PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 5, 1998

• 1532

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call this meeting to order.

We have a new member sitting at the table: Mrs. Wayne, representing the Progressive Conservative Party. Mrs. Wayne of course always adds some colour to any meeting; therefore, we welcome and look forward to enjoying her participation.

Today the orders of the day are, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), consideration of chapter 25 of the December 1997 report of the Auditor General of Canada dealing with Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board, regarding the processing of refugee claims.

We have as witnesses this afternoon Mr. Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada; Mr. Richard Flageole, assistant auditor general; and Mr. Serge Gaudet, a principal of audit operations from the auditor general's office.

From Citizenship and Immigration Canada we have Ms. Janice Cochrane, deputy minister; and Mr. Marc Lafrenière, associate deputy minister.

From the Immigration and Refugee Board we have Ms. Mawani, chairperson; Mr. Paul Thibault, executive director; and Mr. John Frecker, deputy chairperson, convention refugee determination division.

In keeping with the normal practice of the committee, we ask that the opening statements be contained to five minutes. I have asked the deputy minister and the chairperson to summarize their opening remarks, because I expect they're going to take more than five minutes.

Now we will ask the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Desautels, to start his remarks. Mr. Desautels.

Mr. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present the results of our audit of the processing of refugee claims.

Our observations and findings apply to both Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board, because these two bodies share responsibility for the processing of claims.

At the end of 1988 the system had developed a sizeable backlog of claims awaiting processing. To remedy the situation a new structure and a completely revised process for handling claims were put into place in January 1989. The expectations were clear: quick, equitable, and efficient resolution of claims and the removal of failed claimants. Other amendments were later made to the Immigration Act and regulations.

• 1535

We have found that results have been disappointing. We are particularly concerned by the size of the backlog, the lengthy processing times at both the board and the department, and the difficulty in carrying out removals.

At March 31, 1997, some 37,500 claimants were awaiting a decision on their claims by the department or the board. With respect to processing times, it's estimated that a person claiming refugee status can count on staying in Canada for more than two and a half years.

The issue of removals also warrants particular attention. At the end of our audit the department was able to confirm the departure of only 4,300 of the 19,900 persons who were to have left the country.

In short the process does not grant protection quickly to those who genuinely need it, and furthermore, it does not discourage those who do not require or deserve Canada's protection from claiming refugee status.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, the processing times for refugee claims are unacceptable for several reasons. First, the time it takes to arrive at decisions unduly prolongs the fear and uncertainty felt by refugees. Moreover, claimants settle in and create ties within Canadian society during this time. After a while, it becomes very difficult to remove them. In addition, the low rate of success in removing those who are not in need of protection fosters a perception that it is easier to immigrate to Canada by claiming refugee status than by going through the regular immigration programs.

Total costs related to refugees are unknown. However, the fragmentary data available indicate that the cost to the federal government is at least $100 million a year. In addition, it costs Quebec and Ontario each approximately $100 million a year in social assistance to refugee claimants. Savings could be made by speeding up the resolution of failed claimant cases.

Several factors contribute to the problems of the current system. We noted problems of efficiency and operational effectiveness and a lack of rigour at various stages in the process, which has a serious impact on the system's ability to meet expectations. A report provides the following examples, among others: first, we noted that 60% of claimants have no identification or travel documents; second, there is a high rate of turnover among board members; third, there are major discrepancies in acceptance rates among certain board offices; moreover, we found that 49% of hearings are adjourned or postponed; supplementary review mechanisms are slow and complex; and lastly, insufficient information is available to manage removals.

Furthermore, we noted that no one in the federal government monitors the overall processing of claims. Finally, from the reports submitted to them by the department and by the Board, parliamentarians are unable to assess the overall performance of activities related to refugee claimants.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, in our report we caution the government against making patchwork changes. The problems of the current claims process are complex and there is a need for a thorough review of the process. The entire infrastructure for co-ordination and control of activities needs to be improved.

It's also important to realize that in the event that the system is reviewed, it will be necessary to set out realistic expectations in keeping with the choices that Canadian society has made with respect to refugee-related issues.

On January 6 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration released the report of the immigration legislative review and advisory group. That report raises some basic questions about immigration and the refugee determination process. The government will have some difficult decisions to make following the consultations that are planned in relation to that report. Considering previous results, it will face a daunting challenge in trying to develop and implement a system to meet targeted objectives.

The government will likely propose legislative amendments to change the current process, and we support any such initiative and understand that this will take some time. We believe, however, that certain measures need to be taken immediately, regardless of the kinds of changes made. In addition to the need for better co-ordination between the department and the board, particular attention should be paid to the following questions: first, international co-operation and bilateral arrangements; information on the identity and origins of claimants; a sufficient number of experienced decision-makers at the IRB; strategies to improve uniformity and consistency in decisions; implementation of a strategy for removals and the need for information systems that will allow for improved management and accountability with regard to all activities related to refugee claims processing.

• 1540

Mr. Chairman, your committee has an important role to play in ensuring that the department and the board develop strategies and plans to remedy the weaknesses in their practices that we noted in our report. Any major review of the process should be supported by a detailed plan to properly manage the transition period and limit the negative effect on efficiency and effectiveness.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement. My colleagues and I would be quite happy to answer your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

The remarks of the deputy minister from Citizenship and Immigration, Ms. Cochrane, have already been distributed to all members. Perhaps you would care to summarize that for us in the next five minutes, please.

Ms. Janice Cochrane (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is a pleasure for us to be here with you today.

The auditor general's report and his opening comments identified a number of important areas where the system is not performing to our expectations.

[Translation]

I view these recommendations in a very positive light, because they are in line with some of our own conclusions, and will help us improve our delivery of services. We recognize that changes do have to be made.

[English]

I'm not saying the system is completely flawed. It's important for us to recognize that Canada has been consistently recognized, year over year, as a world leader in our refugee protection program. These successes are real, if not always as complete as we would wish. We can't and shouldn't ignore these facts.

Having said that, though, there is room for significant improvement. We recognize that and we're determined to improve. We know it's not an easy task and we know it won't happen overnight. We also know that there are certain parameters within which we must operate. For one thing, as I'm sure most of you know, the department and the IRB are meant to be separate entities. We do co-operate and share information to the maximum extent possible, but we can't undermine the intention of the Immigration Act, which set out to create a separate quasi-judicial determination process.

[Translation]

Other factors must also be taken into account. Before we talk about changes, we have to know exactly what we can do and what we cannot.

[English]

First of all, we only have a finite amount of resources. We have to set priorities and we have far more demand than we have resources. As good managers, we have to live within our means, and our planning and priority setting have to take this into account. This is one issue with which we must deal. There are others.

Our system and procedures face considerable legal pressures. We live in a society that places proper legal limits on the measures we can take. The auditor general has pointed this out. The system reflects the choices, the public policy choices, Canadians have made over the years on refugee-related issues.

Sometimes the courts and the legal procedures slow down our ability to remove individuals or to process claims. There has been a considerable amount of criticism that the system simply takes too long. I agree with this and we sympathize with this. No one likes to think about refugee families waiting in limbo, unsure about their future and also unable to engage fully in the important process of integration.

[Translation]

We have put a great deal of effort into rationalizing procedures in order to reduce claims processing times. However, there are some procedures we simply cannot abandon. For example, we cannot and will not compromise any aspect related to health or public safety, and will not compromise investigations into claimants' possible criminal records.

[English]

We also don't want people who legitimately need our help slipping through the cracks.

Finally, it's easy to say that we should remove people who don't belong in Canada, but accomplishing this is never so straightforward. Our borders aren't sealed, and often there are challenges that need to be addressed head on.

[Translation]

That said, I am not here to justify the way the system works, or to apologize for it. I know that processing times are sometimes unacceptably long. And sometimes, removals are difficult. We admit that, and we are doing everything we can to remedy the problem.

[English]

I'm happy to say that we've already taken action in several areas mentioned in the auditor general's report. We've developed a comprehensive removal strategy that will help us to streamline the system, and we have recently seen a steady increase in the removals rate for failed refugee claimants.

• 1545

We have been striving constantly to improve communications between ourselves and the IRB. In that regard, I would like to thank Mrs. Mawani and her staff for their ongoing co-operation in this matter and in helping with our portfolio management challenges and responsibilities.

[Translation]

Another issue raised by the Auditor General is greater international co-operation. Over the past 10 years, refugee movements and migrations have changed considerably worldwide, growing both in extent and complexity.

[English]

Refugee movements are a global problem that require global solutions, and we have to work with our partners in the international community to find lasting solutions.

Ladies and gentlemen, I can confidently say that we have made progress and we are heading in the right direction, but we recognize that much more needs to be done. We need to reform and modernize certain aspects of the system and we can't do it piecemeal. The auditor general has referred to the legislative review advisory group's report, which we received early in the new year. They have made extensive recommendations for a complete overhaul of the immigration and refugee system. The minister is looking at them very closely and will be consulting with various parties over the next six to eight weeks. She is determined, with our support, to bring much needed modernization to the immigration system.

I think we have to note realistically that it may take some time to implement those decisions. It took four years to put the legislation in place that created the current system, but we are laying the groundwork. The process that started a year ago continues today and it is building momentum. Meanwhile, we continue to work vigorously within the current system to address the shortcomings identified by the auditor general.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Cochrane.

I will ask Ms. Mawani to make her opening remarks now, please.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani (Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am pleased to be here with you today, along with my colleagues.

We would like to assist you as much as possible in the review of the auditor general's recommendations and the board's response to these findings.

Our mandate is not a simple one. The auditor general himself notes on several occasions in his report that the board has a difficult mission and is required to make sensitive decisions within a very complex operating environment. He also notes that the board has made efforts to improve the process and cautions that there are limits to the improvements that can be made in the performance under the existing system. He recommends, as we have just heard him say, a thorough review of the entire refugee claims process.

There has already been a reference to the recent report of the independent advisory committee commissioned by the minister. The report contains 172 recommendations and proposes some fundamental changes to Canada's immigration and refugee system.

Until the government decides what changes it wants to make to the governing legislation, we, the Immigration and Refugee Board, have to continue to fulfil our mandate, and this we will do. We remain committed to improving our performance and serving our clients simply, quickly, and fairly.

Having worked for a year with the audit team assigned to the board, the auditor general's report did not come as a surprise. We were aware of the problems and the recommendations the report focused on, having monitored our own operations on an ongoing basis. We therefore agree with the report's recommendations and we believe that they accurately reflect areas where improvements are needed.

We had begun to take up several of these challenges prior to the tabling of the report, and I will be sharing with you steps we have taken following the report's publication. We are also ready to assess how we can respond further to these recommendations.

The first recommendation suggests the development of a joint IRB/CIC department strategy to ensure co-ordination of efforts and a timely sharing of information between the board and the department. We are committed to working with the department on a portfolio management strategy. The groundwork has already been laid. We entered into an agreement in 1996, the administrative framework agreement. Mr. Chairman, subsequent to that, we have already entered into a series of subagreements. The first two on electronic information sharing and priorities co-ordination were signed on November 18, 1997. We are negotiating an additional two subagreements, which will assist us, we believe, in our ability to be more effective both for the department and for the IRB.

• 1550

Technology and the compatibility of information systems are also essential to the timely sharing of information, and we are discussing the technology and the cost implications of establishing an interface between our respective systems.

I believe the progress we are making at working more closely with the department will help to improve the ways we serve Canadians. I should tell you, however, that information technology solutions need time and money to implement. We will want to be sure that measures we undertake jointly are compatible with the direction the government may take on immigration and refugee matters and with our role as a tribunal.

The sharing of appropriate information between the immigration and refugee program partners is crucial to decision-making, and the quality of that information itself is equally important. The auditor general has stressed the necessity of providing board members with consistent, high-quality information. Much work remains to be done in this area, but we are making inroads. The auditor general, in his report, notes that the board places great importance on the training of its members and provides a complete training program.

Turning our attention to our own internal processes, the recommendation in the auditor general's report underlines the need for us to improve our own operational practices and monitoring mechanisms. I think we're moving in the right direction. For example, last fall we adopted an action plan requiring each regional office to sign a contract and to develop a plan with targets to increase regional productivity in the refugee determination area.

The recommendation in the auditor general's report with respect to organizational climate and a lack of common vision among our employees has also been responded to. Last August, senior management adopted a vision statement, a critical part of our mission, values, and vision package. We are in the course of integrating this vision into all parts of our operations.

Finally, the auditor general stresses the need to provide adequate information to parliamentarians. We have always recognized the importance of the accountability process, and we have participated with sixteen departments and agencies in the Treasury Board pilot project on improved reporting to Parliament.

So, Mr. Chairman, we have begun to find solutions to areas requiring action. I view these initial steps as a starting point to further change and improvement. We are looking at further ways to act on the recommendations that address the board's operations.

We are presently training board members to render more oral decisions. We believe this will shorten the hearing process, and our target is to increase the percentage of oral decisions to 75% by March 1999.

On our commitments to Parliament, you may remember that we made two major commitments to Parliament in our report on plans and priorities for the years 1997-1998 and 1999-2000 regarding our pending inventory and processing times, these two being very central to the concerns that have been expressed. We said we would reduce our caseload to 15,000 by March 2000. We also committed to reducing the processing time to no more than eight months by September 1998.

Our success in meeting these objectives was predicated upon a series of caveats, including the passage of legislation for single-member hearings, a full complement of members, and the retention of experienced members. If all of these matters had come to pass, and if we had had the required complement of fully trained members, we would have reached our goal of reducing our processing time to eight months by the date committed to, meaning September 1998.

We have now reviewed our forecasts and based them on more conservative assumptions without single-member panels. With a steady complement of board members at present levels and a yearly intake of around 25,000 referral, however, we expect our processing times to be at eight months by the fiscal year 2000-2001, with an inventory of 19,000 cases. This assumes an increase in our productivity, and I'm very confident that with the initiatives I have described to you we will realize these productivity gains.

Mr. Chairman, I have provided your committee with an overview of our response to the recent report and have expressed our willingness to work with you so that the findings are addressed by the IRB.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Mawani.

Mr. Grewal, you have eight minutes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1555

Thank you for the presentation.

I went through the auditor general's reports and I heard his recommendations. I found out that at every step in the refugee determination process there are flaws and flaws and flaws. The auditor general's report is very extensive and it gives a total highlight of the problems. I would like to go one by one to the various problems since the time is limited.

The first question is about the refugees who enter Canada. Sixty percent of the refugees who are accepted come without documents. You and I know, and anyone who has travelled knows, that when you buy a plane ticket and sit on the plane you have to have documents. But when you are in the plane going from point A to point B...when you are at point B you get out of the plane without documents. Other people who are travelling in the same plane don't lose documents to the tune of 60%. Why do refugees lose their documents by 60%, and what are the actions taken about it?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Mr. Chair, perhaps I could address that question.

There is no simple answer to that question. We do work with the airlines and we do assess them fees on a sliding scale, depending upon their performance at preventing people from boarding planes without documents. We do check at embarkation points.

The simple fact is the smuggling industry has become a growth industry worldwide. It is not difficult to obtain false documents of a very high quality, which are often recycled in the air, on the plane, to smugglers who happen to be on the aircraft with the potential refugee claimants. They may destroy their documents while they're in the air, they may be recycled back to the smugglers, or when they get off the plane at the point of disembarkation they disappear if they're not streamed at that point. There is a variety of reasons, some of which we speculate on, but in other cases we know of the various practices of the smugglers.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam, we know the reasons, but what are the actions taken by your department? What are the steps taken, one, two, three? What is the success rate in taking those steps, if there are any steps taken? Can you highlight them?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: A number of steps are being taken. First of all, we do work with the airlines. We train our airline personnel. We have a network of control officers strategically located worldwide. They work with airline personnel to check documents and to detect fraudulent documents. There are methods for detecting them, but we're not 100% successful in every case.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Do you have any figures to indicate to us how many people are sent back—those who do not have documents—after you've initiated those steps? How many airlines have been fined after you have taken those steps?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: I can tell you that there has been a 50% decrease in the airline traffic since we started to take those steps. We have established our network worldwide. We in fact are training other countries and developing an international intelligence system so we can share best practices with other countries as well.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But why is a drastic, strong step like this not taken? For instance, when somebody is coming as a refugee to Canada, the person knows that success rate of refugees, or that Canada is a refugee heaven. That's why they're coming without documents. When they come to Canada, they know this is the situation here. Why do they have to hide? Why do their documents have to be missing? If they have false documents, let them present their false documents. Why do documents completely disappear?

Second, once we know the documents have disappeared, why don't we stand at the gate and send them back right away?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: We can't do that, according to the law.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: In Germany, for instance, if you go to any airline, if you are at the gate and you don't have the documents, you will be sent back right away. You cannot get down from the plane.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: We don't do that here. We can't do that here. When people here are eligible to make claims, they're assessed on an issue of credibility. Many people can't get documents in the countries from which they are fleeing, so we can't assume they're all here illegally. There are many reasons why people lose their documents en route. As I indicated earlier, the smuggling industry likes to recycle the high-quality documents.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I'll go on to another point. There are close to 20,000 unaccepted refugees who are under deportation orders, and only 4,000 have been deported. What happened to those 16,000 people? Are they consumed in Canada, or where are they now?

• 1600

Ms. Janice Cochrane: We assume that many of them are still in Canada. We don't have a system that tracks every individual, and that is part of the problem we are looking at, with respect to which we might be able to find electronic solutions. They are in Canada and they are awaiting removal. In some cases they are not able to be removed because we are unable to obtain travel documents from the countries to which they will return. We've been pursuing, through bilateral channels with those countries, means by which we can encourage them to live up to their international obligations and to enable us to obtain the travel documents so we can move people out.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I think, Madam, the Canadian people welcome genuine refugees to Canada, but we don't need bogus refugees in Canada.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: We agree.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: We don't want people to abuse our system.

The immigration consultants follow our process, or the legal system and the Immigration and Refugee Board itself; they don't cause all the problems. It takes two and a half years for somebody to stall his case. By then they have developed family ties or some sort of familiarity with Canadians. When their case is rejected after more than two and a half years, then the person applies for general urgency processing, called humanitarian and compassionate grounds processing. Then it takes another two or three years before the case is through.

What are the steps being taken to reduce further subsequent delay through urgency processing? Can urgency be simultaneously settled with the refugee case?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Under the present system, no. We are taking other steps, though, to try to streamline the process. We have taken measures in the last year to speed up the post-claim risk review process. As part of our overall removal strategy, we're taking measures to encourage compliance. We're looking at more use of cash bonds, performance bonds, and that sort of thing.

Many people are taking advantage, during the time they're here, of the appeals that are open to them through the courts. We have very crafty lawyers in this country who have tied up many cases in the courts for many years, so the two-and-a-half-year period you're talking about on average often includes people who are taking advantage of the legal process in order to extend their stay.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I had more questions, but my time is over. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Desrochers, eight minutes, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): My first question is to Denis Desautels, the Auditor General. You indicate that, on March 31, 1997, 37,500 people were awaiting a decision on their claims. Has this been going on for some years now?

Mr. Denis Desautels: I will ask Mr. Flageole to answer your question.

Mr. Richard Flageole (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): If we look at the figures quickly, Mr. Chairman, we see that for the last three years, the figures were approximately as follows: 37,000 in 1996-97, 38,000 in 1995-96 and 36,000 in 1994-95. So, the number has remained roughly the same over that period.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: You say that it costs the federal government $100 million a year and that it costs the provinces an additional $100 million. Is that correct?

Mr. Denis Desautels: That is exactly what I said earlier in my statement.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Very well.

Ms. Cochrane, in your statement you said that you had some problems because you were short on staff and resources. In recent years, what cuts has your department sustained, or more specifically, what cuts has the Board sustained, and how did they affect the processing of refugee claims?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: I will ask Mr. Lafrenière to answer your question.

Mr. Marc Lafrenière (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I can't give you any exact figures, but, generally speaking, the Department of Immigration had cuts amounting to about 20 per cent in recent years under program review. I cannot tell you exactly what the cuts were specifically in the refugee area, but I should point out that under program review and the reorganization and restructuring of the department, our expenses actually increased in the area of referrals, which was the focus of your question. We did not make any cuts in those cases, but rather actually increased our expenditures and our efforts in an effort to improve our performance in this area.

• 1605

I will leave it up to Ms. Mawani to answer the question about the Immigration and Refugee Board.

[English]

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: We currently have a “case pending” load, a backlog, which we are concerned about. It is at about 28,000. As I said in my opening statement, we are committed to bringing that down, and we are confident we will be able to bring it down provided we have the fully trained members we need. I'm confident we will be able to bring that down to 19,000 by the year 2000 and that we will be able to reduce our processing time from the current 13 months to 8 months.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: You spoke about the Board's objectives, and you told us that you need resources. I asked whether your Board had sustained any cuts. Perhaps the very long time periods you spoke about are related to the cuts or to a shortage of staff. Perhaps a choice must be made: hire staff or ask taxpayers to pay $100 million both to the federal government and to Quebec.

[English]

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Mr. Thibault is going to respond to that.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Thibault (Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board): Our situation resembles that of the department. I believe that under program review our budget was reduced by about 15 per cent over four years. This cut did not change the number of Board members, and the focus of the organization was not affected unduly.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Do you know whether a staff increase could help reduce processing time and help both levels of government save money?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Obviously, if we had more staff, the processing time would be shorter.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Could you suggest how much shorter?

Mr. Paul Thibault: That is rather difficult in our case. As you know, in our office, new employees are not fully operational on the day they are hired, and proper training may take between 8 months and one year. We calculate that an average of 170 trained members working full-time would enable us to reduce the current period from 14 months to 8 months within three years.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Have you made any representations to your department about hiring extra staff to better meet the demands?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Of course. I don't know any government body whose staff numbers are optimal at all times. As I was saying, once our current staff is completely trained and operational, they should be able to reduce the current period from 14 months to 18 months within about two years.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I would like to continue by asking Ms. Cochrane if, as part of her assessment of the refugee application processing system, she investigated countries similar to Canada so as to determine whether the processing time takes as long as it does here, obviously relative to our economic system.

[English]

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Mr. Chair, let me correct the member, if I may. The study was done by an independent advisory group that looked at comparative analyses of Australia, the United States, and several European countries.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: What was the timeframe? Is it similar to the time taken in the United States, Australia and Canada?

[English]

Ms. Janice Cochrane: We don't have the precise information. That's not included in their report.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Do you intend to do that so as to better assess the system we have here?

[English]

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: With respect to that aspect, the legislative committee report to which Mrs. Cochrane has just referred does make a number of recommendations based on an analysis of other systems.

Just to go back to your earlier point, however, most other countries are going through very similar challenges in terms of the delay. There is also a difficulty in making comparisons between the Canadian system and other systems, because all systems are not the same. They are operating under completely different legal frameworks. It is therefore really very difficult to compare them until there is harmonization.

• 1610

The Chairman: You have time left for one very short question and answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Telegdi, you have eight minutes.

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

First of all, let me say that while the AG's report has identified some problems that we should be dealing with, every step of the refugee process is not full of flaws. I speak on this as a former refugee from Austria who ended up in Canada in 1957. Certainly, we have the open society that you have in a democratic system. Yes, there are going to be abuses. But what we strive to do within the context of the open society is determine how to balance the approach we take.

In a lot of ways Canada is pretty fortunate when you look at the refugee problem, because you're not going to get on a subway and get to Canada, which is the case in many European countries. You can get on the subway and arrive in Berlin; there you are, and you can claim refugee status. So we don't experience quite the same pattern of migration that other democracies do. There is no question that our democratic system and the institutions in our system have helped to create one of the best countries in the world.

Having said that, there are a few problems I'm particularly concerned about, and I wonder how we might deal with them. I think they pertain mostly to the IRB hearings. What kind of information are they getting? Let's say we have somebody applying as a refugee from the former Yugoslavia. It would seem to me that, given the historic nature of the conflict there, it's important for us to be on the ground in the former Yugoslavia, to have our officials and the RCMP working at finding out whether or not the people we have here in Canada are war criminals and whether or not they're accused of war crimes. I think it's a terrible situation when they come in and get into the process and then it becomes very difficult to get them out. It would seem to me this would be something we would give a very high priority to.

I'll address this to Ms. Mawani. Are there adequate resources for the board in terms of making that determination when they have people in front of them in a hearing, in determining if the persons we're dealing with are possibly war criminals?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I'm going to ask Mr. Frecker to deal with that.

Mr. John Frecker (Deputy Chairperson, Convention Refugee Determination Division, Immigration and Refugee Board, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): It's really a shared enterprise between the board and the department, because the issue of criminality is assessed first by the department before they even refer people to us. If a person is judged to be a war criminal, he or she wouldn't even be eligible to have a refugee claim determined. Some people get screened at that level.

When the cases come to us, it is a major concern. We have a considerable expenditure—I think it's about $5 million of our budget—that goes into research on country conditions and claim-specific research. We have a network of correspondents around the world from whom we get information about the circumstances of particular claims, and we try to take that information into account. In fact, that's one of the factors that contributes to some of the delays we experience, because getting that information often takes a lot of time. But it is an issue we deal with. It's a constant concern, not just with war criminals but for organized crime and that sort of thing in this age of social breakdown.

The system is not perfect, but in my travels, in talking to people in other systems, they tell us that the claim-specific research efforts we are making in that direction are in fact superior to what most other countries have.

• 1615

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: How many people do we have on the ground in former Yugoslavia, doing those kinds of background checks?

Mr. John Frecker: The board itself wouldn't.... The department, or External Affairs and other Canadian organizations, may have personnel. I defer to Madam Cochrane.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: We have a mission in Belgrade, and we work with other organizations in the area of the Balkans to obtain the kind of information we need in order to help provide the information to the IRB and also to our examining officers at ports of entry. We work with the UNHCR and other like-minded countries on the ground. I can't tell you exactly what the number of people is, but there is a considerable effort.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: How quickly would that check be made?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: I can't tell you that. I don't have that information.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It seems to me it's a very critical area, one we should be looking at, because often you find the discovery that somebody is accused of being a war criminal after they have cleared the process. Removing war criminals becomes very, very difficult.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Indeed it is.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The next question I have is this. When the situation arose with the Roma and the Czech Republic, it would seem to me virtually every Romany in eastern Europe would qualify as a refugee by our determination system. It takes us a while to respond to those concerns. In the case of the Czech Republic I think we responded fairly quickly. Are we prepared in the future to speed up that kind of response of requiring visas for people coming to Canada?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: In the case of the Roma we monitored the situation. We did not want to act hastily. We monitored the situation for several weeks before taking the decision to recommend to the minister that the visa should be reimposed.

Every country's conditions are different. I think the minister tries to act responsibly. She's always looking for a balance between not closing the doors to people who are in legitimate need and at the same time not opening the borders to people who would abuse the system. In the case of the Roma, we wanted to wait and see whether or not a number of decisions were starting to emerge from the IRB to give us a sense whether the claimants were legitimate refugees or not before we made our decision.

We had a similar case, you may recall, last year with Chilean claimants coming in through Montreal. We were faced with having to make an assessment fairly quickly that most of them were not refugees according to the convention but rather were economic refugees.

So it is different. A process of monitoring and exchange of information goes on, and it does vary country by country.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Would you not say most of the Roma qualified under our refugee definition?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: I'll have to ask Madam Mawani.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: John.

Mr. John Frecker: She gives me the tough ones.

These cases are currently before the board. We had a conference on the human rights situation in the Czech Republic, and certainly some very serious concerns were raised that there is extensive discrimination and there are some problems of state protection, problems acknowledged even by the president of the Czech Republic himself.

It's not clear whether they will qualify as refugees or not. I suspect some, possibly a considerable number, will be accepted, some probably not. It's really very case specific. There is a serious human rights problem for the Roma in that country and many of the former Soviet Bloc countries. There is migratory pressure because of that. But I would be reluctant to say they would all automatically qualify. A lot of the problems seem to be at the level of discrimination rather than persecution.

The Chairman: Mrs. Wayne, please.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'm pleased to be here with you. I look forward to working with all of you very closely. I understand this is a group where partisan politics doesn't play a role, and I'm pleased to see that, because it's so important.

I just want to say this is a very serious situation...when I had a opportunity to read the auditor general's report. Like all of my colleagues around the table, I'm sure, we've had people who have been to see us, people who are immigrants and who are having difficulties and so on. As you all know, coming from New Brunswick, many of them go to the churches now and live in the basement, looking for help. This has happened several times.

• 1620

I want to bring to your attention a statement made in the auditor general's report. He said that one of the factors that contributes to the problems of the current system is that there is a high rate of turnover among the board members. What brings this about? Board members are there for what, two years?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Terms vary. Under the legislation, members can be appointed for up to a seven-year term. In the past few years, we have had short-term mandates. This is what the auditor general has referred to in his report. We have begun to find that in the last round of appointments and reappointments; we have had longer terms, which will assist us.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Why were they short terms? For what reason?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: That is a matter for the Governor in Council.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I also note that he states, “There are major discrepancies among certain Board offices in acceptance rates”, and he has found that 49% of the hearings were adjourned or postponed. That's almost half of the hearings. After you have postponed them, why are you not picking up to finish and finalize those hearings? What happens?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I'm going to ask my colleague to deal with that, and to clarify the difference between a postponement and an adjournment as well.

Mr. John Frecker: The postponements would be cases that are scheduled to begin on a certain day and are delayed for reasons that arise prior to the hearing opening. Adjournments would be delays that take place in the middle of a hearing.

They can arise for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's that a person is sick or unable to proceed. At other times, as I mentioned, it's because we're doing a criminality check and we don't have the answer back, so we can't proceed on the scheduled day.

To move your cases through more quickly, you'll sometimes schedule two at the same time while knowing that one may go down. It then counts in the statistics as an adjournment, even though you've proceeded with another case on that day.

It is clearly a problem in our system, as it is in all courts, that you don't proceed at the scheduled time and conclude right away. When there's an adjournment, the cases do finish. We have in fact reorganized our case scheduling procedures to allow us to resume the cases within a matter of weeks when there is an adjournment now. In the earlier period, the resumptions were often quite protracted because we had difficulty finding availability for the panel to pick up the case again.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I note also that in the auditor general's report, he states that there is no information on the interdepartmental performance. I'm quite concerned about why there would not be a relationship whereby you would be able to work together in this regard. What happened? Why is there no information on that whatsoever?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: We have in fact established a portfolio management approach, which both Ms. Cochrane and I referred to, and which was in fact referred to in the auditor general's report. We entered into this framework agreement in 1997—in fact, it was in December 1996—and we have now had over a year's experience. It took almost eighteen months to negotiate these, and let me just suggest to you why.

The relationship between the department and the board has to be independent, but it is interdependent. It is independent because, necessarily, the board was set up to make independent decisions on a case-by-case basis. The appropriate level of co-ordination between the two organizations has therefore needed to be worked out so it would stand the test of a legal challenge as well. We know we are beyond that. We now have those agreements, we have subagreements, and we are entering into further agreements.

The important thing is that we are on the right track, and we are very confident that it's going to make a very big difference.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: This is my last question, Mr. Chairman.

I've noted over the past couple of years, particularly in our region, that when you are telling an immigrant that he or she must go back and does not have the right to be here in Canada, usually what the person will do is go to the United States, which isn't too far from where I'm at, and then they apply from the United States to come back into Canada for a while. This has happened on a number of occasions. I'm wondering if you're monitoring how this is working.

• 1625

Ms. Janice Cochrane: It's difficult to monitor it with 100% certainty, because we don't have exit controls. If people leave voluntarily when they have been ordered to go and if they do apply when they come back in, we can refuse them admission, refuse them access to the process, if they have already been refused refugee status under the IRB process. So yes and no. The answer is it is not a perfect system, but we do have the ability, if we know who they are and they are who they say they are, to refuse them access the second time.

The Chairman: Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Thank you very much for your presentation.

I regret that since I was sitting at the table with you as a member of the citizen immigration committee the story hasn't really changed that much.

I deal with immigration people on constituent affairs and on the whole I find them to be competent, to be concerned, and to do the job to the best of their ability. We talk about wily lawyers and unscrupulous smugglers who bring people in. But really, as I see the auditor general's report, and as the program increased through the 1980s and the slate was cleaned and we started again in 1989...and now we're up to almost the same level of difficulty as when we started again.

Mr. Auditor General, is this a matter of a major managerial problem, that we cannot co-ordinate, we cannot track, we cannot know what is happening? Is this the nub of the problem, sir, that improper management is in charge?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Our assessment is that this is not...no, in part it is obviously a management problem. There are management processes that can be quite improved. But I think the more important factor is a structural problem. Different structures and processes have been put in place and they are quite difficult to follow. They allow not only for appeals but for people to drag the process beyond the time limits we would normally have had in mind. In our view it's far more a structural and legal issue than a managerial issue.

We said in our statement that in order to fix the system you would probably have to do more than just tinkering and some fine-tuning. It requires some basic rethinking of the actual system that has been put in place.

Obviously these are also political decisions. They imply very much the kind of values Canadian society stands for, and parliamentarians will have to make decisions on that. There's a trade-off here between maintaining some of those values and having a system that is quick and rules on cases instantly. I think it's a systemic problem more than anything else.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: My colleague, Mr. Grewal, raised the issue of those who arrive at our borders without documentation. Am I naive to assume there cannot be a method whereby a person doesn't get off the plane if they don't have the documents, to avoid the legal hassles of putting them back on the plane to send them home? Is there not a method such that if you don't arrive with the documents you left with you're not eligible to land?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask our director general of enforcement to describe for the honourable member some of the activities that go on around the embarkation, in-flight, and disembarkation stream, so you might have an appreciation of some of the difficulties that face us.

• 1630

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I might slip just one little question in there in addition to that. If the number of people who arrived all had documentation, how much would this relieve the strain on the system?

The Chairman: Mr. Mayfield, I understand we're being joined by Mr. Brian Grant, the acting director general of the Enforcement Branch.

Mr. Grant.

Mr. Brian Grant (Acting Director General, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The first thing to realize, I think, is this is a worldwide phenomenon; it's not unique to Canada. All countries are experiencing this and all countries are grappling for a solution.

Canada was in the forefront, and is recognized as such worldwide, in trying to deal with this problem. We developed a strategy about 10 years ago to start to address this.

Our strategy basically was that we would look at the documents we have and try to force people onto Canadian documents. We would post officers abroad who were specially trained in control work. Their job would be to work with airlines to assist airlines to check and verify the documents better. In addition, we have taken a lead role at a number of international fora to address this issue. Finally, we developed an intelligence-gathering and analysis capability that is still unique in the world, to analyse where people are going.

With this information you can do a lot. You can start to work the smugglers' routes. We can tell which routes people are taking on which particular days, which airlines they are taking, which documents they are using, how they have altered those documents. You can take this information and now you can start to react in a much more, at least tactical, if not strategic, way to the movement.

The impact of this has been quite significant. We've done two things. The first thing we've done is to increase the number of interceptions that have occurred outside Canada from about 30% to 55%. That means of the people trying to get to Canada, we are now stopping 55%. The airlines are stopping them, with the training we have given them.

The second thing we've done is quite dramatically shifted the movement of illegal migrants from the airports to the land border. That's very significant. It's more difficult to arrive at an international airport in Canada, so now we've seen, as Ms. Cochrane has said, the arrivals at our international airports drop by 50%.

You're playing this game of cat and mouse. We do that, so it shifts now to arrivals at the U.S.-Canada land border. The next step in the game becomes working with the United States and looking at the continent and how you have much more of a continental approach to this.

To go back to the airlines, the effect of the work we've done to train airlines to examine documents, to put officers out there—and incidentally, virtually all countries are now copying Canada and posting officers abroad—is that you raise the quality of the forged documents. That makes the documents much more valuable.

The second thing is we told the airlines, don't check the document at the check-in counter, because if you see somebody has a passport at the check-in counter, by the time they get to the plane they don't have that passport any more, unless you're checking when they get on the plane. So we said when they are getting on the plane, check that they have a document. That means they have to have a document. First, they have taken a document on the plane. Second, because you've trained them in how to identify forgeries, the quality of that document is much better, so they are less likely to flush it down the toilet on the way, because it's a valuable document.

Now what you've done is you have forced a courier to go on the plane to recycle the documents, because they are too valuable to get rid of. So what you have to do is stop him at the other end. This becomes a little more problematic, and the challenge gets greater as we go along.

At this end we've begun to do disembarkation checks. Our officers go on the plane and ask people to show us their documents before they get off the plane. Often what will happen is the switch would take place either on the plane or in the customs hall or on the way to the customs hall. They would hand off the document to the courier, who would probably be travelling in business class and would be through the primary inspection line and long gone by the time the person hoves into view without a document.

The question you asked was if we discover it at that point, why can't we just put them on the plane and send them back? It becomes very problematic, because under the charter, if they are on an airplane, sitting at a Canadian airport, they are considered to be on Canadian soil and therefore have protection of the charter.

• 1635

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grant, for that good explanation. We appreciate it.

Mr. Laurin, four minutes, please.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): I would like to focus on the turnover rate of Board members, which seems to me very high. The table indicates that the turnover is always highest following elections. The closer you come to elections, the fewer dismissals there are, and immediately afterwards... In the last example provided, it is indicated that after the 1993 elections, 79% saw their term come to an end and immediately afterwards, only 25% had their term renewed. There are some very surprising coincidences here from which we should draw obvious conclusions, namely that these are in fact political appointments.

After the period covered by the table, which goes as far as 1996, what is the turnover rate? Has it changed over the past year or two?

[English]

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Currently, the mandates are between three, four, and five years. In the most current round we have started to see that happen.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: How is it decided whether one has a three, four or five-year term? Is that established at the time of appointment? Why are there terms of different lengths?

[English]

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes, they do know. When the board member is appointed, the length of the mandate is part of that appointment. So they know before they come on board that that is going to be the length of their appointment.

It is also possible for them to be renewed at the end of that term.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: But why are three, four or five-year terms given? What is the difference? I understand that it is a one-year term, but what is the reason for that?

[English]

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: The initial mandate used to be for two years for a certain period of time. The reason for that was it would give the new member an opportunity to become fully trained and it would give the board an opportunity to assess the capability of the member. Subsequently, we have made recommendations to the minister that the mandates on renewals could now be increased because we have had an opportunity to assess the member's capability.

Furthermore, we have also recommended to the minister, and this is happening now, that the initial term of the mandate be longer than two years. This is because we have an independent advisory committee on appointments that is screening qualified candidates for appointments to the IRB.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I would ask you to make your answers short because I have a number of questions. I will put them to you now. These are short questions, and I'd be grateful if you'd give me short answers.

What is the average experience of Board members? The Auditor General's report states that training lasts about one year. What is the average experience of Board members? How much does it cost to train a Board member? And how many such members are there at the present time?

[English]

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: We have placed the cost of training a new commissioner at around $90,000. Currently, our member complement is 169, which includes some part-time members. That is in our refugee division. We have 25 in our appeal division. That is our total complement.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Is that four minutes?

The Chairman: Yes, four minutes.

[English]

Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Mawani, thank you for your presentation.

My question is, out of the total number that you have recommended for renewal, how many of them, proportion-wise, were adopted by the government?

• 1640

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: In the most current round of reappointments, 71% were renewed from our recommendations.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: From your previous experience—you have been on the board for quite some time—after the initiation of training and appointment of the total number of them, how much time would they require to be knowledgeable as a competent judge?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: It would vary between 6 and 12 months, depending on the initial experience of the member concerned.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Following a training program, do you have any written assessment to convince yourself that in fact the desired goal has been achieved?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes, we do. We have an evaluation process that is done after the first six months of a new member. That is a new initiative that we've introduced. Also, we always have a yearly evaluation that is used as a basis for both professional development and recommendations on reappointment.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On the question of postponement of hearings, how many of the total postponements are a consequence of requests by the board and how many are a consequence of requests by the claimant?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I will ask my colleague.

Mr. Paul Thibault: The statistics are really loose on this, but of the 49% of postponements, about half are requested by the claimant or his lawyer.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So half are requested by the board?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Yes, I guess it's board related. Some is a question of calling witnesses.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So there is a continuing action on the part of claimants to delay the hearing. Just to be fair to the refugee claimants, it's 50-50.

Mr. Paul Thibault: It's about 50-50, yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: You indicated, Ms. Mawani, about oral decision-making, I suppose versus written decision-making, that it will shorten hearings. I would like to know exactly what you meant here by hearings. Is it the beginning of the hearing of evidence to the termination of hearing of evidence, or is it the hearing of evidence up to the announcement of a decision?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: John, do you want to take that?

Mr. John Frecker: The average time from the referral, from the date that the immigration department says a person is eligible to have a claim determined, to the final decision at the moment is about 13 to 14 months. We're trying to reduce that to 8 months.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: If you will permit me to interrupt, following the hearing of all the evidence and the documentation, were the decision to be in written form, what time from the termination of hearings would it take to put that decision in writing?

Mr. John Frecker: Our standard is 60 days. Many do it in less than 60 days. At the moment about 89% of decisions are rendered within 60 days. Sometimes, because of the complexity of the case or because a person falls sick or something else, it may take longer. But we have about 89% to 90% compliance with the 60-day standard.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So barring those unforeseen and useful circumstances, obviously a decision will have been made at the time the hearing would have terminated, unless you have to do some further research and documentation of precedents, I assume. This is not a lawyer here. So it would appear to me that the delay for 89 days or 60 days from the termination of hearing to the writing of the decision is an administrative situation.

Mr. John Frecker: We have recently, as of last October, adopted a policy to encourage rendering of oral decisions. Previously we had actually required people to render their decisions.... The law requires that they be rendered in writing, but we had discouraged oral reasons because there were concerns about the deliberation that goes into the making of the decision and so on.

But we have a very high level of confidence in the ability of the members at this time and are actively encouraging them to render their decisions orally at the end of the hearing. We have a target of 25% of decisions to be rendered orally by the beginning of the new fiscal year, and we're hoping to have that up to 75% by the end of the calendar year or the beginning of the next fiscal year.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Are you satisfied with the quality of the members of the board today?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes.

Mr. John Frecker: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Mr. Harb, you have four minutes.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I think we're giving these guys a bum rap for no reason whatsoever, because, just looking at the numbers, if on an annual basis they are processing almost 20,000 applications and we have a total of 200 members, that works out to about 100 cases per year per officer. I would think this is pretty good, considering the fact that every three days we have one case being processed by each one. I don't know of any judge in this land who processes as many applications as the IRB officers. Is that the case, Madam Chair?

• 1645

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: We have a high completion rate or finalization rate if we compare ourselves to many other tribunals and courts that are exercising a similar function where life, liberty, and security are involved. Having said that, we are still committed to improving it.

Mr. Mac Harb: I don't understand what the big fuss is all about here, Mr. Chair.

My second question is on the argument the auditor general is putting before us. There's something missing here, because there are some components that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the IRB—in particular, when it comes to background checks. Once the case is before CSIS or the RCMP, do you at the IRB or does Immigration have any control over the length of time it takes in order to be completed?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: No, we don't. What we do is ask for the information and we then really have to abide by their time.

Mr. Mac Harb: Is it the same thing for you?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Yes, it's the same with us.

We do have a strong partnership with the RCMP and CSIS, but as Madame Mawani suggests, we're very much dependent upon their ability to provide service to us quickly. They do provide excellent service, I might add, but we are in their hands.

Mr. Mac Harb: You have no control over that.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Exactly.

Mr. Mac Harb: So this is in fact part of the delay we're talking about, isn't it? That's why I don't know what the fuss is all about here, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: We will try to determine if there is a fuss here, Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb: As a final point, Mr. Chair, I think it's fair to say that we have refugee problems, we have delays, we have waiting lists, and all this costs money. Of course, we have an international obligation as a society, as part of the UN, to take a certain number of refugees on an annual basis. By hook or by crook, we have to do it.

The Chairman: No crook.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Not in your party.

Mr. Mac Harb: But we have an obligation.

My final question to the auditor general is something like this: in his assessment, I want him to give me a little bit of a breakdown of his $300 million. How did he come out with this $300-million-a-year cost for the refugees who are on social assistance? Does he know? How did he obtain those figures? It is my understanding that a large number of those refugees, once they go before the board, have a right to go to work if they apply for a permit. Is that correct? So where did the auditor general get those figures?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Mr. Flageole to answer that question in a moment, but I would like to—

The Chairman: I'd just like to make one point, Mr. Desautels. In response to Mr. Harb's question, I saw some nodding of heads, but we didn't get anything on the record.

Mr. Mac Harb: Can we get something on the record?

The Chairman: Is that correct?

Mr. Mac Harb: Can refugees work?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: They certainly can.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes, many of them can.

Mr. Mac Harb: And many of them apply to work.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: As soon as they've been referred for the determination of a claim, they qualify for a work permit.

Mr. Mac Harb: What would you say is the percentage of people who apply for a work permit?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I wouldn't have that information.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: We don't keep those statistics, but as Madame Mawani points out, they're eligible to work at the point at which they're referred to the process, not at the point at which they're determined to be legitimate refugees.

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, I think these people are doing a great job. What they need is more resources.

The Chairman: I will ask the auditor general to respond to your question now.

Mr. Desautels, my apologies for interrupting.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, just before I ask Mr. Flageole to answer the specific question asked by Mr. Harb, I would like to remind the committee that when it's talking about what the fuss is all about, we are in fact talking here about a total system. If you look at exhibit 25.3, I think you will see how the whole system functions. It's in part the department and in part the commission. There are other people involved in the process, obviously, such as the RCMP, CSIS and others, so it's a total system.

At the end of the day, what we're saying is that when you put it all together—without pinning blame for a moment—the whole system is in fact cumbersome and is taking a long time. It doesn't seem to be that satisfactory to most people who have some connection with the system itself.

• 1650

I'm just trying to restate the case here, that it's a total system function that we have to consider in deciding whether or not it needs fixing. I think most of the observers we work with would like to see the system improved, and that includes people within the board, within the department, and also people abroad in our various embassies, who actually see first-hand the consequences of our system.

The Chairman: I think you pointed out that there was nobody with overall responsibility, which is perhaps part of the problem too.

Mr. Denis Desautels: That's one of the aspects we pointed out.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I'll pass it over to Mr. Flageole to answer the specific question on the costs.

Mr. Richard Flageole: I'd like to make two points, Mr. Chairman. The costs are figures provided to us by the provinces. We specifically requested the information from the provinces, and that is their estimate of the costs of social programs.

I'd like to briefly talk about the delays caused by security checks. In general, there is no delay at all caused by security checks in the system. We even raise a concern about that. If you look at the section on the eligibility check, we mention in paragraph 25.43 that immigration officers render their decisions well before receiving the results of the RCMP checks or criminal records in Canada.

There is no delay at all. There might be delays at the end of the process, for landing, when we're waiting for information from CSIS, but all of the delays we're talking about...there's nothing there that deals with waiting for the RCMP or CSIS.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Flageole.

Mr. Grose, four minutes.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question would be to Mr. Desautels. Have you or the auditors general preceding you ever done reports or a critique of citizenship and immigration before, and if so what were the results? Were they pretty much the same as this?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, we're quite lucky in that we did report back on that in 1990, and the person involved with that work was my colleague Mr. Flageole. Perhaps he might be able to summarize what this said.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I ask this because I have the feeling I've heard this song before, 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago.

Mr. Richard Flageole: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, we reported on the new process in 1990, so the process had been in place for only one year. We already raised concerns in 1990 about some similar aspects. As we point out at the beginning of the chapter, if we compare the two between 1990 and 1997, we're facing very similar problems all over the system.

Mr. Ivan Grose: That answers my question. Thank you very much.

That forces me to one of two conclusions. Either you people are unable to administer the act or it's a lousy act. I believe the second thing I mentioned is the way it is. If with my colleagues across the way, who I think will help me, I can get some action on throwing this thing out—it reminds me of the Augean stables: forget trying to clean them, build some new stables. If we're able to do this, when you come before the committee don't use the buzzwords, please. I thought I'd heard all the buzzwords in three years on this committee. I heard some new ones today: reviews, and all that kind of thing. I'm not interested in that.

What can we do to fix it? It's not your problem; it's our problem. I think you are doing the best job you can under the circumstances. Tell us what you need. Don't come before the committee and say, well, we have some research and a review and we think by 2015 we'll have it solved, or whatever. Don't do that. Tell us what you need today. That's what I would appreciate. Tell this committee today, if you have that much candour, what's wrong with the act that you are having all these problems.

I'm not going to nit-pick this thing. It's such a mess. I'm not an expert on immigration. I looked at it and it ruined my whole evening when I read it. But I didn't have any answers. You're the experts. I know a little bit about a lot of things, but you're the people who have to tell us what we can do so that next time the auditor general does this thing he's a lot happier, and I will be a lot happier.

• 1655

The Chairman: I'm going to ask the respondents to be very brief, because I'm sure they could each talk for hours on your question, Mr. Grose.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: I would like to put the situation today in a bit of context. You started your remarks by indicating you hear the same story year after year. But the world has significantly changed, as I know you know. In the last ten years the legitimate refugee movement has almost doubled from when the IRB was set up and the current refugee process put into place. The United Nations indicates to us that approximately 125 million people are on the move in the world, in search of better circumstances. We're dealing with a system that had its genesis in 1972 and that has been patched up over 30 times since then.

The auditor general is right. We share his view—and I know Madame Mawani shares the view—that the system lacks coherence. It needs to be fundamentally redesigned to deal with the problems of the 21st century, not the mid-20th century.

The Chairman: Ms. Mawani, do you have some brief comments?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: No, I don't think I want to add to anything Ms. Cochrane has said. She's absolutely right.

The Chairman: Mr. Desautels, do you have anything quick to say?

Mr. Denis Desautels: No, that's fine, sir.

The Chairman: Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Further to what Ms. Cochrane was saying, and getting back to something the auditor general said in response to another question, I was interested in your point, Mr. Desautels, about the systemic and structural change required. I think we just heard that alluded to somewhat here. I wonder whether or not the immigration legislative review advisory group that's reporting is the kind of change we're looking at, and if so how, and whether I can get a sense of where this is going and how best to get there.

I would ask the auditor general first for his review. Have you had a chance to take a look at that report?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Yes. Of course we're very interested in what this group has produced. It's dealing with most of the same issues we've raised, so we have been tracking the review that has been carried out. Of course it goes much beyond refugee issues.

On the whole, we think the propositions would address the issues we've talked about. Of course they haven't gone quite to the end on removals. I think they have thrown that question back at parliamentarians. But on the whole we feel they would address the issues we have raised.

I would add just one other caution, if I may. Their proposals are not the only choices that could be made. They will deal with our issues, but there might be other approaches to dealing with the same concerns as we've raised.

Mr. Lynn Myers: But your point was no more tinkering; it's now systemic and structural change. You're saying that's the process, that's the vehicle, which can accomplish this, in your view.

Mr. Denis Desautels: That's correct. We feel there has to be a more holistic review of the system that's in place and more fundamental changes have to be brought in, although in the meantime you could improve some administrative aspects. But really to get at the solutions we're all expecting, I think you need more fundamental changes.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I would be interested in what Ms. Cochrane has to say.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: When the minister released the report early in the new year she was very clear, and she has been so consistently with us, that there are no sacred cows in the current system; that everything is on the table. She wishes to use the recommendations as the starting point for a discussion, recognizing that it is a bold report and there will be many aspects of it Canadians won't find acceptable. Nonetheless, she is determined to find a systemic response. She knows patchwork will not work any more. She knows we need to position ourselves so we're not back at tables like this in five years and ten years, singing the same song.

She is personally going to undertake a series of public hearings on the report recommendations themselves, beginning at the end of February. We will be doing significant policy analysis in March, April, and May, and along with that the costing of the recommendations, because of course there will be a cost to this. She is expecting to be back to cabinet sometime before the year is out, and hopefully we'll be in drafting as well during that timeframe.

• 1700

Mr. Lynn Myers: Are you confident that that's the kind of thing that will accomplish what we need to do?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: I think what is in the report could accomplish what we need to do, provided we can afford it.

I don't think it's the only solution. The minister has been clear about that. She is listening and wants to keep a very open mind throughout this process. If people have better ideas, then she will consider them. If there are aspects of this report that just aren't acceptable to Canadians, she will hear.

We have had over 400 requests for submissions to be made during a brief but very intense period of consultation in late February, early March. I'm sure we'll hear a lot about what's in there.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I'm sure you will.

The Chairman: Mr. Malhi, four minutes.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Some of the 60% of the claimants have no passport or ID at the initial stage, but still have been deemed by the department to be eligible, but at the final stage the department still asks them for the ID or the travelling document or the passport. Why do they ask them then, when they know at the initial stage they don't have any ID or passport or travelling document? Why do they tell them “We need ID or a passport. Then we can provide you with immigration papers”? I have clients like that; there are many every day in my office.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: That is a requirement of the Immigration Act, that before landed immigrant status can be granted, applicants must produce satisfactory proof of identity.

In order to overcome the kind of issue that the member has raised, last year the government passed regulations creating a class called the undocumented refugees in Canada class—that was a collaborative effort between the department and the IRB—recognizing that some people simply can't get documents. In those cases, individuals who have remained in Canada for five years—that time allowing the authorities the opportunity to try to verify their identity and allowing the individuals to establish themselves and prove that they will integrate and become good citizens or potential citizens in Canada—can then apply for landed status.

That is the current state of the combined effect of the legislation and the regulations.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: Secondly, I have people who are waiting for from five to six years for the security check. Is there any limitation for that time period so the department can decide once they don't have a security check from the home country?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: No, there is no limit, but I'm not aware of any cases taking that long.

Perhaps Mr. Grant would like to comment. No?

Generally the process doesn't take that long.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: I have people who have been waiting since 1994. I have the examples, I have the names.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Well, I would suggest that the member then should bring those specific cases to the attention of the regional offices of the department. With the vast number of files we deal with, on occasion things go missing. So you should verify whether or not this may be one of those cases.

The service that is provided to us on security checks is very good, and five or six years is extraordinary, even with the backlogs that we have to deal with.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: Third, they mentioned that they cannot deport the criminal people or the people who have the decision. They are waiting for the documents from back home. When they need somebody to deport, how come they can find out or they can request the documents immediately? I have examples. They deported the people. They don't have any documents, but once they want to deport they have the documents from the other countries within 60 days, or even 30 days.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: I'll ask Mr. Grant to address that.

Mr. Brian Grant: We have a significant problem in obtaining documents to return people, but once people have applied, which we require them to do increasingly earlier in the process, we will then apply to the country and obtain the document. It will depend on the country. It takes longer with some countries than with others. Some countries, quite frankly, do not co-operate with us.

• 1705

What we have entered into and are increasingly attempting to enter into is agreements with specific countries on the rules that will be followed for issuing travel documents. This is an international standard that has been published by ICAO. It deals with situations where you have documentation on who the person is and you're applying for a travel document. There will be a certain standard in how long the country will take to respond to that.

The second is where you have information to believe the person is a citizen of that country but you may not have actual documentation. Then there are procedures countries agree to follow to verify that this person is one of their citizens.

Back to your question, there's no magical box of documents we have such that we can just suddenly come out with a document. It's an ongoing process to obtain travel documents from countries.

The Chairman: I have a few questions of my own.

I'm looking at section 25.40 of the auditor general's report. It talks about who can apply for refugee status. It includes anybody except...and there are a few classes, such as dangerous criminals, persons who have already been granted refugee status in another country, terrorists and war criminals, and those who have been denied refugee status within the previous 90 days. It seems to me everybody else is entitled to claim refugee status, whether it's warranted or not, because it goes on to say the determination of eligibility is not designed to assess the merit of the refugee claim at the very initial stage.

Am I correct here, Mr. Flageole?

Mr. Richard Flageole: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Why would it be that we would have a few classes of exemptions and everybody else theoretically qualifies to claim refugee status, rather than our saying these are the types of people who qualify for refugee status?

Ms. Mawani.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: This is how the Immigration Act was structured. It was a decision by parliamentarians.

The Chairman: Okay. Do you, and again also Ms. Cochrane, as the people who are charged with the responsibility for implementing the act, ever make recommendations to the minister about potential changes? Would this appear to be a change that would be prudent, to limit the theoretical number of people who are eligible to apply for refugee status?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: This certainly is an area the independent legislative review group which was commissioned by the minister has looked at, because clearly it has been an issue, who has access to the refugee determination system. The way in which it works currently of course is that these are the categories, and after that, if you are deemed eligible you come to the IRB and at that time the merits of your claim are determined.

The Chairman: But theoretically, according to this, every person who comes here from the United States has the ability to claim refugee status. That type of open-ended system seems absolutely ludicrous to me.

We'll leave that one at the moment, because I want to deal with this undocumented situation; that 60% of the refugees would have no documentation. We heard Mr. Grant tell us they had documents to get on the plane, your department checks to see that they have documents as they disembark from the plane, but by the time they get to the immigration officer, 100 yards inside the building, the papers are gone and you say, well, I guess there's nothing we can do. Why do we tolerate this documentation disappearing in the last 100 yards of the trip to Canada?

Mr. Grant.

Mr. Brian Grant: First of all, we do not do disembarkation checks on all flights. We target certain flights. It's really a resource question.

As I indicated earlier, the effect of a number of measures we put in place was to deflect the movement from the airports to the land border, which means they are entering airports in the United States. The information we have is that they enter the United States with documents and by the time they get to the Canadian land border, which is considerably farther than 100 yards, the document disappears.

The Chairman: We'll come to that in a minute.

You say you do have some disembarkation checks on some flights, presumably from the high-risk countries. Have you done a statistical analysis to find out if from the ones that have the disembarkation check the number of refugees is significantly lower than from those where there is no disembarkation check? Have you done a statistical analysis?

• 1710

Mr. Brian Grant: No. We do the disembarkation checks at random, so it won't be specific flights where we do a disembarkation check.

The Chairman: I appreciate that, but you don't follow through to see if there is any statistical change in the number of refugee claims coming off these planes.

Mr. Brian Grant: For those claims we will follow the people through. If people have documents on the plane, it's unlikely that somebody would get to the primary inspection line without—

The Chairman: My point is, did you do a statistical analysis to say that there is a serious difference in the number of refugees coming off planes with disembarkation documents checked versus those where there is no check? Have you done an analysis of that?

Mr. Brian Grant: There may well be refugee claimants coming off those planes, but the people will have documents.

The Chairman: You are finding that when you have these disembarkation checks the documentation problem just disappears, because the documents are there, and it is when you have no checks that the documents....

Can we not talk about introducing some kind of legislation in this country that says if you disembark having destroyed your documents you're not eligible to qualify for refugee status?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Indeed we could.

The Chairman: Why don't we?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: That is one of the things that will be under consideration as we work our way through the next several months. But we haven't to date.

The Chairman: After 20 years?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: As I indicated earlier, the volume has increased so significantly in the last few years...that is really what is creating the problem as much as the existing legislation.

The Chairman: So we have been sitting on a potential solution of legislating a new crime of the destruction of documents and we haven't implemented that concept.

Ms. Mawani.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: The number of undocumented claimants has been going up. I think it's important to recognize that. Part of it is because of the difficulties people have in getting genuine documents. I think we have spoken about it before.

The Chairman: We all agree that they have documents of some kind to get on the plane. They magically disappear, with couriers and smugglers and mailing them to some other address—however they intentionally get rid of these documents. I'm saying we can make the destruction of travel documents a crime. Why haven't we done it? It would seem to me that finally the minister is perhaps being apprised that we can do that and perhaps should.

Moving on to paragraph 25.53, which deals with the safe third country provision, the auditor general says:

Under the “safe third country” provision, the Department and the Board could deny access to the refugee status determination....

He goes on to say that this has never been applied.

Why do we have all these refugees coming to us from the United States, which I don't think is a threat to people down there? They're arriving here with no documentation and we're accepting them as refugees. Why is that?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: If I may, Mr. Chair, it is correct to say that we do have the authority to declare, by Order in Council, a country as a safe third country under the current legislation. We also have the authority to enter into responsibility-sharing agreements with such countries, which would provide for the safeguards and the protection for people who travel across our borders. Since 1995 the government has taken the view that the responsibility-sharing agreement is the preferred route and has been negotiating with the United States to try to conclude a responsibility-sharing agreement with them.

The negotiations were suspended temporarily in the spring of 1996, pending clarification of the impact of some legislative changes that were occurring in the United States. Just recently, in the past few days as a matter of fact, it has been decided that those negotiations will be suspended indefinitely. We now have the option to consider the safe third country concept as a fall-back. This is something the minister will be considering again in the context of the legislative review.

The Chairman: But we've had it on the books for years and we've never exercised this prerogative in the past.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: We haven't exercised the prerogative in the past because the government's decision had been to try to negotiate agreements with countries that we consider to be safe third countries.

The Chairman: So that is a political decision more than an administrative situation.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: That's right.

The Chairman: Do you agree with that, Mr. Flageole?

Mr. Richard Flageole: Yes.

• 1715

The Chairman: I would also like to point out for the record that the auditor general's report talks about the fact that many of these problems have been around for ten years or more. When I read the report I got the serious impression that there was a lack of senior management control and effort to address the issues of efficiency and productivity here.

I recognize the comments of the auditor general where he says some of these decisions are political decisions, not managerial decisions, but I think there's a lot of onus on the IRB and CIC to keep the minister apprised of the issues. After many years of the IRB and CIC having to work in collaboration yet having to maintain their separate independence, you are only now starting to work towards building frameworks of communication whereby in essence you talk to each other. I think by reading the report I might even find out that you have been doing separate research and creating separate libraries. I think I'm correct in saying that.

Am I correct in saying that, Ms. Cochrane?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: We each have our own library, but not containing the same information. The IRB has a very sophisticated research bureau. We keep information in house to deal with all aspects of the immigration program, beyond just the refugee system that we deal with.

The Chairman: In the legislation that was proposed last year and that died on the Order Paper—I think it was that legislation—single-person hearings were proposed. That has been mentioned.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: you've been going for ten minutes and thirty-seven seconds. I know you like to see things follow the rules—

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: —and I know your law-and-order platform, so I think as the chair you might follow your own rules. Ten minutes and thirty-seven seconds over is more than just a bit of leeway, so I would really appreciate it if you could wrap it up.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi, but we'll continue for a little while here until I get a couple of answers.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No, you won't continue. We have a rule in this committee about how long we speak and you have taken liberties with the time you take with witnesses.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, the chairman said he would finish up here, and you are not the chairman, so that's the way it's going to be.

To get back to my train of thought—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The chairman may rule on a decision to proceed that violates the conduct we have established for this committee for time allocation. I question the judgment of the chair to proceed at this point, and I plead, before I place a formal motion, that you desist from questioning at this time.

The Chairman: I hear you, Mr. Pagtakhan and Mr. Telegdi, but as we say, the chair has a reasonable amount of latitude and in many cases does allow questioners to go over time. That applies to the government members as well as the opposition members. I know that in addition to the clerk, who keeps close tabs on the time, other members do, but I provide a great deal of latitude to a lot of the questioners to answer the questions, even if they go over. In many cases I allow additional questions beyond the time as the person is pursuing a train of thought. We have a large audience here today, and a large number of members in attendance. That's why I was a bit more strict today: to give everybody an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, the chair must serve as a model example.

The Chairman: That's correct, Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Therefore for the chair to exceed the maximum allowed for every other member for the first time, eight minutes, and then four minutes, Mr. Chair, is no example at all.

The Chairman: You'll note, Mr. Pagtakhan, that everybody, and all the government members, had an opportunity to speak, and there are more of them than on the other side. I make—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It's the nature of the constitution, the construction, of this committee, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The point is that I make sure everybody on this committee has an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, I have noticed in the past that the chair has been flexible and reasonable to all the members, and I heard you saying you were going to wind up. I think you should wind up and proceed further, please.

The Chairman: Thank you. That's what I intend to do. We'll just finish up this question here and then we'll get on to the next round, because I'm the last speaker of the second round.

• 1720

Getting to exhibit 25.3, it talks about the immigration officer at the border determining the eligibility of the claim, which then gets referred to the IRB, and the whole process starts right off the bat. At the single-person hearing, is it not possible for the person at the border or at the airport to be an IRB person versus a CIC person, so that a decision can be made on the spot? If the person is not eligible, and obviously not eligible, he or she is on the next plane back home.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Again, this kind of more integrated system is one of the issues being addressed in the report of the legislative review group. I think we should wait for the public consultations and ultimately the government policy on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal, you have four minutes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I appreciate your thorough knowledge of the subject. You are gifted on this particular topic. Your questions are really remarkable.

My question is to the auditor general. Sir, you have just said in your presentation that your department has noted that no one in the federal government monitors the overall progress of claims. Is that right, sir?

Mr. Denis Desautels: That's correct.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Why isn't there someone to monitor the overall process of the claims, Ms. Cochrane?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Mr. Chair, there are many different components to the process. We do actually provide information to the President of the Treasury Board annually on the performance of the government-wide system of immigration. Each component part of the system has its own piece of the pie, so to speak. At present, there is no electronic system that allows us all to track the same information.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Minister, we are talking about the overall progress of the claims. We are not talking of the components. I understand it is difficult to monitor the components.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Within CIC and the IRB, yes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I'm talking about the blanket, overall progress. That's why I mentioned the word “overall”.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Part of the answer to that lies in improved technology. We do acknowledge that we do have a long way to go before we have the right kinds of systems that will allow us to do that kind of tracking. In fact, we have just undertaken the development of a national case management system that will allow us to get at exactly that problem. We hope to have the development phase finished before the end of the calendar year and implemented nationally by mid-1999.

Right now, it is a flaw. Our systems are old and they don't allow us to capture the kind of information we need.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Again, does the system need any parliamentary renovation, or does it need renovation at your end? If it needs it at your end, then I think the same thing was mentioned a few years ago, in the last auditor general's report. I don't remember which issue it was, but I read it. Again, if the same thing is continuing, is it at your end or is it at the parliamentary end?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: In a nutshell, it's technology that we need, and we have made the commitment of resources that will be required to allow us to develop the system and get it up and running very quickly.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I want to go on, but time won't permit the next question.

When somebody applies for a refugee hearing, on average it takes two and a half years. At the end, the case is denied and, in this example, the person applies on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which is also denied. Somehow, we are successful in removing that person, but after some time the person infiltrates Canada again and applies for refugee status again. Can he be eligible to apply again?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Under the current system, yes. However, under the proposals that the legislative review committee has made, the person would have to remain out of Canada for more than a year, after which he or she could reapply.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Can he reapply under the previous conditions, or does he have to demonstrate he has a new fear of persecution?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Clearly, the point at which the decision of whether a person is a refugee or not has to be made is at the time of the hearing. It therefore depends on the conditions at the time of the hearing, not whether or not that person has a fear of persecution. However, information that is available from the previous claim would be part of this new claim, and therefore the person would have to explain what or why this has changed in the meantime.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you.

Under the existing system, why is he allowed to reapply again? Is it because he was not treated fairly at first, or was the system not efficient enough to show or to demonstrate that the system treated him fairly?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: That was a policy choice that Canadians made, and it was enshrined in legislation. So it was for parliamentarians to decide.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grewal.

An hon. member: Do we have time for any more questions, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Well, we're actually running out of time, and I understand that Ms. Mawani has to leave right away for an airplane, if I'm correct.

• 1725

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I'm at your disposal.

The Chairman: We normally run for two hours, and we have a long list of members who would like to speak again. We have some open slots on our agenda in the next few weeks, and I think it would be beneficial if we were to call the witnesses back again, because there was no intention for us to go beyond the two hours.

In the few minutes we have left I'll ask Mr. Desautels to make some closing remarks, with the intention that the clerk will contact the witnesses to come back at an appropriate time in the next few weeks.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: With the permission of the committee of course, and with the sanction of the chair, I would like to pose a question on the other side of the issue, because our refugee system is about human life. While we would like to improve the efficiency and administration of the system, I would like to ensure that in fact we do not allow one mistake and one loss of human life. None of us has addressed that question, and I would like to do so.

With the permission of the committee I will pose the question, but without it of course I will yield to the decision of the chair.

The Chairman: As I was just saying, Mr. Pagtakhan, we would like the witnesses to come back, and at that time you would have eight or four minutes to ask that question and debate the issue. So the witnesses will be back once more.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Not to debate. I do not debate issues with the witnesses; I pose questions.

The Chairman: To ask these questions. Sorry.

We'll ask the auditor general to wrap up at this time, and the clerk will contact the witnesses to bring them back at a time that is agreeable to all.

Mr. Desautels.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I thank you, but if you are going to be having another hearing on this, of course it is really not necessary for me to try to wrap up at this stage.

The only thing I can add or say at this point in time is that I'm quite pleased to note the interest of the committee in all of this, but I'm also pleased to note what I perceive as an increased collaboration between the two entities concerned, the CIC and the IRB. I think that augurs quite well for finding solutions to what I recognize are very difficult problems. Those are not easy solutions, and the fact that parliamentarians are so interested in the question gives us a lot of hope that we'll find the right solutions.

The Chairman: We look forward to following through on these issues in the near future.

Before I close, I have one question on a subject that's near and dear to the hearts of all the members of the committee, and indeed the auditor general. It is the year 2000 project on computers. What about the CIC and the IRB as far as the year 2000 is concerned? I know I'm changing the subject and catching you unawares.

Mr. Mac Harb: That's two years away.

The Chairman: I know it's two years away, but are you getting prepared and will you be prepared on time?

Ms. Cochrane.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Indeed, we've been working with the Treasury Board and we expect to be in a state of readiness by April 1999.

The Chairman: Very good.

Ms. Mawani.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have a question in preparation for the subsequent meeting.

The Chairman: Yes, okay. Let me ask Ms. Mawani first.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes, we will too.

The Chairman: You'll be up and running by the year 2000? My congratulations to you both.

Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: They may not answer this question today, but I would like to place it on the record so they can come fully prepared.

To the auditor general and to the board and to the immigration people, the question is the same: for those denied and deported, has there been any monitoring of the outcome of those deportations to their countries? What has happened to those people? Have there been any true persecutions or deaths?

Also, was this question asked by the auditor general in the review of the system? I ask this because this is the very soul of the system. We would like to increase efficiency now.

If you would like to answer the question today, yes; if not, we will wait for the next meeting.

The Chairman: I think we'll keep that for the next meeting, Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: On a point of order.

I think a second question should be asked in relation to Mr. Pagtakhan's question, which is quite legitimate.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: The question that should also be asked is, is there any idea of how many people face extremely harsh circumstances to the point of losing their lives because they are held back from refugee status because others with less pressing needs have taken their place at the front of the queue?

The Chairman: These are the questions the witnesses will be answering.

I think we'll cut it off right there.

• 1750

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I have a question I would like to have answered for the next meeting, and they can answer it.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, I'm sure if you would just drop them a line they would be glad to—

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: You know, you have taken a lot of leeway here, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Ms. Mawani has a plane to catch, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: She said she is at our disposal, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Then you had better be quick, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I am going to be a lot quicker than you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Good.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The question I would like to pose is this. I note that we spent $5 million in interviewing people on the ground in trouble spots. That is the understanding I got. That works out to less than $200 per individual. What I would like a definite answer to is how many people who get IRB hearings actually have an on-ground report on them before the ruling on the case?

The Chairman: Okay, we have lots of information to be brought forward at the next meeting.

This meeting is adjourned.