutory provision, it's fair to say that it's really going to be as the cases evolve and the Federal Court interprets those sections that we get a final, in essence, definition of what is transnational crime, for example. But these are issues where the division is aware of the cases and has been trained with respect to them and renders decisions on them.

Mr. Art Hanger: I think this is a fairly important issue when it comes to national security. I'm pleased to see that it's built into the act. I also recognize, though, the intense training aspect. I don't care if it's for a police officer, or a court, or a judge or whoever, it requires a lot of expertise passed from one group to another. I would suggest that it sounds as though we may almost be vulnerable in this particular point if we're waiting for a Federal Court judge to come down with the decision on what's acceptable or what isn't. I can tell you what a transnational crime is or what's involved in people smuggling or theft of identity.

À (1005)

Mrs. Krista Daley: Maybe I could clarify that. I didn't mean to leave the impression that we were waiting for the Federal Court. What I meant to say was that our decision-makers are trained and there's an analysis that's done looking at just a dictionary definition, for example, of what's transnational crime and what we can gather from all of the various research writings on the point, etc. And they are trained on that basis, and then as independent decision-makers they take that information that's been provided to them and render a decision on it.

My point on the Federal Court was simply that the way the process works is that ultimately the Federal Court will do the definitions for everything in the new act, what is terrorism as it's defined in the act, what is transnational crime, and all of those various provisions. So it wasn't meant at all to indicate that we are simply passively waiting for the Federal Court. These are decisions that have to be made now, and we have really worked very diligently to make sure all the information that was out there, for example, on transnational crime, was available to our decision-makers.

Mr. Art Hanger: Do you call in experts again—I don't care if it's the RCMP that investigate crimes such as this, or prosecutors—so there's an understanding by those making a decision? Again, I see that it has been recognized that this is a very important part of our security. Given the environment of today, I would assume there are some very specific processes involved.

Who's doing the training?

Mrs. Krista Daley: Perhaps I can also follow up on that. I don't have the answer right now--maybe Mr. Fleury does or Marilyn does--as to whether or not that happened in this particular situation.

With respect to the legality of it, legal services, my unit, works with the division on that interpretation. Because we are an independent tribunal, there are issues around the extent to which we can bring in outside bodies to train our board members on these points. Perhaps we could get back to this committee with respect to that information.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, I would like to see that.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: May I qualify that?

Mr. Art Hanger: Do we still have time?

Yes.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: May I add that I indicated to you that we don't necessarily have a backlog in that division, but we have pressures. It is complex work. There are some new fields in terms of determinations. We're watching that very closely.

Mr. Art Hanger: That's a lot of hearings, all the same.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: The other question I have reflects back to the earlier questions of one of my colleagues.

There were 35,400 refugee protection claims finalized during the year; 46 of these claims resulted in claimants being determined convention refugees, 36 were rejected, and the other 18 were either withdrawn or declared abandoned. Withdrawn or declared abandoned--in other words, I would have to consider that is a revocation of a refugee claim. Would that be a fair statement?

Mrs. Krista Daley: No, that is not called a revocation of a refugee claim. The abandoned class is a class where the person, for whatever reason, did not communicate with the board. For example, the person did not appear for a hearing or did not show up for a date that we set. Then we advise them that they are being set down for what's called a show cause hearing. That's abandoned.

A withdrawn claim is where the person, on their own initiative, writes to the board and says “I would like to retract my application for refugee status.”

Those are the two categories.

Mr. Art Hanger: What is the revocation? Are the 36% who were rejected the revocation?

Mrs. Krista Daley: No, revocation is a different one.

There is the acceptance rate, which are positive decisions, where you are a convention refugee. There is the negative rate, which is where you are not a convention refugee. Then there are withdrawn and abandoned claims. Then there is actually a very small percentage—you were using the word “revocation” and that's the closest—which are called applications to vacate or applications for cessation of the claim.

À (1010)

Mr. Art Hanger: How many of those were rendered?

Mrs. Krista Daley: I don't have those statistics.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: We'll get them.

Mrs. Krista Daley: I can tell you that it is a relatively small number.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

Mrs. Krista Daley: I have one more point on that, if I may. I only want to make sure that we have the language down.

It's actually the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who brings those applications to us. If the person was found to be a refugee, the minister then brings those to us to, in essence, revoke or vacate that decision.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is that reason shared with other IRB members, locations and regions?

Mrs. Krista Daley: Sorry, is what shared?

Mr. Art Hanger: When there is a revocation, there are reasons for revocation.

Mrs. Krista Daley: They would be issued, yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: Will all regions and all IRB members have access to that information?

Mrs. Krista Daley: As you know, the reasons for the decisions of the board are not available to the public as a matter of course.

Mr. Art Hanger: No, I don't mean public.

Mrs. Krista Daley: Yes, I know that.

Within the board, certain decisions are certainly circulated among all the members of the board. Others make their way into training sessions and into various processes.

As to whether it's done as a matter of course for those applications, perhaps we can also get back to you on that point.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

First, judging from the workload we get in our constituency office, I really appreciate the hard work that the members of your organization do. We get many, many cases that we feel are unjust; then we find out that we only know 10% of the facts. We write a letter or make a presentation to the minister, and ask him, “Well, do you know what happened here?” Then we have to say we didn't know that the guy was married to somebody else. He came in to apply, but he has a kid in some other country. He was gone, and then he comes back.

It's very, very complicated and a very difficult job, which is why I'm saying that I really appreciate the hard work you do.

I want to make a comment on two questions raised by my colleagues on the Liberal side. First of all, on the Palestinian issue, I have received many presentations on that issue, too. I understand that one or two people will be deported today, or may have been deported yesterday. This is a very, very serious issue for the Arab community, and especially the Palestinian community. They've been here for a long time, and they feel they're being targeted—if I may use that phrase—or unjustly treated.

As my colleague said, where are they going back to? This person was born in a refugee camp, which in itself makes you a refugee. I've been to those refugee camps, and I've seen the conditions. I'm not saying, “Those poor economic refugees”, but they have a really difficult political situation. If you turn on the news, you see what's happening over there every day. That's my point one.

I would ask you if there is a way we can work together. I know we cannot discuss these issues with the judges, but I hope you're much freer than a judge and that we can communicate. I think we have to address this issue in a very positive, very compassionate way.

The other point that my colleague Massimo made is about waiting for six or seven years. As he said, in six or seven years' time, the young man or young woman may meet somebody, get married, have kids, have a job, buy a house, and have a mortgage. All of a sudden, six or seven years afterwards, he is told, “You know, Joe, you have to go.” In response, the guy says, “Go to where?” In the meantime, six or seven years after the original claim, things have changed and regulations in the department have changed.

My question is, do you judge them by the current regulations, or do you judge them by the regulations that applied at that time? That's my second question.

My third question is about your mentioning that your intake has been lowered by, I don't know, a certain percentage or number of cases. A while ago, we signed a treaty with the Americans giving them a safe third country. Has that aspect of the agreement had any impact on reducing the refugee claims in the country? Was the actual number you mentioned the result of the Safe Third Country Agreement or other factors?

So I have three questions for you. Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Thank you.

First of all, we apply the law case by case, on its own merits. In terms of new information, or recent information, we have a documentation centre that provides information on country conditions for the people who render a decision. So people can give us information that we factor in, in terms of the documentation.

In terms of the Safe Third Country Agreement, we have had discussions with the department, which is obviously responsible for that agreement. In the cost projection on our future needs that we've shown to you, we have factored that in. We monitor it closely. It's a moving target as to whether it's going to decline that much, or whether we're going to get a rush before the agreement comes into play, with more people coming our way.

So to answer your question, the safe third will definitely have an impact on my operations. We don't know the full impact, but we factor that in when we're in discussions with Treasury Board in terms of our long-term projections.

I think you also had a point of law that Ms. Daley would be able to answer.

À (1015)

Mrs. Krista Daley: Your third point, I believe, was what regulations are we applying and in what time? You talked about the example of a six-year process.

What I can say in terms of our process—which is certainly not the six years; it might be the total number of years a person is in the system—is that on the day of a hearing into a refugee claim, we apply the law that's in place on that day and the country conditions that are in place on that day. So let's say they'd been in the country already for two years. On the day that we actually determine the claim, it's the law on that day, plus the country conditions in that country on that particular day.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: On that point, Madam Chair, if you recall, there was a lawsuit against the government when we changed the regulations for immigration, and the court said you have to go back to when the applications were made. So you're going against that court decision.

Mrs. Krista Daley: No, it's simply in a different context from that decision.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I know it's different, but doesn't it apply to you? It's only fair that when I come to you and make an application on this day, I'll be judged based on this day, not on six years down the road.

Mrs. Krista Daley: The refugee process is simply a different process, because what you're looking for when a person is a refugee is their fear in the future. So let's say a refugee comes into the country on January 1 of a given year, and then we determine the case in September of that year. In September the question we ask ourselves is whether they have a fear in the future if they return to their country. Not do they have a fear in January, when they arrive, but do they have a fear for the future? And that's just the way the refugee definition works, as the court has interpreted it for us.

So it's very logical in the refugee context that it's the future, which is a different context from the regulation issue that you mentioned, if that helps.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome. I was at another meeting, so I was delayed.

I have a couple of questions.

You indicated you have a backlog of around 52,000. I imagine there must be great pressure on you. It's a very difficult job you face. Can you tell me what your plan is now to reduce this backlog? Perhaps you have some estimate of within what span of time you can do that. As my colleague said, it's so unfair for people to wait indefinitely. You cannot ask people to put their lives on hold. That's the first one.

The second one is this. I know you have many very complicated cases. I'm from B.C. There's one famous one, Lai Changxing, which perhaps some of you know, that caused a great deal of concern, quite a disturbance in the community. Also, when we have an official visit in China, literally, we are asked about this case.

I'm not very clear. I hate to ask specifically, but this is the only chance I have officially. Why was this couple, very clearly...? We don't know, because we cannot judge until he is proved to be guilty. Also, his conduct was in China, in another country.

The thing is that a very unfavourable picture was presented. He also was allowed to live in an apartment, not luxurious, but still very middle class, and he was treated quite differently. There was a great deal of misinterpretation on both sides. I don't know if your board was ever involved in that. I just want to know.

This famous couple still live in Canada. I know it's no longer in your hands, but the process was so unclear. They were handled as being special, being given special treatment, and in the meantime, it is clear that they are very much wanted criminals in China. So you caused a great deal of diplomatic tension.

I just wonder if you could answer my two questions. Thank you.

À (1020)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: I'll proceed with the first question, and with respect to specificity, Ms. Daley will comment.

The action plan...I wish I could use another name. It was designed by staff, public servants, Governor in Council appointees, people who knew their work. My sense was that bringing in consultants and outside help was not the way to go. You had to do it with the people who knew the work.

They came to Ottawa and they spent three weeks. We started to look at and dissect every movement we made in terms of the determination process, in terms of how we behave in conducting hearings, how we would prepare our files. Because everyone was coming from different working conditions, they saw the total picture, and we designed what we considered to be the most effective way of working with claims.

But the action plan is not only about process; it's about people. We deal with people. The people who work within my organization have pride in their work. My view was that if you can do it better, for goodness sake, use your imagination, use your innovation; we'll do it--because we can do a lot of things if we put our minds to it.

As I said in the opening remarks, we said it would be unfair for refugees presenting themselves in front of us if they were treated differently in Toronto than in Montreal, because we don't have normalization in how we deal with them. So we did that. It wasn't standardization; it was normalization. It was a question of making our approach consistent.

The other thing we've talked about, of course, is what are the tools the decision-maker needs from me, as chair, because I have the power to give guidelines? What are the things we could do for the decision-maker to give them the right tools to make a solid, well-founded decision?

With the help of legal and everyone, we have initiated.... Right now, as I speak, we're in training. We did Vancouver, Toronto, and Ottawa. We're training our staff on how to conduct hearings. In terms of refugee determination, it is an inquiry that we're conducting; it is not a court. So we're trying to focus on what the issues are when people come in.

The chair and the refugee protection officer will now, in the future, lead the questions, rather than counsel. With all of that, when you take every little piece, it turns out we have been able, in the early stages of issuing determinations, to make 30% more decisions. I'm very careful about that, because I want to keep that momentum. That's what we did.

I'm going to leave it at that, because I could speak for hours. As you can tell, I'm very passionate about this. It was innovation. It was taking the resources we have. In terms of the future, as we indicated, the resource issue is important, how we do innovation is important, and at the end of the day, it's about my staff and the people we meet. It's about human issues, not only process. So we try to balance the three.

In terms of the second question, Ms. Daley may want to respond.

À (1025)

Mrs. Krista Daley: You've asked some very specific questions about the Lai decision. In fact, most of your issues are not issues within the jurisdiction of the IRB. Given the independence of the institution, we really can't comment further with respect to that decision.

Ms. Sophia Leung: They did declare as refugees. You remember the Lai case?

Mrs. Krista Daley: Yes, I remember the Lai case, but we really can't comment on specific cases, given the independent nature of the tribunal.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Oh, I see.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Do you have a question?

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: I have to say that I appreciate Sophia's question, because I think those questions are repeated time and time again across the country by similar decisions that have come out of the refugee board. Unfortunately, there seems to be something missing in this evaluation that will shut some people out who should be shut out and let some in who really are deserving. That brings me to my question.

Who actually monitors the decisions of the board members, and why is it that consultants are still going member shopping or region shopping, looking for people, board members, with very low refusal rates, so they can get their clients in?

This is a question that came up years ago, and yet it's still repeating itself across the country, as if no information is being shared with other board members, or as if there's a fear that if they don't come in with a positive decision, they may lose their job or be questioned about their position.

I guess I'd like to hear some answers on the particular point about why board members with low refusal rates are being selected by consultants. I've had consultants come and tell me that personally, so I know it's still going on.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: First of all, let me start with the decision-making. The independence of the person rendering the decision, called a member, is set out in law. It is respected, and one has to be very careful.... I think you mentioned monitoring. The members have the legal department that they can consult in terms of clarifying points. That's an assistance they have, but at the end of the day, the member's decision is the member's decision.

Each member, roughly, has a coordinator. The person is also a member. They have discussions after decisions have been rendered, but it is not a monitoring as to whether the member went positive or negative. That is not the issue.

As a matter of fact, I don't keep specific statistics on individuals. It has happened that we had to produce them through access to information, but from our point of view it doesn't change anything. It is an independent person rendering a decision based on the facts they have in front of them, based on law, based on court decisions that have been used as guides. That is how it works.

It is unfortunate if it happens—and I shouldn't say if—that some people prefer appearing before one member than another. I think that is unfortunate. We decide who hears the case and we do not look at people with respect to percentages of favourable or non-favourable, or saying people are refugees or not. So it is unfortunate that it happens, and especially in small regions where we have fewer members than in others.

I don't know if I've answered the question. It is a difficult one to get at without—

Mr. Art Hanger: It is a difficult one. I just wondered when and if the board was going to curb the activities of consultants who want to go from one region to another region. I'm not even talking about one board member to another or that kind of a choice.

If you would like me to bring forward specific reasons or instances, I could do that. If we're going to start digging around into it, we'll dig around into it.

À (1030)

Mrs. Krista Daley: As I'm thinking here and trying to respond to you as to what would be our framework for actually controlling the movement of counsel, I think you really run up almost immediately against a claimant's right to choose their counsel of choice.

It's not an absolute right, but they get to also choose their own counsel. If I understand the situation, you're indicating that a counsel might advise their client to move to another region, so they could get another board member--

Mr. Art Hanger: Who comes in with a higher acceptance rate.

Mrs. Krista Daley: Then you run into issues of whether we can control the fact that a refugee claimant is then moving to another city and, when they get to that city, whether or not they can choose their counsel.

I don't have a lot that I can provide you. I'm trying in my own mind to think of what that framework would look like.

Mr. Art Hanger: We could get into it a little bit more. I know that my time is out.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Ms. Folco.

[English]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have to run. I appreciate your coming in.

[Translation]

I would like to come back to the claimants who appear on video. I understand the rationale for this measure: it allows you to proceed more quickly and avoid having members travel from one part of the country to another. I understand it, but only as an administrative solution.

But I am trying to see this from the point of view of the claimants. First of all, many of them come from third world countries. They are not necessarily familiar with this type of technology, in this case, teleconferencing. And then—and I am referring to the real claimants—some of them have been mistreated or tortured. So to have a camera in your face when arriving in a country to seek refuge can be a reminder of some traumatic experiences.

Finally, thanks to linguistic research, among other things—I am a former linguist—we know that when an individual speaks into a camera or into a telephone and the interlocutor—as we call it in my jargon—is not physically present, but is there with the help of technology, this can create a psychological barrier. In some cases, for those who have experienced some trauma in their own country, this can be a major obstacle.

In view of these factors, do you think it would be possible to select those who will take part in this type of teleconference accordingly, or would it be possible to do away with the system altogether?

À (1035)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: I am constantly asked about the use of video, and with good reason, because we have had to step up the process to respond to demand. The first case that I heard was by video on a panel in Winnipeg. It had been seven years since I had worked with that type of technology and I realized that there had been great improvements in the clarity and exchange of information.

I would not go so far as to say that video will one day replace a human presence or face-to-face contact, but it is an important tool that is legally acceptable and is used in other jurisdictions.

However, we do take care in using the technology. Take the case of someone who is unrepresented, a youth or a person with serious language difficulties—even if interpreters are available—or someone with personal problems. If this type of case can be so complex that it might last a full day, for example, we try to use our judgment and not proceed in that context, and we consider the possible use of representations. But the only other choice the individual would have would be to wait another 18 months instead of having an immediate hearing.

Some people I have met have told me that it was not an ideal way of doing things, but at least their case would be heard and they would know what to expect.

The lawyers, the interpreters and the members are also realizing that we are learning as we go. There are weekly conferences at an operational level to see how things are progressing.

We must also remember that in terms of our organization, 68 per cent of the cases are heard in Toronto, and I have resources that could be put to better use in Vancouver and in Montreal.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I don't doubt that, sir.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: That is what I am trying to do. This year, if memory serves, our objective is to hear 3,000 claims on video, by March. In Vancouver, in Mexico and... Before moving too quickly with video, I redeployed decision-makers from Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary to Toronto. But it is quite costly; we did it for almost six months, and it was quite expensive. And even if these people enjoy the experience, especially at the outset, of going to see what is happening elsewhere, after a while, because of their family obligations, they would prefer to work closer to home. So there is the issue of costs, and the redeployment.

So the decision that I had to make, to accelerate the use of video, is mine alone and I am responsible. We do a weekly monitoring, and we have tried to determine which category of case this is most suited to, and we are paying close attention to the representations.

I will ask Ms. Daley if she has something to add about the legal aspect.

Ms. Krista Daley: No, I have nothing to add.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Do I have time for one brief question, Madam Chair?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): A brief one.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: We could do it on video!

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Oh! no, I do not like to talk into a camera. I like to speak to someone face to face, because you can learn a lot through body language.

As to the third safe country, take the case—and I am asking this out of personal interest—of someone who leaves a country, who goes to a second country without obtaining any legal status from the government of this second country, without receiving any service from the government, and so on. If that person were to decide to go on to a third country, and chose Canada, and applied for refugee status as a real refugee—and I am not wondering about whether or not he is a real refugee, but rather about the second country—would he be considered a refugee when arriving in Canada? If he had no contact with the UNHCR in the second country, nor with that country's government, and if he was not entitled to services in that second country and if that is why he came to Canada to seek refugee status, what would be the board's position?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: I will ask Ms. Daley for some help. I must add that we understand the principle and the concept but the specifics depend on the regulations. I am not familiar with the specific aspects of the regulations.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I imagine it also depends on the country.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Yes.

[English]

Mrs. Krista Daley: Just so I'm clear in my own mind, you're saying a person is from a first country, and they in essence transit through a second country, probably for a period of time, but in that second country they don't really receive any benefits and they're just literally in transit, and then they come to Canada?

À (1040)

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes.

Mrs. Krista Daley: Okay.

With respect to the law, the only thing I'm thinking of here would be article 1.E of the convention, which would be a possibility that the person could be excluded if--and this is the big if--in that second country they had almost the rights of a national.

In your scenario, it didn't sound like they would have the rights of a national. So no, I would think that type of person then could come to Canada. They'd make their refugee claim against their first country, their country of nationality, and in all likelihood, that sojourn in a second country would be questioned. There would be questions about what was going on there, what happened there, but it wouldn't appear to me that it would be an automatic bar to a refugee claim.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: If that person was recognized in that second country by UNHCR as being a refugee, what would that person's status be, then, as regards Canada?

Mrs. Krista Daley: As regards Canada.... So they would come to Canada and make their refugee claim here, but they had already been determined by the UNHCR.

What would happen there, or could happen there, is that it's actually an eligibility issue to have their claim referred to us, and the statute indicates that if a person has been recognized as a convention refugee by a country other than Canada--

Ms. Raymonde Folco: UNHCR is not a country.

Mrs. Krista Daley: I can get back to you if I'm wrong on this, but I don't see that it then becomes an eligibility issue.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: An ineligibility issue.

Mrs. Krista Daley: Yes, an ineligibility issue, and if I'm inaccurate on that, I'll get back to you.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'd appreciate it very much. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Assadourian.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

As you see, Mr. Fleury, this is a very exciting issue for members of Parliament and, I am sure, for your group too.

As members of Parliament, we travel around the world, and we have a chance to sit in on interviews in foreign embassies on immigration or visa applications, whatever the case may be.

What are our chances if some of us volunteer to sit in on an IRB hearing, if it's possible, just to get first-hand information, first-hand knowledge of the way the system works? In Brampton, if I would like to sit in on an IRB hearing, is that okay or is it against your policy?

Mrs. Krista Daley: Do you want me to clarify that?

These hearings are not public, so in that sense there's no--

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Well, I go as a member of Parliament to sit in on visa hearings at overseas embassies; I don't go there as John Henry of Brampton.

Mrs. Krista Daley: Yes, but certainly within the legislation it's very clear that these are in camera hearings, and I believe we would take the approach that we would want to ask the consent of the refugee claimant for you to be there.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So if the refugee claimant agrees to it, it's possible.

Mrs. Krista Daley: You would in essence be an observer to the hearings.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So can I ask you a favour? If there's a chance for me to attend one of those hearings in the Brampton area or the GTA area, please let me know. I'd be happy to attend, if it's possible. I would appreciate that.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Yes, sure.

We have no sittings there. It's in Toronto.

Mrs. Krista Daley: It's downtown.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Wherever, whatever. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Hanger.

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Madam Chair.

To continue on with that point, I know that when it comes to specific consultants wanting to do the best for their client, whether it's a $5,000 fee or a $10,000 fee—I've heard that some of them even go higher than that—they will extend themselves beyond the region, and even the locale that they're in, to find specific members, to send their client, through their connections, to another city. In my estimation, that's region shopping. It's not a denial of the claimants having the choice of what counsel they may want; it's a specific target, going after a specific judge, if you will. It's not a client looking for counsel; it's counsel and the client looking for a judge.

This has been going on for some time. What kinds of checks and balances are in the system that may pay attention to that?

The only way I can see that happening is to look at the level of decisions or the types of decisions that come out of the specific members.

That brings me to another point, which goes back to Sophia's point. When the decision has been made by a member and there is a clear indication, after the fact, that there's a real problem with this individual, what is done in follow-up with that particular member and the decision that came out of it?

We're talking about what affects the security of our country. I think the onus comes back on someone within the department or within the board to examine what on earth happened. Otherwise, where's the accountability?

À (1045)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: On the first issue, if I may, in Toronto and in Montreal we've tried, as much as possible...and I stand to be corrected; if I'm not right, I will send you a note. People do not know who will chair the hearing. When they're asked to come to the hearing, it doesn't say who the chair will be. So from that point of view....

Now, possibly in smaller regions—in Calgary, for instance, I only have seven people who decide—if someone wants to make an end run at our scheduling or at what we're trying to do as an independent decision-maker, I'm sure there may be a possibility. For instance, it could be that some people do this, but I don't know. If they see who will be the chair, or all of a sudden someone is sick or they're missing someone, they'll try to bring the schedule down. It is up to us to be diligent in those instances, to see if there is any foundation in this last-minute arrangement.

All I can say is that in the larger regions it would be harder to do. We're very diligent.

As part of the action plan, there are three new initiatives included in there, one of which is that right now 38% of the cases that we schedule go down, and that's too high. We were at about 40% two years ago. We are now working hard so that it's going to be quite tough to say that something happened at the last minute. We would still proceed. We would have to, because due notice was served and everything. So we're trying to ensure there are no technicalities or things like that.

But it is difficult, and we're trying to apply due diligence on that. It's the only thing I can say on the question of consultants who could conceivably be shopping.

Mrs. Krista Daley: The only thing I would add is that I've been thinking about it since the time you asked the question the last time, because once again, I'm still trying to work out the framework for how this might come about. The only other thing I'd bring your attention to is that if a person is actually making an application to move the hearing from one city to another, they.... Sorry, let me step back.

A person is normally assigned, when they first come in, to go to a particular office. They go to Calgary, they go to Toronto, or they go to Montreal. If they want to change the location, they must bring an application to us to do so. We look at various factors. For an issue like that, if we suspected the factors that they brought to our attention were not bona fides and they might be doing it for other purposes, perhaps like form shopping, then we would look at it in the context of determining that application.

Mr. Art Hanger: How many times have you had to do that?

Mrs. Krista Daley: I do not have those statistics.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Go ahead, Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to come back to something I raised earlier; other colleagues have raised this as well. I have just been given some recent information.

First of all, I would like to deal with the uneven acceptance rate for refugees of Palestinian origin coming from Lebanon. Since Palestine is not recognized as a country per se, you indicate "Lebanon". There are Palestinians arriving from Lebanon.

Some judges have a zero per cent acceptance rate, while others accept 100 per cent. Some have scores of 14 per cent, 72 per cent, 50 per cent. There is a score for every group of ten between zero and 100, for the same type of case, the same situation. For Palestinians coming from the occupied territories, the rate is between 25 per cent and 100 per cent. For Palestinians in Montreal, according to the lawyers that I have consulted and who have gathered the data, between July 2001 and July 2003, 25 cases were heard, 4 members were involved, and the results ranged from 17 per cent to 100 per cent.

I do not see how this can be explained. These people have been well trained, they have been apprised of the same situations, their life experiences are more or less equivalent, yet the results vary between 17 per cent and 100 per cent. How can you say that justice is being served when the rates vary between 17 per cent and 100 per cent for the same file? It is hard to swallow.

I realize that you have noted my earlier suggestion for a better type of monitoring, but why have you not ever realized that these disparities existed? As a result, there are people being deported today or about to be deported following arrests being made this morning. It is because of decisions made by your members that the minister is in hot water today because those Palestinians may or will be deported, and where will they go? To the Aïn el-Hiloueh camp, in Lebanon, for example.

These people have fled. Where they came from, there is no country, no mechanism, no courts. There is nothing. They have refugee camps. They are already recognized as refugees over there. They come here and we do not know whether or not they are refugees. A board member says yes in 17 per cent of the cases; another one says something else.

What type of system is this? Can you explain it to me so that people will understand that you have in your hands a tool which is a tribunal responsible for justice and fairness? How can you explain that to me?

À (1050)

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: I believe that I was very honest with you when I said that I have not analyzed this myself. Was this done before I arrived? I will look into it. If there are any type of analyses available, the only thing that I can do is to make a note of your comments here today.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Fleury, ladies, I am sure you feel that you have had a very busy two hours.

I would like to thank all of the colleagues who were active participants, because our meetings cannot be very interesting if members do not ask questions.

As there is at least a fifty-fifty chance that this committee as presently constituted will not be meeting again, I will act as a real chairperson. I said the chances were fifty-fifty. I am pleased to thank all of those who have helped us in our work. I would like to thank our parliamentary assistants and extend a special thanks to my assistant, Patrick, who seems to be in quite a state. There is also Bill and Ben, of course, who are extremely professional and who help us in every sense of the word, even bringing us cookies when we sit in the afternoon.

I would of course like to take this opportunity to thank you for being here and to wish you and our observers at the back of the room a very Merry Christmas. I must admit that in my 65 years, I have never been so early in wishing people a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Who knows? We might just end up having a year that is only 10 months long.

That is all. The meeting is adjourned.