PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 17, 1998

• 1534

[English]

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), we have consideration of chapter 25 of the December 1997 report of the Auditor General of Canada, “Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Immigration and Refugee Board—The Processing of Refugee Claims”.

This is the second meeting we're having on this particular issue, and at the close of the last meeting I think it was Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Pagtakhan and Mr. Mayfield who posed some questions to the witnesses and asked that they bring forward some information. Before we get into the questions and answers, I will ask for the five-minute opening statement from the witnesses, if they so desire, to answer the questions posed by the members, given the fact that they wanted this information brought forward to this meeting.

• 1535

To introduce our witnesses today, we have Mr. Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada; Mr. Richard Flageole, the assistant auditor general; and Mr. Serge Gaudet, principal of the audit operations branch in the Office of the Auditor General.

From Citizenship and Immigration Canada we have Mr. Greg Fyffe, the assistant deputy minister, policy and program development; Mr. Georges Tsaï, assistant deputy minister of corporate services; and Mr. Brian Grant, acting director general of the enforcement branch.

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

Therefore, we'll start off with Mr. Fyffe. Perhaps you want to respond to the questions that were posed at the end of the last meeting, Mr. Fyffe.

Mr. Greg Fyffe (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Chairman, the only one I would respond to is a question about whether we monitored people who were not accepted under the refugee determination system. The answer is no, we don't.

There are a number of avenues that claimants are able to pursue when they're in Canada, and the IRB can take the ones who apply to them. There are a number of reviews to ensure that every consideration is given to a claim, but we do not have any monitoring process.

If any member would like to pursue that question further, Mr. Vankessel from our refugee branch is here and can provide further information.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Fyffe. Now we'll turn to Mr. Thibault to respond for the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Mr. Paul Thibault (Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to respond in particular to the question by Mr. Telegdi. The question, if I have the quote correct, was:

We have spent $5 million in interviewing people on the ground in trouble spots. That works out to less than $200 per individual. What I would like a definite answer to is, how many people that get IRB hearings actually have an on-the-ground report on them prior to the ruling on the case?

To the first part of the question, I'd like to answer that in fiscal year 1997-98 $3.2 million was allocated to the IRB's research program as a whole. Of that $3.2 million, $2.6 million was allocated to the research program at headquarters. This budget is used to cover the operating expenses at the research directorate. The claimant-specific research component of the research directorate has processed just under 3,000 requests, and in calendar year 1997 that was 1,213 claimant-specific research requests. That's about 7.3% of the total claims processed. It works out to about $136 for each, but that's our cost; it doesn't include any costs by CIC or the RCMP. About 48% of those requests are processed through embassies and high commissions abroad. The remaining 52% are processed through other sources such as foreign governments, religious groups, NGOs, etc.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Thibault.

Mr. Desautels, do you want to respond to some of the questions that were posed?

Mr. L. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada): Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Flageole can actually comment on all three questions that I think were left with us.

The Chairman: Mr. Flageole.

Mr. Richard Flageole (Assistant Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Regarding the first question, whether the department is monitoring the outcome of people deported and what happened to those people, whether we asked the specific question as part of the audit, we did not look at it specifically. But on the other hand, we know there are no exit controls at the border points; some people might leave the country without either the department or the IRB knowing that they have left and what their destination was.

However, we reviewed the process from the beginning to the end. We had discussions with non-governmental organizations, we also met with representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and throughout the audit we did not get any indication that it would be a problem. I think we have a reasonable assurance that if this would be a problem it would have come to our notice during the audit we've done.

Regarding the second question, whether we have any idea if people are facing harsh circumstances to the point of losing their lives because they're held back from refugee status because others have taken their place at the front of the queue, I think the important point here is that nobody is really denied access to the refugee determination system because there is a waiting list. People will be admitted to Canada, will come into the system, and will wait their turn. Whether or not we have a certain number of cases in process doesn't have any impact on the ability of those people to claim refugee status in Canada.

• 1540

Finally, regarding the last question of how many people get a hearing and have an ungrounded report on them prior to the ruling, I think we talked briefly at the last meeting about how the process works for security checks. Again, there is a check done up front in the system for criminal records in Canada. Everybody has to go through that first step. The information we got is that this is done in a reasonable period of time with the cooperation of the RCMP.

In terms of criminality on the international field and in terms of other intelligence information, this is normally done at the end of the process, when people apply for permanent residence in Canada. That will also apply for those people who will be accepted as refugees. They will have to go through that process. On the other hand, if immigration officers or other parties have any questions about somebody, they can ask for some intelligence information to be collected up front. That occurs more in exceptional cases, but we came through a certain number of cases in which it has been done. If there are doubts about a specific person, then they will go through that process a lot earlier than those having to wait until the end.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Flageole.

We'll now turn to questions and answers. Mr. Reynolds, you have eight minutes.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Going back to what you were just talking about on criminal checks, maybe we can get some clarification. When somebody says the word “refugee”, before they're released—usually it's the same day—their fingerprints are taken and their picture is taken. We don't know that they have a criminal record in Canada, even before they're released. Is that true?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Brian, do you want to take that?

Mr. Brian Grant (Acting Director General, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Generally that's true. If there was a lookout for the person, what we would obviously do is identify them. Otherwise, no, we may not have identification documents.

We'll take a photograph and fingerprints. The fingerprints will then go to the RCMP, who will verify them based on the CPIC system in Canada and the NCIC system in the United States. That usually takes a couple of days. We'll get that back I think within ten days, so the person is released at that point.

Mr. John Reynolds: In reality, if he just disappears into society you can have a lookout for him, but if he doesn't come back into the system he is there until he gets caught.

Mr. Brian Grant: There would be a warrant put out for him, yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: But you don't do any outside checks to find out, though. If he's not on the Canadian or U.S. list but is on an INTERPOL list in Europe for whatever thing, you don't check that until he actually applies to stay in Canada.

Mr. Brian Grant: We don't do that currently, but we're looking at that. With INTERPOL itself, the European countries don't do that yet. They haven't yet worked out questions of privacy on sharing fingerprints, but they're working on something like that. We're all moving towards something like that.

There is always the concern about how far you can go back in terms of where the person came from. You could check in Europe, and we're working towards moving on that. For somebody who is claiming to be a refugee, though, you obviously can't go back to the home country, tell them you have So-and-so here, and ask if that home country has anything on him.

On the other side, which is less on the criminal side—although it is to a certain extent—but is more on the security side, what we will do in the interim period during the claim is often find out information. Information will come to light. People in the community will come forward with information on this person, who is of course undocumented—we're not sure who this person is. We continue to research the person's background. Subsequent to their arrival in Canada, stories will often give us a lead that we follow up on.

Mr. John Reynolds: There was a story in the Toronto Sun yesterday about a couple of gentlemen who were arrested. One was ordered deported in 1993, and in 1996 he was released by an adjudicator. He has now been charged with some pretty serious crimes again. He's from Jamaica. Do we have agreements with Jamaica with regard to sending people back who have been convicted of crimes in Canada and are under deportation orders?

• 1545

Mr. Brian Grant: We have an arrangement or an agreement with Jamaica—I think it's called an arrangement—for the issuance of travel documents. Basically it spells out the modalities in which the Government of Jamaica or Canada, depending on which way it's going, will issue travel documents in cases where we know the identity and have documentation to prove the identity. In cases where we don't have the identity...that said, there is a problem with many countries in regard to issuing travel documents.

In some cases it involves criminality. They're not anxious to have criminals back in their country. In some cases if they're citizens of their country we have trouble. Frankly, we have a number of countries that we have a problem getting travel documents out of. And we're looking at ways now to increase pressure on these countries to undertake their international obligations to accept their citizens back into their countries.

Mr. John Reynolds: But these serious crimes are being committed. In the Auditor General's report it shows that 16,100 people out of the 20,000 and some who were ordered deported were still in Canada. It's obviously a growing number. How much effort are you really making with the other government departments, with the external affairs department and others, to make sure that these countries, these friendly countries that we trade with, know that when we have somebody in this country who has committed criminal acts and we want to deport them, these countries have to take them back?

Mr. Brian Grant: We have raised it with the foreign affairs department, and in several bilateral discussions it has been raised by the foreign affairs department in order to try to put pressure on the government. We have also raised it at international fora. We've had discussions with European countries, the United States and Australia at the IGC meetings in Geneva. We've also raised it in the context of the P-8 group looking at transnational crime. We're currently trying to find a number of levers that may lie to hand at Citizenship and Immigration, levers relating to issuance of visas and requirements for visas and this sort of thing.

So we're balancing a number of interests, but we have raised it with other departments, we're pursuing a number of strategies with a number of countries, and we're trying to select countries that might be more apt to respond to pressure.

Mr. John Reynolds: Are we having success?

Mr. Brian Grant: Yes, we have had some success. Success is sometimes a relative term. You'll suddenly get a burst of success, and you'll get a number of documents out of a country and everything seems to be going well, and then something changes. It's an ongoing battle.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mrs. Mawani, in a report to this committee, said that the Auditor General stresses the need to provide adequate information to parliamentarians. I think we all agree with that. What have you done since the Auditor General's report to improve the provision of information to members of Parliament?

I want to give you one example. I asked the ministry a question the other day about whether two people in Montreal who have been charged and convicted of serious gang rapes were landed immigrants or Canadian citizens. We were told we couldn't have that information because of the Privacy Act. I find that rather strange. These people are convicted and sentenced and there's a question here about whether they're landed immigrants or citizens in this country. It wasn't made available to us based on the Privacy Act.

I'm just wondering what steps you are taking to make sure that parliamentarians have access to information so that they can do their jobs properly.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Mr. Reynolds, I'm not familiar with that particular request, but I'll review it and I'll make sure that every effort is made to give you what we can.

The Privacy Act is a real constraint on us, and it's intended to be. We try to give every priority that we can to requests from members of Parliament, whether it's in committee or otherwise. In that particular case, I'll review it and I'll respond to you about what the rationale was there.

Mr. John Reynolds: I think we did ask the question in the House, and the minister said she was going to check into it.

But can you tell us what the rationale is? I know the Privacy Act. I've read it very closely. There's nothing in it that I can see that prevents us from asking the question about somebody being a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant within the system. We're not asking about the background. We already know that. We just wonder why that information isn't made readily available.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I'll review that. The advice we usually get from our legal people is that we can't disclose information of that kind, but I will make sure we get back to you in detail on that.

• 1550

The Chairman: Last question.

Mr. John Reynolds: Okay. Also in Mrs. Mawani's report, she says “The recommendation in the Auditor General's report underlines the need for us to improve our own operational practices and monitoring mechanisms.” Have you made any changes since the Auditor General's report has been out?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Yes, we have, Mr. Reynolds. What we're trying to do is create a better way of monitoring how we do.

For example, one of the things we're instituting right now is regional contracts. As you know, we have Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary. To meet our productivity targets, we're starting to have—in fact, we'll be signing them next week—regional contracts with each region, based on productivity, based on the specific circumstances in each region, so that we'll be able to have targets out there to monitor and make sure we achieve the commitments we said we were going to do. That's an example of one of the things we've—

Mr. John Reynolds: There are others?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Yes. One of the things we're certainly doing is looking at the IT system—what we monitor, how we monitor, the kind of statistics we use, what we measure, all that kind of stuff. We'll be able to give maybe a little more...I wouldn't say more relevant, but the sort of information that's of more interest to parliamentarians. That will take a bit more time, because it's systems commitments and things of that nature, but certainly that's one of the things we're looking at.

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, eight minutes, please.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): At the last meeting, I asked how much it cost to train a Board member for the Immigration and Refugee Board. I was told it cost about $91,700. Does that amount include the employee's salary? In paragraph 25.75, the Auditor General mentions it costs $91,700 more to appoint a new person than to renew the term of an experienced board member. I don't know if it's the Auditor who has the answer or the people from the Board.

M. Paul Thibault: I'll try to answer your question. I'll give you my version of the facts.

We figure that productivity is lower during the first year. So we calculate half a member's salary, which is $52,000. We also include the cost of administrative support which, generally speaking, represents $7000. You often also have to take into account the relocation of the member to another area, for example, if he's appointed to Vancouver and resides elsewhere. Relocation is a factor for about 30% of these cases. So you add another $7500.

M. René Laurin: What are the first $7000 you mentioned for?

M. Paul Thibault: It's for the lack of productivity and administrative support as a member does less work when he's in training.

M. René Laurin: Fine.

M. Paul Thibault: Let's say that the term of the member isn't renewed. He spends about a month closing his files and doesn't sit in on hearings during that time. So we put that at about $9000.

Then, the training costs, the real operating costs are about $8000 per member. Those are the real training costs which include quarterly orientation sessions, a three-week course and then some follow-up. To give you an example, about 100 members are going to follow our training course this year.

Then there are productivity costs. For planning purposes, we estimate that the productivity of a new member is about 50% of the optimum average during the first year. That's why, in terms of productivity, training costs—and I'm putting the cost in quotes— about six months' worth of work.

• 1555

Mr. René Laurin: So, in a manner of speaking, that includes the employee salary.

Mr. Paul Thibault: Yes.

Mr. René Laurin: You're the Executive Director of the Board?

M. Paul Thibault: Yes, sir.

Mr. René Laurin: How long?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Nine months.

Mr. René Laurin: Ms. Mawani has been Chairperson for how long?

Mr. Paul Thibault: She was first appointed as a member of the organization that preceded this Board and she has been its chairperson since 1992, I think.

Mr. René Laurin: The Auditor General says that the average length of a first term is about two and a half years and that the length of the other terms, when there are any, tends to be shorter.

Mr. Paul Thibault: I'm sorry. The second term...

Mr. René Laurin: As far as the second or third term are concerned, if there are any, the Auditor General says that the average term is 2.3 years when the term is renewed. Why are the other terms shorter than the first?

Mr. Paul Thibault: For the time being, I can tell you that, for example, we have calculated that for the present financial year the average term of members was 4.1 years. So there has been an increase.

Mr. René Laurin: Why wasn't it like that before?

Mr. Paul Thibault: I suppose the terms are simply established taking into account the member, his qualifications and his interests. These are questions that don't concern the Board as such. The members accept the term they are given and we work with those members.

Mr. René Laurin: Of course, if you've only been there five months, your answer couldn't go back more than nine months. In your opinion, has the Board ever suggested to the Department that the terms should be shorter especially that the first term shouldn't go beyond two or three years? Such a request has already been addressed to the Department as these are order in council appointments. Have you ever made any such recommendations?

Mr. Paul Thibault: During the time I've been at the Board, there has been no such recommendation. I know there's a certain logic according to which shorter appointments should prevail at the outset. Then, if the work is satisfactory, the term should be renewed. However, as I was saying, today the terms are about 4.1 years on average which is quite respectable considering the work being done.

Mr. René Laurin: I would have liked to put the question to Ms. Mawani herself but she's not here. Is it at all possible that Ms. Mawani may have expressed the wish that the terms, at least the first one, be no longer than two or three years? Could you confirm that?

Mr. Paul Thibault: I would say that it's certainly in everyone's interest that there be some continuity. At this point, our renewal rate is 73% and that's something quite acceptable for the Board.

Mr. René Laurin: How do you go about deciding whether a term should be renewed or not? Is it the Board that hires and does that evaluation? Is a recommendation made to the minister? Does the minister decide on her own? How does this happen?

Mr. John Frecker (Vice-Chair, Refugee Status, Immigration and Refugee Board): Sir, I hope you don't mind if I answer in English.

[English]

We have an evaluation process with every member. Their supervisors, the managing members, monitor their performance by observing them in the hearing room, reviewing their decisions, and generally discussing their development with them.

• 1600

There are meetings between the manager and the member over the course of the year. At the end of each year, the manager prepares a performance evaluation. That's then sent to my office, as the deputy chair, for review to ensure some kind of consistency from region to region. After I review it, it's sent to Ms. Mawani.

These evaluations become the basis for the board's recommendations with respect to the renewal of mandates. So a person who has been with the board and has had satisfactory performance appraisals during their tenure will generally be recommended for renewal. If a person has had problems during their tenure, we would make a judgment as to whether these are minor problems or major problems. If they were major problems, we would not recommend them for renewal.

The Chairman: I understand, Mr. Laurin, that Mr. Tsaï would like to say some words too.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Management Services, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): I might like to add a little comment to clarify the member's comment. The Department is not at all involved in the appointment process of the members and therefore does not receive, nor does it have any business receiving, recommendations from the Board.

Mr. René Laurin: Is this an order in council appointment?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: The Department, as such, is not involved.

[English]

The Chairman: We can return to this later on, Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I'm going to need a second round.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney, you have eight minutes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the Auditor General's report, specifically on page 25-14, next to paragraph 25.38, there's a statement here that says “No one in the federal government monitors the overall progress of claims.”

One of the things I've noted in reading through the report is that basically both the staff at CIC and at IRB tend to agree with everything the Auditor General is saying. I looked for a dissenting opinion, but I've been unable to find one.

I guess my first question is, if you agree with all of this, what are we doing about it? Also, why didn't we do something about it before? They seem to be fairly obvious comments.

The first one I would ask about is this. If there is indeed no one monitoring the overall progress of this report, should there be? If so, what's the recommendation? I'm not sure who my question is for, but it's someone at the staff level.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I'll give you a preliminary answer. I may call on my colleague Mr. Vankessel if you require further details.

Generally speaking, as our deputy minister mentioned, part of the situation we're dealing with is that the two systems were intended to be separate. They operated separately, and that of course has caused problems.

I think that as we have grown as officials in the department and in the Immigration and Refugee Board in working with the system, we've concluded that the separation is maybe not greater than intended, but certainly far greater than what works to the benefit of the overall determination.

We have entered into a number of agreements and we have had an increasing number of meetings and contacts to try to provide some coherence through the system. I think we're making progress on that, but the systems are built around two separate legislative provisions that are intended to keep us apart to some extent. So we have tried to make the administrative processes flow.

I don't know if we extended it to the point of looking at trying to track individual cases. I'm not sure where that would lie or what we could do.

We do of course have recommendations from the legislative review advisory committee that we will have to examine to see whether they take us further down the road on that. Even they, though they recommend a different process, still maintain the protection system as quite separate from the department. So even where they have looked at it in some detail, they have maintained a certain amount of separation.

If I can come back to what I said at the start, we have learned where we need to work together more to try to bring the system together. The emphasis at first was very much on keeping the system separate, especially so that the integrity of the refugee determination process would be seen as quite apart from the department. We realized that the degree of separation there was not always productive, and we tried to overcome a lot of it where it wasn't really advisable.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Would there be any merit to...? I mean, there seems to be a huge backlog. You know the old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. You have people sitting in limbo and not getting answers to their claims and going through immense appeal procedures. Of course, in the case of legitimate refugees, they literally would have to be under tremendous stress for fear of being thrown out of the country when they have a legitimate concern and don't have the confidence, especially when you get into the backlog.

• 1605

Would there be any validity to looking at even an outside firm or group of firms being brought in to try to eliminate this backlog so that we could at least get to the point where we were dealing with current claims, and not claims that are a year and a half or two years old?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: It's really for my colleague Mr. Thibault.

Mr. Paul Thibault: The first comment I'd make, Mr. Chairman, is that part of what the report of the immigration legislative review group is all about is finding new ways of dealing with these issues that we all face, and that's why the minister is going off on a round of public consultations, based on the report, to see what recommendations she will ultimately wish to make.

The problem for us is dealing with the specific problem in the context in which we live, and what we live with right now is the act as it exists. What the ILRAG working group proposed, of course, is legislative change, and it's up to government and Parliament to decide what system parliamentarians wish to put on us. In the meantime, our job, and what we're going to try to do, is to do the best we can within the framework we have and—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Let me interrupt you, if I can. You're talking about legislative framework as opposed to administrative. Does the legislative framework preclude you from a manager...particularly considering that the Auditor General has identified this backlog as being a very serious problem? We found that the department's information systems contained a significant number of unresolved cases. There are quotes all throughout this AG report that would indicate that there is a backlog, and it strikes me—and maybe I'm wrong here and I'd like you to tell me if I am—that it's more of an administrative backlog than a legislative backlog.

Mr. Paul Thibault: Okay, let me try to deal with two issues.

The first issue, and I come back to your original question, is how we can work better with the department on the overall tracking. We do have an administrative framework agreement and we have agreed to work together to find ways of getting our systems better plugged in so that we'll produce the overall information.

On the backlog, as you know, right now we're backlogged with about 26,000 and a processing time of 13 months. With administrative change within the context of the current law, what we are going to try to do is get that backlog down and the processing time to eight months by the year 2000. That's with the present number of members we have and with the system that's in place, with no further resources or anything of that nature, but what I mentioned before—with contracts with the regions and with various other administrative efficiencies, to try to do the best we can with what we have.

Other than that, there's a whole bunch of legislative solutions out there that aren't ours, that we can't do. But within the legislation, we have made the commitment that we will do the best we can to cut the backlog down and cut the timing down.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If I look on page 25-11, it says in paragraph 25.22 that due to “the complexity of the process ”, etc., “the fragmentary data available indicate that the cost to the federal government is at least $100 million a year”, and in the case of Ontario and Quebec another $100 million each”. It seems to be a lot of money. If we could somehow realign, within the legislative framework that exists, the priorities to get that backlog reduced by...I hear your goal of getting it down to eight months by the year 2000. But in the meantime, just in those three jurisdictions alone we're seeing $300 million a year going out. How much could we save if we could really attack this thing and get it down more quickly?

• 1610

Mr. Paul Thibault: I think it would be presumptuous of me at this stage to make calculations based on assumptions we haven't realized. Certainly if we do make the progress, we will make some assumptions for you.

At the same time, I would simply say that we have to bear in mind that within the expenditures of our system, there are certain social choices that have been made, such as welfare, legal aid, the right to work, the right to health care, the right to education, and things of that nature. These are social choices and political choices that are outside of any domain of savings we could achieve within our narrow mandate.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I know my time is up, but could I just make a very brief point?

The Chairman: Okay, one point.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: This AG report refers to $100 million a year in Ontario and Quebec in costs for social assistance to claimants. In the province of Ontario those costs have recently been handed over entirely to the municipalities. We're looking at $100 million in the province of Ontario being added to a property tax bill, where they have no ability to deal with that problem. As a former mayor, Mrs. Wayne, you would appreciate that. I think it's very critical.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mahoney.

Mrs. Wayne, you may want to pick up on that point or start something else. You have eight minutes.

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

In the report the Auditor General refers to the fact that:

More than 170 members have left the Board since 1994, leaving it with a large number of inexperienced members. Such a high turnover rate is bound to affect the quality of decisions.

That's on page 25-20.

I guess my question is to the Auditor General. Is it your opinion, sir, that instead of appointing Immigration and Refugee Board members, perhaps permanent positions should be put in place? Then we won't have this turnover and you will have people in place.

It's costing you $91,000 to train a person and then some of them are there for two to three years. I noted that on the next page it says “the average number of cases finalized quarterly per Board member fell dramatically in 1994, when 126 terms expired and only 24 were renewed”. If you'd take a look at what it is costing in order to do that, you must have experienced people there, there's no question. We see the problem now; we have more than 30,000 immigrants whose cases have not been dealt with.

My question is shouldn't you put permanent people in place instead of having this rotation all the time? Do you think you should expand upon the length of time of a board member, sir?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I think the alternative of appointing permanent members or staff to handle these cases is valid, but I'm not ready to say it's necessarily the best alternative. I think what we were advocating or indicating in our report is that if we could have less turnover and longer periods over which the members of the commission serve as members, overall you'd see an increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of the whole operation.

I think there could be some merit to having appointed people for a fixed period of time, provided it's long enough. If it's not a lifetime appointment, you can sometimes better recruit people for a more precise term. I think the objective here should be for those who are performing well to stretch their term as long as possible.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: My other question is a follow-up to what my colleague Steve had brought forward. Certainly there is no way that local governments can afford to pick up that cost. There is absolutely no way they can do that. What's going to happen to these people? The only way they could cover that is with a dramatic increase in tax rates, which we can't afford across this country.

I'm really concerned about what Steve has brought forward. That's the first time I've heard that; I didn't know that. I'm wondering if there's dialogue. Is there dialogue with the local governments on this?

The Chairman: I think we'll keep the questions directed to the witnesses rather than across the table.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay. I'm just wondering how the dialogue is taking place, Mr. Chairman.

• 1615

The Chairman: I think your question is, is the department or the IRB aware of what impact the change in policy in the province of Ontario is going to have? You could ask whether they have taken this change in policy into consideration.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: It's worth noting that the ILRAG report, when looking at the refugee determination system, underlined the cost to the provinces and to the municipalities. Their solution was, in part, that if changes could be made to the process to make it much more compact and much quicker, so that people could be removed much more quickly, a lot of the cost issues would be taken care of in that way.

We have to analyse the recommendations and make sure that is in fact what would happen if we followed those recommendations, or else look at other alternatives. When people have looked at the refugee determination system in the past, that has always been the intent, and it's not always worked out that way. There are many reasons that the process gets elongated, including charter considerations and others, which are beyond all of our control.

But, yes, the cost of the system, the peripheral cost to the provinces and municipalities, is a big issue, even if it's not one we can directly affect, other than what we do to the system overall.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Wayne.

Mr. Grewal, we're now on to the second round, so it will be four minutes now.

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

As I understand it, the refugees are given medical examinations, to be done after their cases are accepted. With the backlog, it takes sometimes two years or two and a half years before their cases are accepted. Who is accountable for the transmittal of infectious diseases, such as HIV and so on, to the Canadian citizens in the meantime, until their cases are accepted and medical examinations are done? And who is responsible for the cost of treatment for them?

If I can put the other question at the same time, which is related to a different topic, then the ball will be in your court. In exhibit 25.4, it's shown that 29% of cases either withdraw from the system or abandon the system. Where is the accountability in the system, knowing that there is no exact control at the border and knowing that out of 20,000, only 4,000 have been deported? Where do those people disappear to, and who's responsible for the criminal activities or any other activities they might be doing during that time? And since they don't have any social insurance number issued, because they are not immigrants, what is the system to track them down?

Third, since 60% of refugees arriving in Canada are without documents, what is the system to deport them? And when they don't have any documents, are the other countries where they come from willingly accepting them without documentation, or is this a major obstacle in the system to deport them? If that's the case, is the Minister of Foreign Affairs doing something about tying foreign aid with the acceptance of those people who don't have any documents?

Those are my questions.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Vankessel to reply to the first question and Mr. Grant to the second.

The Chairman: We'll take them quite quickly and briefly.

The first question was dealing with the spread of infectious diseases by refugees prior to their determination.

Mr. Gerry Vankessel (Director General, Refugee Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you.

When a refugee claimant comes to Canada, one of the things we do immediately is request that a medical examination be undertaken so that we know the person's medical record and whether there's the need for treatment or whether the person has no medical problems at all.

Whatever the medical costs are, they are covered under what I think is called the federal interim health program, which last year spent about $28 million to cover the costs. So it's not a provincial cost; it's a cost that's picked up by the federal government.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Is it done immediately when the person applies for refugee status, or is it done when the case is accepted?

Mr. Gerry Vankessel: No, it is done upon arrival. As soon as the person arrives and indicates he wants to make a refugee claim, then medical instructions are issued. The medical examination is done at that time.

• 1620

A voice: It's not done right then.

A voice: No, but it's—

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Not within five minutes but within the first week or two weeks, not months after. There it says right away, medical—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: It was years after.

The Chairman: Mr. Vankessel, I think the question is how quickly is the medical examination done?

Mr. Gerry Vankessel: I think it's within a couple of weeks, I do not have the exact figures. We request that it's done within a couple of weeks. It is a challenge sometimes to get them done within that period of time. I acknowledge that immediately. In most cases, it does happen at that time.

Again, if there are costs involved in terms of medical treatments and so on, those are picked up by the federal government under the program I mentioned.

The Chairman: Do you want to pursue this one final question on this issue, Mr. Grewal? We'll have to leave the other questions for a second round.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

The Chairman: You're okay right now?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: If I have a minute left, I'd ask if foreign aid is tied with anything or is there anything done to deport them without documents? Are the other countries willing to accept them? Is that an obstacle?

Mr. Gerry Vankessel: I hate to be bureaucratic, but it's not really my question to answer, because Brian Grant deals with that issue. In response to Mr. Reynolds' question, I think he dealt with that at least in part.

This is one of the things we are looking at in terms of seeing what are the various tools we could use to try to encourage countries to accept back the people who are in fact their citizens.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Grewal. Mr. Laurin, four minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Frecker, how long have you been with the Board?

Mr. John Frecker: Since April, 1995.

Mr. René Laurin: Could you explain the evaluation process to me again? I don't think I fully understood. The other witness was saying that the Department had nothing to do with the renewal of contracts because these were order in council appointments. As far as I'm concerned, order in council appointments are made by the Governor General-in-Council.

Mr. John Frecker: Yes.

Mr. René Laurin: Who is this council, the minister? Who councils the Governor General in this whole thing?

[English]

Mr. John Frecker: The Governor in Council, the cabinet,

[Translation]

but not the minister.

Mr. René Laurin: The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry of Commerce mustn't have much to say concerning Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I imagine it is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada who, in those cases, must make recommendations to the Governor General for Cabinet. So it is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who has a say in that.

Mr. John Frecker: I thought I heard Mr. Fyffe saying "ministère" and not "ministre".

[English]

The ministry, the department, doesn't get involved in the nominations. The minister as a member of cabinet makes recommendations to her colleagues, but that's in her role as a member of cabinet, not with the implication of her officials.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Fine. So the recommendations made by the evaluation committee are forwarded to the minister's office and she makes recommendations to Cabinet and the Governor General. Is that actually how things happen?

[English]

Mr. John Frecker: In the process for renewal, the board conducts evaluations and the board makes reports to the ministerial advisory committee. The ministerial advisory committee, which is an independent committee of outside people, reviews these recommendations and reports to the minister personally, saying certain people are qualified and certain people are not. If that committee says a person is not qualified, the minister will not put their name forward. If the committee says a person is qualified, the minister may or may not put their name forward for renewal.

In the renewal process there's been a shift very recently in that the renewals are no longer handled by the committee. The way renewals are handled now, the board makes recommendations directly to the minister, but it's the same process. If the board recommends against a renewal, the minister will not consider the candidate. If the board recommends in favour of renewal, the minister will consider it but is not bound to accept it.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: It's the same process for renewing the term and the first term. Is it the same committee who sits?

Mr. John Frecker: Yes, it's the same committee.

• 1625

[English]

The committee was involved in all renewals and all original appointments, but the workload got to be so heavy that the committee is dealing only with the new appointments now. The board has assumed responsibility for providing its recommendations to the minister, based on the internal evaluations.

So the committee deals with the new appointments; the board is not involved in that.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: My last question comes in two parts. As it was the same committee evaluating the new people for hire and evaluating those whose terms might be renewed, how is it the term of 75% of those people was not renewed? It's probably because that committee hadn't made a very good choice in the first place that so many of them were not renewed. Either the choices were bad or the process was flawed.

Earlier, you told me the average term was now up to 4.1 years but the Auditor General, in his report said that in December 1997 the average term was 3.1 years. So the average length of the term increased by a year over a period of one month and a half. How do you explain that?

[English]

Mr. John Frecker: Perhaps I can explain. The 74% non-renewable rate was in 1994. The committee was appointed in August 1995, and since the committee was appointed the rate of renewal of mandates has gone up quite dramatically. If I'm not mistaken, over 70% of the mandates in 1997 that came due were renewed. So there's been a shift. With the creation of the committee and the board's evaluation process, the number of people being renewed is much higher than it was back in 1994.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

Mr. Myers, please, you have four minutes.

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

The Auditor General's report highlights the problems with the information systems. I'm looking now at paragraph 25.38 with respect to systems being unable to compile information needed to account for resources used in processing refugee claims, at references made to availability and quality of information. I wonder if there's a plan now in place to improve on this situation.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chair, yes, we do have a plan in place to deal with the situation. We are using a system called the field operational support system, or FOSS. It is using an aging technology. It was introduced back in 1980, and of course, with the changes in the flows, the numbers involved and the complexity of the cases we're dealing with, we need to upgrade the system. What we are developing right now is a national case management system that will allow the department to better monitor the cases in the system. So this is one of the initiatives.

We have also an initiative in Toronto that is called the GTEC. This is the Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre. The centre will use a system that will allow the area that has most of the enforcement cases to deal in a more efficient and effective way with these cases.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I want to be clear on this. Are these systems in place now or are they being proposed to be in place?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: No, we are working on the development of the systems. They are going to be in place for the national management case system. We'll be starting to implement it in the first part of the calendar year 1999.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary question.

Will they then address specifically the shortfalls outlined in the Auditor General's report?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: This is the intent, Mr. Chairman. We don't know whether we'll have the ideal system in place, but we'll have a system that will be much more efficient and effective than the one we have now.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Ms. Caplan, you have four minutes.

• 1630

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In my riding, which is located in York Region, there is some concern from the health unit, from the board of health....

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty] Are you aware of the concern? As part of the medical testing of immigrants who are tested in their country of origin as well as refugees who are tested within weeks of their arrival in Canada, we know there is effective treatment for tuberculosis. While it is a communicable disease, we know it can be treated effectively.

I'm wondering whether this is a concern that the department has heard and whether you have taken any action to satisfy the boards of health across the country that may share the same concern as York Region, particularly about the spread of tuberculosis?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: It's a very serious concern. There are a number of areas of the population in which the spread of tuberculosis is quite significant.

I'm afraid that going on to the measures requires a more detailed answer than I can give you right now. The department has medical officers and it works quite closely with the Department of Health. I can undertake to get you further information on that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's important that the committee have that information. I'd appreciate a report even in writing if it isn't possible to have it before the end of our deliberations today. We need to be able to know the extent of the problem and what is being done. You said you're spending some $28 million on health for refugees and immigrants—

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Just for refugee claimants.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —here in Canada. The fact that this issue has been raised by health units makes it appropriate for this committee to give them a response from the ministry to address their concern. It is a legitimate concern, particularly because you are dealing with a communicable disease that is treatable.

Secondly, do you have any other information on the concerns that have been raised by municipalities, by health units across the country? Where you have responded to those concerns I'd be interested, and I think the committee would be interested, in ensuring that we have responded in an appropriate and positive way to assist in particular the municipalities that have to deal with these issues. If we could share that information across the country, it would perhaps save them both time and money.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: This is of course an issue that is beyond the refugee system. It impacts on the whole immigration program. Generally, our health officers work with the posts abroad and with the provinces to see if there's a health issue that endangers the public and whether someone coming into the country would impose unacceptable costs on provincial health systems. Both of those are our criteria, and I will undertake to get you some further information on that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I've had cases in my own office of people who are considered medically inadmissible to Canada. When they receive a minister's permit, that permit clearly states they are not eligible for the provincial health coverage. The question I have is that those people are unlikely to be eligible for any third-party insurance coverage. I've been unable to give them any advice on how they can stay in Canada without facing bankruptcy to deal with their health issues.

I am wondering what advice you would give them.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Okay, I will get further information.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Caplan.

Mr. Grose, you have four minutes, please.

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

I realize I'm not here to answer questions. In reply to Mr. Laurin's point about the appointments and reappointments and the high turnover, let's put the cards on the table. It's a political appointment, and there's a long line-up waiting to get to the trough. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It relates to the size of the reduction of the Tory caucus.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Right.

Mr. John Reynolds: It's nice to hear. It's refreshing.

The Chairman: We should reserve this debate for the House.

Mr. Grose, continue, please.

• 1635

Mr. Ivan Grose: I still have a problem with the undocumented people. If they have no documents, they obviously had documents when they got on the airplane and they've done something with them; they've brokered them or something. Why do we not just put them back on the airplane and send them back where they came from? If they're refugees they must have had something to get on that airplane. If they're coming across the border from the United States they must have had something to get into the United States.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: My colleague here is immersed in this problem, but before I turn it over, I want to point out that our basic problem is that once somebody is on the tarmac in a jetliner, they're protected by the charter. It is not easy for us to just turn them around. This unleashes a whole string of problems. If we don't know who they are, it's more difficult to evaluate their claim. If we don't know who they are and we have difficulty proving it, it's more difficult to get countries to cooperate with us in sending them back.

It's an extremely difficult problem. It's one that every receiving country is wrestling with right now. Yes, they do have documents when they get on the plane. Yes, they get rid of them. It's not easy to just turn them around because of other legal considerations.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Maybe some days I feel you could check them in the airplane. If they don't have documents, send them back and throw them out the door where they came from. I know that's a bit extreme, but it's something we're going to have to do something about, because it's become a mecca for people without documents.

There's one other question that bothered me. It can take up to two weeks to have a medical examination. Where are these birds in the meantime? Are they in custody?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: No.

Mr. Ivan Grose: They're running around with whatever infectious disease they have and introducing it to our country.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I hope that would not be the case, but we would not normally detain under those circumstances.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I'm discouraged. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brian Grant: Mr. Chairman, could I add something to that just to clarify an earlier question as well?

In terms of immigrants, every immigrant who comes to Canada is required to take a medical examination. The two grounds of inadmissibility are danger to the public and excessive burden on the health care system. Nobody can go forward before that. If somebody has tuberculosis abroad, for instance, which is the main one for danger to the public, then they must undergo a course of treatment before they're allowed to go forward. They will be put under surveillance and we discuss with the provinces.

The problem you raise is one that is crucial and worldwide, which is that the protection that people are seeking must be determined first before all other considerations because these people are claiming to be in fear of their lives. In that case, you have somebody who arrives in Canada or the United States—it's the same everywhere—and they're on your shores. You cannot refuse that person. You cannot send them back until you determine whether they are a refugee or not, so they're right there.

What we have said is that we will require that they undergo a medical examination and we give them a 60-day period in which to do that. Most of them will do it within a couple of weeks because we have also tied it to their claim. Their claim will not begin, and as part of that they will not be able to work. We won't issue a work permit until they've had a medical examination. We've also encouraged them.

Frankly, there's little reason for most of these people to fear a medical examination. If you're found to be a refugee, even if you're medically inadmissible, the fact that you're a refugee overrides that. If you require treatment for tuberculosis, then we will begin the course of treatment immediately and we will work with the public health authorities in the provinces to deal with it.

It's in nobody's interest to delay this. It doesn't help with their refugee claim. It doesn't help with their story. It doesn't hinder it in any way. The only hindrance is that they can't work until they do it. What we try to do is explain to them that it's in their own interest and that if they have a problem we can treat it. They don't have to pay for it; it's paid for in Canada.

Yes, it is a problem because they're here, but....

The Chairman: Mr. Harb has a comment to make.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): I have just one question and then a comment. Approximately how many refugees sponsored by the government come to Canada every year?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Approximately 7,300.

Mr. Mac Harb: Frankly, I did not want to make a comment today, but after listening to my colleagues on both sides of the table.... I really took offence to some of these comments.

• 1640

We're trying to paint everyone with the same brush. Not every refugee who comes to this country is a crook or just trying to break the laws of this country, and/or is infected with a highly transmittable disease and deserves to be thrown off a plane or shipped back to his country of origin.

By and large, the majority of refugees who come to this country are legitimate refugees who have cases and are heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board, and in some cases are reviewed by our courts. For some of my colleagues to really make this unsubstantiated, unacceptable, unfair, and unjust comment really disappoints me, Mr. Chair. That's all I wanted to say.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harb. I agree with your point that there are some very genuine refugees. Canada, being the humanitarian country it is, most definitely has a policy of welcoming these with open arms. But unfortunately we do know there is abuse of the system as well, and that is the issue that—

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, we can enter into a long debate and I don't want to do that. My only comment came as a result of some of the comments that were made throughout the meeting, and I would suggest we leave the debate for another time.

The Chairman: Yes, I agree with you, Mr. Harb.

The questions I want to ask deal with our capacity to determine the genuine refugees from those who unfortunately want to break down our door and perhaps get in here by end-running the rules of immigration.

We have just pointed out, for example, that if someone has a health problem, they can't come here as a legitimate landed immigrant through the normal course; they would be denied because of the health problem. But we've also heard that a refugee claim overrides any health problem. You mentioned tuberculosis, and I'm concerned, for example, with HIV. Do we test for HIV when people come for the medical?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: No, we don't, unless there are some signs that would indicate that the applicant is sick. Then our visa officer could ask for a medical examination. But we don't have universal, systematic tests for HIV.

The Chairman: Well, that concerns me. I understand our need to allow genuine refugees into this country, but we are allowing people to come into this country and perhaps, through the spread of a disease for which there is no cure, give the kiss of death to legitimate Canadians who are already here and maybe were born here.

Mr. Mac Harb: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb: I honestly believe that if we want to talk about issues that are outside the scope of what we have before us, which is the Auditor General's report, we should be prepared to bring in other parties, along with our public servants. I have no problem with them, Mr. Chair, but we should bring in representatives from the United Nations as well as refugee groups and others, and let's have a debate about that.

But today I want to focus, Mr. Chair, on what's in this report. I don't want to enter into a situation where we're brushing everybody as trying to infect our society, or to send out a signal in the community that refugees in fact are the problem. If we want to talk about legitimate refugees, that's fine; it's fair game. But it seems to me that we are venturing out, Mr. Chair, and brushing everybody with the same brush, and I don't think that's fair.

The Chairman: Mr. Harb, the comment has been made that there are two kinds of applicants: there are very definitely genuine refugees and there are others. If we were quite happy that 99.9% of applicants were genuine refugees, we wouldn't have this elaborate system of checks and balances and so on. That's what the Auditor General has been checking.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I would like to clarify the points I made so that this implication is not reflected in my comments. My comments are not directed to refugees; my comments are from within the book, and they were referred to.

• 1645

I have three cases in my riding of people who have been given medical examinations to be done—in one case after six months, and in another case after one and a half years from the time the person landed in Canada. My intention was to say that for the betterment of Canada and for the health care, in the case when fingerprints are done, if the medical can be given right away probably we will save embarrassment and cost to the Canadian health-care system.

It has nothing to do against any refugee. It is not painting them with the same brush. I just wanted to clarify this.

The Chairman: I think your point is well taken. If we have to wait a year and a half before the medical is applied, who knows what can happen in the meantime. Tuberculosis is a very serious disease as well.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you.

The Chairman: Looking at exhibit 25.7, I am concerned about the number of people who come in here who apply for refugee status with no documentation. Again, I understand that some refugees who have fled in fear of their lives will take whatever they can and get on a plane and get here. We welcome them with open arms. But 60% haven't fled for immediate fear of their lives.

I'm especially looking at the ones who come to our inland offices. I'm looking at Montreal, Quebec, 4,310 at an inland office; Etobicoke in Ontario, 2,736; Vancouver Metro, 1,206. It adds up to about one-third of all refugees applying to inland offices with no documentation. These people got into this country with documentation and somewhere between the port of entry and the point of application, even if they've arrived at the safe haven that they've so desperately wanted to find, they destroy the documents before they apply for refugee status.

What is your response to that type of...60% have no documentation, yet they're even applying to inland ports for refugee status?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: My reaction, Mr. Chairman, is that I'm familiar with most.... We have taken a lot of measures to try to discourage it at airports. Our information is that they show up at the border. They would be people who are admitted at the border after having made a refugee claim. They may go to one of those offices subsequently.

I look to one of my colleagues if they want to correct me.

I would agree with you. They would have to come through a border, even if they were undocumented, to show up inland.

The Chairman: Mr. Flageole, do you have something to say about that? The Auditor General's report is telling us that one-third of refugees apply through inland offices. Your statement is that 60% of refugees have no documentation. Have you anything to add to what's in the report?

Mr. Richard Flageole: Mr. Chairman, if we look at the exact figures, in 1996 40%—I'm referring to paragraph 25.41—of all applications were made in inland offices. We give the breakdown here.

Those people had to come through the border with documentation. They came in on a certain status, either as a visitor or some other kind of status. But they had to make some kind of declaration when they were accepted in Canada. They decided after being admitted on different grounds to claim refugee status in an inland office.

The Chairman: We would have allowed them in as a visitor or—I can't think of anything else. Canadian citizenship, landed immigrant or visitor are basically the only three ways that a person can get into our country if they're not claiming refugee status. Am I correct?

Mr. Richard Flageole: They can come in on a student authorization, as temporary workers. There are different—

The Chairman: Okay. But why are we having 40% of people showing up at inland offices claiming refugee status when they didn't claim it at the border? Then they have no documentation when they show up.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Do you want me to answer?

The Chairman: No, I prefer—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: How many people have come to your constituency office because they can't get a visitor's visa for a loved one?

The Chairman: I prefer the witnesses answer, Ms. Caplan. My point is that they did have documentation to get in.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: To be frank, we're not familiar with the problem put in that way. The undocs are the ones who come at the border with no documents or come at the airports with no documents. There would be a group who come in having been issued with a visitor's visa or coming from a country perhaps where they don't require a visa. They would then possibly go to an inland office to submit the papers for refugee status. When we look at visas and visa requirements and when we examine people who want a visa, we look at the potential for a refugee claim.

• 1650

The Chairman: Mr. Flageole, virtually 100% of the people who apply to the inland offices would have papers. So not 60% but perhaps 80% to 90% don't have papers at the border points. Would that be an assumption?

Mr. Richard Flageole: Mr. Chairman, the percentage of people who don't have any documentation matches exactly the percentage of people who apply at the border, so we have 60% of the people applying at the border. We didn't get a further breakdown of the people without papers between border points and inland. It would be unlikely that 100% of the people showing up at the border would not have any papers, so there's a certain percentage of people applying inland who won't have any documentation.

The Chairman: There is a percentage?

Mr. Richard Flageole: Unless we assume 100% of the people claiming at the border don't have any papers, because we're looking at exactly the same percentage.

The Chairman: The point I'm trying to make, and I appreciate Mr. Harb's point, is that word is perhaps getting around the world that—and it was confirmed here in the last meeting—there are couriers around the world getting people into Canada and other safe havens who are forging, destroying and collecting documentation and so on. The word is perhaps out around the world that Canada is best when you have no documentation. I appreciate the point that you are a bit more skeptical when they have no documentation, but 60% having no documentation whatsoever when we know they had it when they got on the airplane.... It seems we are generating the impression that it's better without documentation than with documentation. Why would that be?

Mr. Gregg Fyffe: In terms of your statement that there are people around the world who are smuggling people and specializing in forged documents and so on, this is exactly true. This is a growing problem. This is a problem in all of the western countries and they are all having a similar proportion of undocumenteds.

This is a very serious problem for us and it's one that Mr. Grant is wrestling with in cooperation with other countries. Once people know, and this applies to other counties, that if they can get into the country then we have to look at the refugee claim.

There are things that are taken into account when people don't have documents, and I think the board referred to this in some of its answers at the past appearance. It is a very serious problem. And if they have no documents we have additional problems in proving what country they came from, and additional problems in getting the country we think they came from to take them back. Many of those countries are reluctant to take them back even if we've established their identity and nationality beyond any doubt whatsoever.

The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'd like to comment on Mr. Harb's comments before I start. It's unfortunate that he would take it that we were doing anything to attack people from anywhere. Those of us who come from either Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver have a serious problem right now with refugees who are jumping the cue.

I would support a big increase in refugees selected by the government from outside Canada. I have no trouble with that at all. It's the ones who are abusing the system that I think everybody, and some of the members on your side sit on the immigration committee....

So let's not get it onto a plane where we're talking about racism or anything. That has nothing to do with it whatsoever. It is about people coming to a country that's a great place to live in, and we want to make sure they do it the proper way. We all have sympathy for legitimate refugees all over the world.

I want to go to the Auditor General. I asked a question a long time ago about the L.A. office missing some money. There was a problem down there—I don't know whether it was stolen or misplaced, but at the time we asked the minister in committee and she didn't want to comment on it because I think they hadn't laid any charges yet.

Maybe both sides can answer this, but what kind of protection do we have that the Auditor General's office—if you are doing your audits—is looking at the systems they're using in these foreign offices to make sure money isn't disappearing?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, we did not address that specific question in the course of this particular audit, but it is on our list of issues we want to pursue in upcoming audits. Following this report we have two or three other subjects in mind that we would like to pursue further, and this is one of them.

• 1655

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chair, in a general way, the comment I can make is that we do audit our missions abroad, and we do that in consultation with our colleagues at DFAIT. Every time there are allegations of malfeasance, we investigate them, and in some cases with the cooperation of the RCMP. Depending on the circumstances of the case, we can conduct an administrative investigation or a criminal investigation.

In terms of the specific case referred to by the member, I don't have any comments to make before this committee.

Mr. John Reynolds: Has money in fact gone missing in L.A. and is there an investigation ongoing?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: There is still an investigation ongoing.

Mr. John Reynolds: Okay.

Mr. Laurin asked some interesting questions at the last meeting. With regard to the IRB, Mrs. Mawani commented that “we have an independent advisory committee on appointments that is screening qualified candidates for appointment to the IRB”. I understand that the appointments are order in council, but obviously your group has “an independent advisory committee” that's screening.

How do they get the applicant...? How could somebody like Anna Terrana apply for this job, this independent advisory committee, and then get appointed? I agree with Mr. Grose and I think the party I used to belong to has the same thing. I remember getting calls about who I would like to get on this group. I never thought it was right then and I don't think it's right now. But if it's an independent advisory committee, how do I tell my constituents that it is a nice-paying job and they should apply for it too? Obviously they'll never get chosen, but at least I could tell them the process.

Mr. Paul Thibault: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to comment on any specific candidate or member, but the committee screens candidates based on an announcement that is published in the Canada Gazette—I think the last time it was published was the beginning of September—along with the qualifications and where to send it. Anybody who meets the qualifications stated in the Canada Gazette is free to send in their application. It will be screened through a rigorous process that is based on the qualifications, reference checks and all the rest of it. Then it goes to the advisory committee, which does a final interview, and then the list of names gets passed on to the minister's office and the process takes on from there.

Mr. John Reynolds: How many people applied and how many actually got to an interview?

Mr. Paul Thibault: I would have to get back to you on the exact numbers. The last time, on the basis of the last ad—and I would have to check my numbers—I think about 150 applications were received.

Mr. John Reynolds: And all would be interviewed?

Mr. Paul Thibault: They would be screened through various processes. If they didn't meet the basic qualifications, they wouldn't get interviewed.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. Laurin, four minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: You yourself, Mr. Thibault, were you hired under a process like that?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Mr. Laurin, I'm a public servant on assignment.

Mr. René Laurin: You're not a Governor in Council appointment?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Yes.

Mr. René Laurin: Ah, so! You are...

Mr. Paul Thibault: I'm a public servant on leave without pay.

Mr. René Laurin: Well! I hope you're not working for free.

Mr. Paul Thibault: You know, a report was recently published concerning public servants remuneration. So I'll leave it up to you to decide whether we're working for free or not.

Mr. René Laurin: There was one on MPs' remuneration also.

I'd like to get back to the Auditor General's report and more specifically to paragraphs 25.22 and following where it says that a claim can ensure a paid stay for a period of over two and a half years and that fragmentary data have led to an evaluation that it costs the federal administration $100 million a year plus another $100 million per year for Ontario plus another $100 million a year for Quebec because those are the two provinces receiving the most immigrants.

When the Auditor General mentions fragmentary data, does that mean that we could easily suppose that it would actually costs double that, for example, as it's very fragmentary and he's had problems in evaluating this very exactly? Would it be out of order to say that it could just as well be $200 million as $100 million?

Mr. Denis Desautels: We wouldn't go that far, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask Mr. Flageole to respond more fully.

Mr. Richard Flageole: It's very difficult to arrive at any estimation. First of all, we have a lot of problems obtaining any figures. Secondly, there is quite a number of elements included in there. Welfare costs are important, that's for sure.

• 1700

On the other hand, there are other costs like education, for example, which is an important component in the process and we've not been able to evaluate the size of that because the data simply were not available. So it's very difficult. It's certainly more than that. I think we're setting out a minimum for you. How far can it go? It's very difficult to give an estimate.

Mr. René Laurin: At the provincial level, more specifically in Quebec, it costs the government on average $5,000 per year per student for education. The cost is about the same in Ontario. If there are 25,000 cases not yet settled, then that adds up to a lot money. One could presume that those people go to school during that time and that the government spends $5,000 a year for each of them. We're just talking education here. Then you have welfare that gets added to that, legal aid and so on. So it could be said that it's double that amount without much fear of being wrong.

M. Denis Desautels: What's important is that it shows that delays in the system cost everyone. If we could shorten the process, that might not save much money for those who were approved because they'll eventually be covered by those public systems, but it will put an end to the expenses in the case of those who are refused. At least, we hope so.

Mr. René Laurin: In the presentation that we were given...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, Mr. Tsaï would like to respond to that as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Tsaï: I'd like to add to the answer provided by Mr. Flageole.

The fact is that the information we gave the Auditor General come from a system that was set up between the departments and organizations involved in immigration and it's true that these are merely estimates.

I'd like to point out to the honourable member that our department hired expert advisers to get a better idea of the costs involved in the processing of refugee claims and their impact on our department.

Mr. René Laurin: And when do you think you'll get that cost estimate prepared by your expert advisor?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: I think we'll be getting those results in a few months. I believe I have that information. I could provide it to you later if I get confirmation. It will probably be some time between now and the end of the 1998 financial year.

Mr. René Laurin: Thank you.

Now, in the 1997-1998 report prepared by the IRB on its plans and priorities, it had committed to decreasing the backlog to 26,000 by the end of 1997-1998 and to lower the average length of the process to eight months by September 1998. But three conditions were set out. Where are we with those conditions at this time? Which ones have been met and which ones have not?

The first condition was "the legislative provision establishing, as a standard, hearings held before a single member". The second was "that the staff of the Board member of the IRB be increased" and the third "that a critical mass of experienced members be kept". So where are we with all this?

Mr. Paul Thibault: As you know, Mr. Laurin, the legislative provision concerning single member hearings has not yet been put to the House. However, I should point out that even without that provision, approximately 24% of our hearings are held before a single member with the agreement of all parties. Even without such a provision and with everyone's agreement, we're trying to increase this number because it's more efficient.

As for the number of members, we now have about 169 full-time, I believe, which is a critical mass for us. What mainly counts is that the members are experienced, that they have the necessary qualifications and so forth.

• 1705

Right now, we have term renewals in the order of about 71%. I'd say it's a good average. In those conditions, we could meet the year 2000 target with a backlog of about 19,000 cases or eight month's worth.

Essentially, it's the single member hearing that makes the difference. As I was saying, we're going to try to increase that percentage.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I was pleased to hear my colleague state that the reason the changes came and the appointment was made—he admitted this—was political. That's the reason I asked my previous question, Mr. Chairman, about permanent employees. I think it's time to get the politics out of it.

I don't care which party is in place. Definitely, I'd have to say that if the Reformers were in place, it would be Reformers going in there as well with the system we have right now. Change it, do what's right, and that's it. It's time.

I have great respect for the Auditor General. He brings in a report that's honest, that we have to deal with. I think it's time, as the chair said, to look at permanent employees in place so as to cut the cost. Perhaps we could be able to get on with what has to be done.

It was mentioned here today that 7,300 immigrants every year apply to come to Canada. Was that the figure?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: That figure was given in response to the question of how many government-sponsored refugees there are. The government engages 7,300 in a process overseas that selects them and brings them to Canada, which is quite apart from those of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Could you enlighten me as to how you choose where these people are going to go? I see you have a large number of immigrants in Ontario, Quebec, and out west. What about back east in the maritime provinces? Who makes the choice?

Mr. Gerry Vankessel: We have a process each year, when it's determined what the government-sponsored refugee target will be, of working out where they will go. We do that in consultation with a great many people, including some of our people in the regions and by talking to provinces about what their particular wishes are.

We also take into account things like the infrastructure that's available locally to handle the number of refugees who come in. Remember that the federal government also pays the first year of settlement costs in all provinces except Quebec for the refugees it selects abroad.

It's a variety of these things. We do get requests from some of the smaller provinces for more than what's actually provided. In part, that again reflects our judgment as to what can be handled and what infrastructure exists, as I indicated before.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I would just say this, Mr. Chairman. We are known in Saint John, New Brunswick, to have probably the best Indo-Canadian society of anywhere in Canada. We live in harmony, and it's absolutely beautiful. I'm invited every year to their annual dinner, and it's absolutely beautiful. Those people who have come there have done extremely well. I want to say that never does anyone point a finger at any of our people.

I ask them all to take place and participate in Canada Day, and they come forward. These people are all educated people. They're doctors, lawyers, and accountants. They're wonderful. I have to say to Mac that they've done a super job in my area. We'd like to have a few more. I'll sit down and talk to you.

I want to ask a question. The Auditor General reports in paragraph 25.82 that the government has not yet amended the Immigration Act to allow for single-member hearings. He observes that since this change has not been made, “productivity was below projections and delays continued to increase”—although it says also in the performance report that 25% of its hearings have been held by single-member panels. If that would step up the process with single-member hearings, why haven't we done it more often?

Mr. Paul Thibault: I'm sorry, Mrs. Wayne, when you say “done it more often”, you mean—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: You say here that the refugee division completed 21% of its hearings before a single-member panel.

Mr. Paul Thibault: Right, so you wonder why we haven't done more than that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, that's right.

• 1710

Mr. Paul Thibault: Well, unless it's legislated, you have to have the agreement of all parties. You see, the law states that you have to have a two-member panel—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I see.

Mr. Paul Thibault: —but you can waive that if all parties agree to waive that. Right now we're at about 25%, with agreement of all parties.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: So you need an amendment to the Immigration Act to make it 100%?

Mr. Paul Thibault: Exactly.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay, we'll work on that. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mrs. Wayne, I would like to follow up on that question.

Mr. Thibault, if you have a two-member panel, and one says in and one says out, who makes the final decision?

Mr. John Frecker: The act provides that ordinarily if there's a split decision, it goes in favour of the claimant. That was the provision enacted in Bill C-55 in 1988.

With Bill C-86 in 1992 there was an amendment to that. It said that in certain circumstances where there's a split decision, the split decision would go against the claimant.

I'm just trying to recall this off the top of my head; I should know this. Oh yes, wilful destruction of documents—if the panel makes a finding that the documents have been destroyed without reasonable excuse and there's a split decision, then it goes against the claimant.

The Chairman: Otherwise, it's automatically in favour of the claimant.

Mr. John Frecker: Yes, and there is a logic to that. If you go back to the hearings around Bill C-55, there had been a recommendation for three-member panels, which would have been a more normal multi-member tribunal. That was too costly.

I think the chair of the immigration committee at the time, Mr. Hawkes, came up with the idea of the two-member panel. Almost like bridge, with the silent hand, the assumption was that the silent member would go in favour of the claimant. It was sort of a legislative embodiment of giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimants.

The Chairman: I have one little final question. What percentage of claims that go through a two-member panel have a split decision?

Mr. John Frecker: Very few. Maybe five at the outside. Usually what will happen is that the members will—

The Chairman: Resolve it.

Mr. John Frecker: They may initially be in disagreement, but then they will discuss it, and one or the other will prevail.

The Chairman: Okay. I think I'll go to Mr. Mahoney next.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that all these experienced politicians express surprise at the fact that perhaps government appointments are made to reflect the philosophy of the particular government of the day. It's hardly shocking news to any of us.

One of the things that concerns me, though—and I won't speak behind your back, but Mrs. Wayne is leaving....

Well, she made a point that I think many of us make the mistake of making. The question was in relation to the number of refugees who are selected, but the question you asked was how many immigrants are selected? I noted that, because I think that what happens in many instances is that we mix up immigration and immigrants with the refugee situation.

The fact is that our immigration is about 250,000 a year, of which approximately 10%, plus or minus, would be in the form of refugees. Out of that, I believe 7,300 are the ones actually selected. So if we bring in 25,000—

The Chairman: Is that correct? Is Mr. Mahoney's statement correct, that there are 25,000 refugees, of which 7,300 come in through government sponsorship? I thought it was 7,300 in addition to the 25,000.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: It would vary with the acceptance rate, but in very rough figures, because it will vary from year to year.... But if you look at 30,000 applicants, and you have an acceptance rate of around 40%, then you're looking at 12,000 or 13,000, to which you would add 7,300 who were chosen from the government. In some years there are some jointly sponsored ones.

The Chairman: But from my understanding the 7,300 people are in addition to the 25,000.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: No, they would be part—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: My understanding is that they're included.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Certainly they're included.

To put it in a question, would it come as a surprise to anyone in either the immigration system or the refugee system that as many as 60% of people who ask for refugee status are without documents? It would seem to me that they're fleeing and they don't stop in at their embassy to say, could I get a visa or a passport? Even if they happen to have documents when they board an aircraft, they know that if they show their documents, they're quite likely to be returned. So they flush them down the toilet in the airplane, and they come aboard and say, here I am, I'm a refugee.

Why would we be shocked at the fact that many of our refugees would come here without documentation? Let's assume they're all legitimate—we know they're not, but let's assume they are. They're coming here because they're being persecuted, they're being tortured, they're in fear of their lives, their family's lives, whatever. Why are we in such shock that they have no documentation?

• 1715

Mr. Greg Fyffe: There is nothing to prevent someone who is legitimately without documents from making a refugee claim. There are a number of countries where it would be difficult to get documents because of the chaos the country is in. There are certainly circumstances in some other countries where somebody might legitimately have difficulty getting access to documents, particularly passports and so on.

However, that being said, if someone comes with false documents, that is not a bar for their getting into the refugee system. They may have a perfectly good reason for having had to flee with false documents. It is a problem, however, as far as we're concerned, even if they had false documents, if they get rid of them, because it's a lot harder for us to know who they really were. Perhaps that's their intention.

So I certainly accept the basic point that not having documents isn't a bar to being a refugee, and some people legitimately don't have them. However, there remains a very large problem of people who throw away documents we would rather they hang onto.

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

Mr. John Reynolds: I'll follow up on the same topic. I understand that we have been doing a test case now—I don't know whether it's in Vancouver or Toronto—where our people are going on the airplane before people disembark, and are being asked for passports. My understanding is that if they don't have documentation, if they don't get off the plane, we can send them back.

Now, is that why they're going on the airplanes, or are they just...? I'd like to know how that's working.

I understand what Mr. Mahoney is saying, but the fact is that you don't get on an airplane anywhere in the world to come to Canada without having documentation. Certainly in most countries it's a very legitimate passport. Some of these people are coming with three or four people at an airfare of $6,000 each, not the same refugee class we might be thinking about who should be coming here and who are being selected by the government.

I'm wondering how that program, where they're going on the airplanes, works. Are you planning to expand it? What's the process if people on the airplane don't have proper documentation?

Mr. Brian Grant: Well, it's not just in Vancouver. It's a technique we will use from time to time, and it varies.

I actually got off a plane in Toronto on the weekend. They were checking documents of people getting off the plane I was on. The way they did it there was that as you came down the ramp off the plane, there was an immigration officer asking you to show your passport. Just hold up the book and show it. That's one way we'll do it.

Another way is that we'll actually go on the airplane. Everyone will be told to return to their seats, sit in their seats, and we see whether they have a document. If somebody doesn't have a document at that point, then they will still be allowed to come forward if they make a refugee claim.

As Mr. Fyffe said earlier, they're on Canadian soil, they have the protection of the charter, they have a right to an oral hearing, they have protection under the UN convention, which Canada has signed.

What are we trying to do with this? We try many techniques. As I think I said at the last meeting, every time you do something, then the smugglers will do something else. You're constantly trying to outwit each other. So this is one of the things we're doing.

What we really want to do on this is to take that document and if it's a false document.... They may well have had to travel with a false document. If we can get hold of that document, we can do a number of things.

First, we take a document out of circulation that could be used, and probably is used, many times by changing the photograph and some of the information.

Second, we get information from that document. What type of documents are the smugglers using to get into Canada?

Third, whether we have a document or not, there is the airline that carried the person. If the person arrives without a document—say we get on the plane, and there is no document—the airline then is liable for the cost of returning that person. So we tie the person to the flight, as well.

So there are a number of things you can do by checking the documents.

Now, one of the interesting things related to the last point I made is that if you can tie the person to the airline, then you encourage the airline to be even more vigilant at the other end in future.

So it's not a silver bullet or a solution to the problem. It's just one of the techniques we'll use. We won't use it on every flight, because if you use it on every flight, then you won't see the documents. They'll start to hand the documents off to somebody. If they start doing that, then we have provisions under which we can search people. The provisions were put in in 1993. It's always a case of using these different tools and trying them out.

• 1720

The Chairman: Thank you.

I see the bells are ringing. It's a 15-minute bell, so I'll ask the Auditor General for some closing remarks before we adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Tsaï, you have some comments.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a clarification about the question asked by Mr. Laurin, when I answered his specific question about the report from the consultants.

[Translation]

We'll be getting this report by the end of the present fiscal year and not by the end of fiscal year 1998-1999. This study will look at both the department's and the Board's operations. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Desautels, do you have some closing remarks?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

First let me say that the work we did in this area was carried out as all of our work is carried out: with full acceptance of the intent of the legislation. In this case in particular, this is not a hard thing to do.

However, as you have noted, when we carried out the work, we did identify a number of major difficulties in implementing the system that was put in place. As far as I'm concerned, these difficulties are quite serious.

Moreover, I think the view on this is quite unanimous. Most of the people we've talked to agreed that there are problems to be fixed in the system. And these difficulties, of course, are of two kinds. First, I think they do allow abuse by some people, some illegitimate claimants. I note that people are very concerned about that. But the other consequence of these difficulties, of course, is that it's slowing down the process for legitimate refugees who need the protection of Canada.

So the problems we're raising have serious consequences on both fronts, and I think we have to keep that in mind.

Finally, addressing more specifically an earlier question by Mr. Mahoney, as far as we're concerned, the solutions to this are not only administrative. The solutions also have to involve some changes in legislation, as we've seen in the course of the hearings.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

I now have a couple of announcements. Tomorrow, Wednesday, February 18, at 3.30 p.m. the committee has the delegation from the parliament of Vietnam in room 209.

At 4.30 p.m. there will be the briefing by the Auditor General.

On Thursday, February 19, there's a meeting on chapter 29, Industry Canada, management of small business loans.

This meeting stands adjourned.