CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 4, 1999

• 0908

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Fontana is tied up with votes in another committee and will be here a little later. In the meantime, I will chair the meeting and welcome everybody here this morning.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study on all aspects of the refugee determination system and illegal migrants, today we have with us, from the Immigration and Refugee Board: Philip Palmer, general counsel; John Frecker, deputy chairperson, refugee division; Manon Brassard, director general, adjudication division; and Glen Bailey, director general, policy, planning, and research. We have a lot of directors general here this morning.

Welcome, lady and gentlemen. We look forward to your presentation and an opportunity for questions and answers. I'm sure there will be other committee members who will be coming and going. I know that Ms. Augustine has another committee commitment she has to leave for, but we're eagerly interested in talking to you this morning.

[Translation]

Mr. Philip Palmer (General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to be here today to answer your questions about the operations of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

[English]

We're here primarily to answer your questions, but I'll give a few opening remarks to give you some context as to just who the board is and what our functions are, which may assist you in your work.

• 0910

There are a few things we would like you to understand about the Immigration and Refugee Board. First, it is an agency that is composed of three distinct tribunals: the immigration appeal division, the convention refugee determination division, and the adjudication division. Each has its own separate legislative mandate and each has a distinct mode of operation. The common thread to be found is that each of the divisions is vested with significant decision-making powers and each is required to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

[Translation]

IRB's mission is clear, namely to make well-reasoned decisions on immigration and refugees matters efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.

[English]

The IRB is strictly an adjudicative agency, that is to say, it has no powers to create broad policies. Its powers are restricted to making decisions according to the criteria established by Parliament. It has no regulatory or supervisory functions.

Such policies as it makes are restricted to defining its procedures and providing guidance to its decision-makers on the interpretation of the law. It is accountable to the courts for the exercise of its decision-making functions. It is accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the proper administration of its operations.

It might help to explain the tribunal function by mentioning a few things the IRB does not do.

The IRB has no jurisdiction over refugees until they have been referred to the board by officers of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Similarly, the IRB has no authority to detain any person, except on application of the department. Third, the IRB has no authority to effect removals or, of its own initiative, order the detention of persons whose claims to refugee status have been denied. These are all outside the scope of our powers.

[Translation]

A tribunal cannot function apart from the broader community which is necessary to its decision-making process. In the case of the IRB, it must count on the cooperation of claimants or others, such as persons detained under immigration powers, who come before us as parties. We are also...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Give me a moment. I'm not getting the translation.

Mr. Philip Palmer: I'll repeat that.

[Translation]

As I was saying, a tribunal cannot function apart from the broader community which is necessary to its decision-making process. In the case of the IRB, it must count on the cooperation of claimants or others, such as persons detained under immigration powers, who come before us as parties. We are also dependent on the good will, efficiency and skills of the advocates who appear before us, whether members of the Bar or immigration consultants.

Our operations are also affected by the availability of legal aid and the structure of provincial legal aid plans.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): We seem to be having some difficulty with the translation. Mr. Benoit is not hearing it very well.

Mr. Philip Palmer: I'll summarize that.

A tribunal is dependent on the broader community that is necessary to its decision-making processes. In particular in the IRB, we count upon the cooperation of claimants or others such as persons who are detained under immigration powers and have come before us. We're also dependent on the goodwill, the efficiency, and the skills of the advocates who appear before us, whether they be members of the bar or immigration consultants.

Our operations are also affected by the availability of legal aid and by the structure of provincial legal aid plans.

• 0915

Of great importance to us are the procedures and strategies adopted by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, which is an institutional litigant before us in the appeal and adjudication divisions and which often appears before our refugee division as an intervener. It is CIC alone that can determine where it will put its resources—financial, material, and human. It alone determines in which refugee cases it will intervene, and it alone can determine in which cases it will seek detention or recommend release of detained persons. It recommends the terms and conditions of release from detention.

Because of the degree of interdependence between our processes and those of CIC, we have concluded an administrative framework agreement to harmonize administrative matters and to permit a structure for appropriate communication of an administrative nature. The objective of that agreement is to ensure proper meshing between independent systems while respecting the separate accountabilities of our two organizations.

Apart from the parties who appear before us or those whose processes interact with our own, we are operating in a complex legal environment. We need hardly mention the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But in addition to that, more than 1,000 judicial decisions deal with refugee law alone, and these cover virtually every aspect of both substantive law and procedural law.

The issue you have chosen to study is of great interest to the Immigration and Refugee Board. We are mandated by law to be both expeditious and fair. We try to strike a balance between those elements. At the same time, we are concerned for the integrity of our processes. Nobody wins if our processes, which are designed to determine who should enjoy protection from persecution, are subverted to accomplish the purpose of unregulated migration. We must maintain the balance between fairness and expeditiousness while making good decisions, both in terms of their quality and in terms of their correctness.

[Translation]

We refer to maintaining this balance as a concern for the integrity of the system. We believe that integrity is lost if we do not give fair consideration to the cases of those who appear before us. On the other hand, we are concerned about examining closely claims for refugee status, and must be confident in the decisions we make.

Thus, integrity calls for fairness. It also calls for quality decision-making, and quality decision-making depends on the rigorous examination of claims. Lastly, we believe that expeditiousness is, in itself, a factor which supports the integrity of our refugee determination system.

[English]

Less well known but critically important to your understanding of the board are many measures we have taken to ensure that decision-makers are fulfilling the legislative mandate they have been given.

For example, members of the refugee division are regrouped into geographically specialized teams who develop a depth of expertise in country conditions.

Members are expected to ensure that research that may assist in the proper examination of a claim is conducted prior to hearings and may require forensic examinations of suspect documents that are central to a claim.

The IRB notifies officials of CIC where issues of exclusion due to criminality or human rights abuses appear to rise in relation to a claim.

These measures, amongst many others, have ensured that the refugee determination process, while not adversarial in nature, nonetheless is a disciplined examination of claims.

Expeditiousness is the third pole of integrity. In recent years we have placed a special emphasis on reducing our processing times. We have also placed an emphasis on the hearing of claims from new sources quickly so that issues can be researched and claims canvassed before a large pending inventory builds.

We use screening to ensure that appropriate processes and resources are dedicated to the different kinds and complexities of cases that come before us. Measures such as the delivery of oral reasons and better control over postponements and adjournments have helped speed our processes while compromising neither fairness nor quality.

• 0920

I know many of you will be particularly concerned with the situation arising from the arrival of significant numbers of Chinese claimants by boat this summer. Two of our divisions, the adjudication division and the convention refugee determination division, are engaged in dealing with the legal status of those persons.

I would now like to call upon the heads of those divisions to give you a brief explanation of the mandate of their divisions and then to give you an update of the performance of those divisions with respect to these Chinese arrivals.

Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I'd first call upon Manon Brassard, the director general of the adjudication division, and I would then ask John Frecker, the deputy chair of the CRDD, to say a few words, if I might.

Manon.

Ms. Manon Brassard (Director General, Adjudication Division, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you, Philip.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity you're giving me to present the work of the adjudication division and to talk a little bit about the arrival of the Chinese refugee claimants on the boats.

Generally speaking, when someone arrives at the border, he or she meets an immigration officer. That officer, who works for the department, CIC, can arrest and detain that person if in his or her opinion the person poses a danger to the public in Canada or that person would not appear for removal.

If the person has not been released by the immigration officer within 48 hours—if the inquiry hasn't been held, if removal hasn't taken place—there has to be a revision, a detention review, so that there is an opportunity for an adjudicator to review the reasons for that detention. So at the request of CIC, the person is presented to an adjudicator, who will have to determine whether there are valid reasons to continue the detention of that person.

If the reason for the detention is that the person is a danger or not likely to appear, the first detention review happens 48 hours after the person is initially detained, then seven days later, and then every 30 days.

If the adjudicator is satisfied that the person is not likely to pose a danger and is likely to appear, then the adjudicator will release the person. Otherwise the person will continue to be detained until the person is removed from Canada or for the next 30 days.

There is another reason a person could be detained, and that's when a person is unable to satisfy the immigration officer, who works for CIC, of his or her identity. If that's the case, the person will be brought before an adjudicator seven days after the arrest and initial detention. If the minister or the CIC representative can demonstrate that reasonable efforts are being made to investigate the identity of the person concerned, then the adjudicator shall continue the detention. The review, I want to add, will be then every seven days thereafter.

In practical terms, what does this mean? You have to remember that the adjudication process, the detention review, is an adversarial hearing. This means the CIC representative will make his or her case through a CPO, a case presenting officer, and the case presenting officer may make a recommendation to release the person. It is within their mandate. They can suggest that the person be released, with or without conditions, or they can ask that the detention continue. They can present evidence, present arguments, and cross-examine the witnesses of the person concerned, should there be any.

The person who is detained can be represented by a lawyer, and they then make representation as to why they should be released and what kinds of guarantees they could bring to indicate that in fact they will appear for removal, because the purpose of the detention is to make sure the person will ultimately appear for removal.

• 0925

Of relevance to the decision of an adjudicator to decide whether a person is likely to appear for the removal, a number of things are considered. I'll go through a few items, but it's by no means a limited list.

Has the person attempted to avoid detection from an immigration official? Have they refused to cooperate? Have they lied? Have they already contravened conditions, or, on the contrary, do they have a bond person or a family member who's there to say they can guarantee that the person will appear and they are prepared to post a bond, prepared to post money to assure that this person when called to do so will appear?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): If I can interrupt you, we do have a lot of questions coming before the chair, so if we could summarize and hear from Mr. Frecker, we could get into the interactive part of the committee.

Ms. Manon Brassard: Did you want to know anything about what happened on the release of the first boat? That's where I was, and that was my last point.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm very interested in what the witness is saying, so I would request that she continue.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'm not trying to stop her; I'm just trying to move it along.

Mr. John Bryden: I understand, but I would like her to carry on because it is very essential to let everyone know.

Ms. Manon Brassard: Really briefly, as an update on the B.C. situation, in regard to the first boat, I want you to know that on the first detention review we released the 10 minors into the responsibility of the child welfare authority in British Columbia.

At the second seven-day detention review, 76 people were ordered released. What you may be interested in knowing is that at that time, CIC representatives suggested release. A number of conditions to the release of these people were suggested by CIC officials, such as giving their address, reporting changes of address, and that they would appear whenever requested by CIC. Those conditions were ordered by the adjudicator, and 76 people were released. The remainder of the group continues to be detained.

The situation changed with the second, third, and fourth boats. CIC requested at that time that everybody be detained. Most have been, but for a few, offers of release were made, and that's when people would present themselves with a member of their family or an acquaintance and where significant bonds were proposed.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

Mr. Frecker, you want to add something briefly.

Mr. John Frecker (Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Division, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be extremely brief.

As Mr. Palmer pointed out, we are three separate tribunals in the convention refugee determination division, which deals with the determination of refugee claims made in Canada. That's distinct from people who are determined overseas by immigration officials to be refugees.

We were created in 1989 to deal with these inland claims in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in the Singh case, which ruled that in refugee claims where life, liberty, and security of the person were an issue and where credibility is an issue, there's a right to an oral hearing before the decision-maker. The board was created in response to that legal necessity.

A quorum of two members hears the claims. Sometimes we proceed with a single member, on consent. We have to determine whether the person who makes a refugee claim has a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country for one of the five reasons enumerated in the act: race, religion, political opinion, membership in a particular social group, and nationality.

The challenge we face, and I think it's the challenge in the system that's core to your deliberations, is how to do that in an expeditious manner but still maintain fairness in the process and maintain integrity in the sense of quality decision-making.

As Mr. Palmer mentioned, we have organized our members on the basis of geographic specialization so that they are very familiar with the conditions in the countries from which they hear claims. We engage in active research on the background conditions, and we even do claim-specific research in appropriate cases to try to build an evidentiary base. Even though our process is non-adversarial in the sense that there's no case being made by the Canadian state against the refugee claimant, they are subjected to rigorous examination in the context of the refugee hearings. Board members themselves and our staff officers, refugee claim officers, examine the claimants in considerable depth to assess the credibility of their story and to weigh it against the country condition information that our research directorate accumulates.

• 0930

In the context of the British Columbia situation, there we were faced with an unexpected influx of a large number of claimants. They represent about 20% of the annual intake in our Vancouver office. Because the people are detained and because this is a new trend, an unexpected development, we have given priority to the processing of these cases. That's done in accordance with an existing well-established board policy.

I think we have 410 claims—I don't know the exact number—before the board at the moment. They have all been scheduled for hearing. The last one is scheduled for February 15, 2000. We have dealt with most of the claims from the first boat already, and we are starting to deal with claims from the second boat. We anticipate they will be concluded before year end. We'll be dealing with boats three and four in the new year.

There was a delay in getting to deal with the claims from boats three and four because of the logistics around their detention in Prince George. There was a delay in getting the referrals and getting the personal information we require to proceed with the claim, because they were moved out to a remote area and there was a problem getting legal aid and legal counsel for them. That has now been resolved. We believe this particular development, if you want to call it that, is well in hand, and as I said, by the end of this fiscal year we should have all these claims disposed of.

There has been some dislocation of our routine operation because we've had to give priority to this influx, which is outside our ordinary planning envelope, but we anticipate that we will be able to recover ground fairly quickly in the new fiscal year and be back on track. I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee might have.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Good. Thanks very much.

We'll now go on rotation. Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I'll start my questions with Mr. Frecker and some of the comments you made in the last few minutes.

You said for the boat arrivals in Vancouver, about 20% of the claims handled in Vancouver, inland claims, the target date for completion is February 15, 2000, and that you had dealt with most from the first boat. Can you explain and give me the number as to what has happened with the people from the first boat? There were how many, 123 people who arrived on the first boat?

Mr. John Frecker: There were 123 people who arrived. Of those 123, there are negative decisions in 15 claims, reserved decisions in an additional 14, 29 are scheduled to be heard, and 61 have been determined to be abandoned.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, of the 61 claims abandoned, what has happened there?

Mr. John Frecker: These are people who have steps to go through, file the personal information form and then follow up to appear for their hearing. Either they didn't file the personal information form within the time limit, or when the hearing was scheduled they didn't appear for their hearing.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So they either didn't file or didn't appear. Does that mean they've been removed from the country?

Mr. John Frecker: The removal is a CIC responsibility. I don't know what CIC has done with respect to this particular group. I know there are warrants of arrest out for approximately 30 or 32 people. As to the rest, I don't know what has been done. You'd have to ask CIC.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So there are warrants out for 32 people. There are still 29 others. Is the reason the warrants have been issued because they've disappeared?

Mr. Philip Palmer: We can't say that. We don't administer that side of the system, I'm afraid. Although we have cross-links with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we can't explain either the basis for the warrants that have been issued or the steps that have been taken.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Your people have a lot of responsibility over this area, but you don't know what's going on here?

Mr. Philip Palmer: No, excuse me. Let's be clear. We have responsibilities. Our responsibilities are in relation to determination.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that.

Mr. Philip Palmer: The physical custody and whereabouts of persons who make claims before us is not something over which we have any jurisdiction, just as the ordinary courts of law don't have jurisdiction over the people who—

• 0935

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that, too, but to make your determination system work well, surely you must talk to the people from CIC to find out what's happening.

Mr. John Frecker: Mr. Benoit, we deal with CIC to coordinate on administrative matters, but once we have determined the claim to be abandoned, CIC is notified of that decision. The conditional removal order that was issued by the immigration officer at the time the claim was made becomes executable. Then the person is in the removal track, which is outside the jurisdiction of the board.

As a court, it would be inappropriate for us to become involved in that aspect of the procedure. It's not that we don't have an interest in it; it's just that there's a limit to our jurisdiction.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, I understand the procedure, but I thought you'd probably know anyway, just out of interest, how it might impact on the determination process.

The fifteen negative determinations I understand quite fine. I think the right hand should know what the left hand's doing.

That comment was aimed at Jean Augustine.

Out of the fifteen where there was a negative determination made, where are these people now? What's happened? Have they been released? Are they being detained?

Mr. John Frecker: My understanding is that they're in the removal track. Since they were in the first stream, I don't know; maybe Manon can explain whether they've been brought before the adjudication division for detention reviews. I'm not aware of that. Again, it's the decision of the department as to how they effect the removal.

They do have rights. Some of them have rights to apply for judicial review of our determination. I don't know if they have exercised that right or not. Others are immediately removable, or removable within seven days of the decision, because there was a determination that there was no credible basis for their claim.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

Let's get back to this. From the first boat that came in from China, you said the CIC officials decided not to detain most of the people who arrived. I guess you really can't answer as to “what”, either. I mean, it's up to CIC to determine whether they're going to detain and whether they have reason to believe they should detain.

Mr. Philip Palmer: That's right.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you have no say in that either. You have no recommendation, nothing. It's strictly CIC.

Mr. John Frecker: We strictly review the decision to detain.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You review the decision to detain.

Mr. Philip Palmer: That's right.

Ms. Manon Brassard: The second time, when CIC made the recommendation to release with conditions, that's what happened.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So when the decision was made not to detain most people from the first boat, then you reviewed the schedule, as you said, as to whether or not they should continue to be detained?

Mr. Philip Palmer: Yes. There was a review at which CIC recommended the release of these persons on certain conditions. We ordered the release on the conditions recommended by representatives of CIC.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So if CIC officials decide they're not going to ask for people to remain detained, then you have no authority to say anything differently, even if you believe—

Mr. Philip Palmer: We wouldn't have authority to maintain their detention against the recommendations of the minister.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If CIC recommends that claimants be detained, then do you have to follow that as well?

Mr. Philip Palmer: No. That is the central issue, whether continued detention is warranted. In the majority of cases, the person detained, or his representative argues, no, this person is a safe risk for release, with the department arguing or presenting evidence as to why this person is a high risk if released, on the basis of either the unlikelihood that they'll appear for further immigration processes or that they're a danger to the public.

Mr. Leon Benoit: From the first boat, most were released. From the second boat, most were detained.

Mr. Philip Palmer: That's right.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Why the change between those two?

Mr. Philip Palmer: Essentially, the central factor was the change in the policy of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. In the case of the first boat, they recommended and supported the release of the persons detained. In the case of the second boat, they argued strongly for their continued detention and presented evidence with respect to the unlikelihood that further claimants would appear for—

• 0940

Mr. Leon Benoit: What kind of evidence did they present that led to them being detained, those people from subsequent boats?

Mr. John Frecker: Manon, can you speak to that?

Ms. Manon Brassard: Part of the argument presented by the department had to do with how these people came to Canada, with what measures they took. CIC was describing them as extreme measures. They took risks with their lives, they invested a lot of money, they still owed a lot of money to the smugglers, and their intended destination was, according to CIC, the United States.

Therefore, the argument was made that because they took such extreme measures, put so much money into it, and wanted to go to the United States, if they were to be released, when it came time for CIC to remove them from Canada they wouldn't be there for the removal. CIC wouldn't be able to execute the removal. That was the argument presented in most, if not all, cases to sustain detention.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That was the argument for detaining them?

Ms. Manon Brassard: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: My question was in regard to the first boat: why weren't they detained? Why didn't they put forth that same argument in regard to the first boat, considering the disappearance of about 70% of the people from that part of China who claimed and came illegally to the country by other means? Wasn't the risk of flight considered?

Ms. Manon Brassard: I don't know. For the first boat, CIC made a decision that they would recommend release. For the second boat, they were making the argument I presented to you. Plus, these people did not have identity documents. CIC was still making efforts to find exactly who these people were. It's their change. As to why they decided to change from suggesting release to asking for detention, I couldn't answer that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. McKay, ten minutes.

Are you using it all yourself, John?

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Yes.

An hon. member: Greedy.

Mr. John McKay: Do you mean I owe you two minutes from yesterday?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I will never forget that.

Mr. John McKay: I know.

I'm referring to the performance report of March 31, 1999. I want to go through your process and question you as to why you do things the way you do. As I look at this performance report, I see that it's costing about $2,500 per claim. We're spending about $85 million a year, and from A to Z within your area of jurisdiction, it's about 12 months. As you know, Canadians are a little upset that this whole process is taking way too long.

My first question is, what can you compare yourselves to? When I look at $2,500 a claim and a 12-month processing period, my mind turns to a criminal trial process. Whatever the issues are with refugee determination, and as important as the issues are with refugee determination, I would think that a government running a criminal trial process would be extremely upset with a cost of $2,500 per claim and a 12-month period of time—and I can't even say that definitively because I don't know the comparable numbers. So the first question is, what do you compare yourselves to in terms of other boards and other areas of jurisdiction? I would like to know the basis of that comparison.

The second question is with respect to the choice of an expedited process and the usual process. It seems to me that if I were a lawyer representing a claimant, I would always choose an expedited process, because I would get one more kick at the can. Even after I've gone through the expedited process and lost, I can say I didn't like that one, so I'll submit my application for a full hearing and go to the two-member panel. A lot of this is just plain delay.

Let's be perfectly blunt about the issues here. Any lawyer retained to represent a refugee claimant who has a dubious claim is going to be playing for time. So my question to you is, why the expedited process as opposed to the “usual process”? Why not just simply have an expedited process for all? In other words, just revert to a one-member panel.

• 0945

If I walk out on the Sparks Street Mall and I assault someone, I will get a judge, period; I won't get two judges. I would just like to understand your thinking here, the basis for what appears to me to be an unduly complicated process.

Mr. Philip Palmer: Let me try. I'll work backwards, if I may.

The expedited process is not something claimants are entitled to. It is something that is invoked after screening of claims. If you like, it is one of a number of measures we take to in fact ensure that the appropriate tools or techniques or processes are applied to particular claims. The expedited process is used in respect of claims that stand a high likelihood of success. They come from countries that are known to be refugee-producing countries. People are called into that process based upon a screening that establishes in advance the identity of the persons concerned and that the patterns of alleged persecution are consistent with those found in other like claims.

Mr. John McKay: Is it a unilateral decision of the board to call the claimant in to the actual refugee...?

Mr. Philip Palmer: Yes, it is our decision. Now, lawyers acting on behalf of claimants will try to get their clients into that process and will try to bring themselves within that. There's a yin and yang, if you like, that goes on between the board and the representatives of refugee claimants or the claimants themselves.

Mr. John McKay: Do lawyers focus on that point of the process and attempt to achieve delay?

Mr. Philip Palmer: No, I don't think it's an attempt to achieve delay. It normally is people who feel they have a strong claim. They would like to get that claim recognized as quickly as possible and with the least amount of pain and grief for their clients.

If you want to delay things, there's no advantage to going in through the expedited process. The expedited process is far shorter. In fact, on going through that process, if we turn up discrepancies in the story or questions about identity, that's going to weaken the case of the claimant on full hearing.

The other thing you have to understand is that any claim not accepted after the expedited interview is automatically referred to a full hearing. So it's not one or the other. It's part of a continuum, if you like, a sophisticated level of screening that is taking place—

Mr. John McKay: Is it almost a pretrial? Is that analogous?

Mr. Philip Palmer: I wouldn't call it a pretrial because it's not designed to be that, but I guess ultimately it is that if the case cannot be accepted, according to our criteria, at the expedited level. It then goes into full hearing, and evidence that's adduced in the expedited process can be brought forward at the full hearing.

Mr. John McKay: Do claimants abandon claim after being turned down on the expedited process?

Mr. Philip Palmer: Some do.

To answer the first question, I can't say that we have really attempted to benchmark against other processes and systems. We don't have fair comparisons. The criminal justice system, for instance, varies from multimillion dollar trials that take up huge amounts of resources for months at a time to your provincial court or traffic court kind of thing, where you can get through 50, 60, or 70 cases in a morning, with guilty pleas, normally, and quick sentences, and out.

• 0950

The nature of our work doesn't lend itself to that. It's based essentially on an oral hearing in which you are dealing with people who, generally speaking, will not be presenting evidence in either of the official languages, so you have a time delay built in for translation and the costs associated with that. You have the overhead of amassing research and evidence with respect to country conditions in the country of alleged persecution and the process of winnowing that mass of evidence to the appropriate issues in respect of that claim.

It is a complex hearing process.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. I'll concede for the purpose of argument that it's not a fair comparison to a criminal trial process. What about to other international tribunals of refugee determination, such as the Australians' or the Americans'? How do you compare in terms of your timeline and your cost per claimant?

Mr. Philip Palmer: I don't have statistics on the cost per claim. Our systems are relatively different, so it is difficult to make comparisons, but some important points are worthy of mention.

First of all, most other systems rely upon having a first-level decision that is an administrative decision, normally an immigration officer kind of decision, with then layers of appeals and review of that decision. Sometimes they rely upon the manifestly unfounded findings in order to deny access to the actual refugee determination process, but in those cases there are rights of review and appeals given from that decision.

I've always thought a valid point of comparison is when the final decision is made, the final judicial step—whether it comes from us or from a reviewing court—in relation to the making of the claim. On that basis, the Canadian system compares very favourably. It gets to finality in—

Mr. John McKay: Is the appeal rate less than 1%?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Could you finish? Your time is up.

Mr. Philip Palmer: I'd like to finish by just honing in on that a bit so that you understand.

On average at the moment, we dispatch claims about 10 months from referral to us. That's a final decision in most cases. There is a right to seek judicial review, but judicial review is denied in most cases, and those are usually denied in a period of three to four months after our hearing. So at the end of 13 months from referral, we have finality in 85% of all cases. Then the final determination of the courts is normally within three to four months of a decision to allow a matter to go forward for judicial review.

The consequence is that at 15 or 16 months from referral, we have a final decision and the person is removable. Most delays after that are in relation to the removal of persons from Canada.

As for other systems, I was in the United Kingdom, for instance, this summer, which receives about twice as many claims as we do. They had unresolved claims in the hundreds, kicking around from 1993. It's virtually unheard of for us to have a 1993 case kicking around, going back and forth between the courts and the initial decision-makers. That's very common in other systems.

So on many of the benchmark tests, if you look at the totality of the systems, the Canadian system is actually very efficient and gets good-quality decisions made very early. It's a strength of the Canadian system.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Let's leave it there and go to Monsieur Cardin.

Mr. John McKay: Just before we do, could we get those benchmark tests? That's the issue.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Can you provide us with that, Mr. Palmer?

• 0955

Mr. Philip Palmer: I'll do my best. Frankly we don't have this stuff. Statistically, all the countries report their data differently, and I'm speaking from my personal observations.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Okay.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): I was examining the handouts I received. Immigration is not a subject with which I'm very familiar. I note that you have several distinct tribunals or divisions, notably an appeals division, a refugee determination division and an adjudication division. I'd like to focus on the refugee determination process which I'm trying to understand. I wouldn't want to delay these proceedings, but I would like to know if appeals and adjudication procedures are part of the refugee determination process. They're not? They're completely separate?

Mr. Philip Palmer: Yes, these are separate processes.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Therefore, the refugee determination division deals with the determination of claims for refugee status. If the claimant doesn't meet the test, then he may appeal or seek adjudication.

Ms. Manon Brassard: These procedures are not necessarily sequential. There are cases of refugee claimants currently being detained who come before the adjudication tribunal at regular intervals. At the same time, these claimants are seeking refugee status from the refugee determination division. These are two parallel processes which can take place simultaneously. The appeals division does not hear appeals from our decisions, except in very rare instances. It has a different function, namely to hear appeals from refusals of certain sponsored applications.

Therefore, the same claimant may have cases pending before the three divisions simultaneously. It is not a sequential process.

Mr. Serge Cardin: In cases where the refugees arrive at the same time, as in the case of the first boatload, for instance, most of them must present pretty much the same characteristics. Aside from security issues or the inability to present proper identification, what could possibly explain the different determinations that are made?

Ms. Manon Brassard: I'm not certain that I understand your question. Are you talking about the refugee determination process or about their release?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Perhaps both.

Ms. Manon Brassard: Both? I see. In the field of immigration, the first reason for detaining someone is lack of proof of identity. It's important to know who the claimant is. Also, we want assurances that the person can be sent back to his or her home country, if necessary. Finally, a claimant may be detained if deemed to pose a danger to the public. These are the reasons given and based on the evidence supplied with regard to one of these reasons, a decision will be made whether or not to detain a claimant, whether that person is likely to appear if asked and whether he or she poses a danger.

With respect to refugee determination, the situation is different. A person arriving in this country who claims to fear persecution in his or her home country must prove this claim. Arbitration is a contradictory process. In refugee determination cases, the claimant must supply evidence, but the process is not contradictory. The evidence relates to what Mr. Frecker was talking about earlier. The claimant will attempt to show that he faces the threat of persecution, either because of his religious beliefs, association with a particular social group or political views. There are five reasons set out in the act. Two board members from the refugee division rule on the evidence presented.

I don't know whether that answers your question.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I think I'll continue to consult this reference material. I may have more questions later. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Anders, five minutes.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to follow up on a couple of questions I've heard from yesterday and today.

Mr. McKay asked whether claimants abandon claims after they've been turned down during the expedited process. I believe Mr. Palmer was the one who said some choose not to keep on going.

Can you give me a better sense than just “some”? Is it 5%? Is it 10%?

Mr. Philip Palmer: I'm not sure we keep statistics on that particular step in our process.

Mr. Glen Bailey (Director General, Policy, Planning, and Research, Immigration and Refugee Board): We don't. I might be able to try to find that out, but I don't have anything right now.

The thing to remember is that the expedited process, as Philip was saying, is based on claims where a quick look at the file suggests these people have a strong case. It doesn't mean they can't go into the full hearing, and it doesn't delay that process, because there's already a full hearing scheduled. So it's not an extra layer that adds to the decision-making time; it's actually something we use to try to minimize it.

• 1000

There's no real advantage for somebody to go that route, in order to then lead to what you're getting at. I don't have a particular number because it isn't an advantage for a person to go that way and then lead to an abandonment. If people don't have strong claims, this is not the way they're going to go.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm going to follow up on another of Mr. McKay's questions; he asked some very good questions.

Mr. John McKay: I have to do both sides of the table.

Mr. Rob Anders: When I hear a response from a departmental official that these things are all very complex, and it's a relatively different process, so we can't make comparisons, I frankly can't buy that. I'm as sure as grass grows that Australia has people who try to make claims to stay in Australia, as does the United States and any number of countries, and they must have timelines on their processes.

Whether or not you think their processes are as complex, or should be as complex, as Canada's, there must be some sort of comparison in terms of timelines.

Mr. Philip Palmer: I'm sure those matters can be found. We don't have ready access to the timelines. Each country reports them differently, and very often reports them in ways that don't lend themselves to easy comparison. For instance, Australia doesn't have a charter of rights and freedoms. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights in the United States excludes aliens from most of the rights granted by the United States Constitution. So you're dealing with very different fundamentals in the system that trigger very different sorts of decision-making responses.

My point is that given the complex legal situation we face, our system is actually one of the simpler systems around and leads in a pretty straight line to results.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm not looking for an explanation of how Australia doesn't have a charter and the U.S. Bill of Rights is different from Canada's. I understand that people have different legal systems and different documents to deal with. Surely we must be able to come to a determination. If it's taking us 20 months, 14 months, 16 months, or any of the God-awful long timelines I've heard about yesterday and today, certainly we must have some sort of comparison with what other countries are dealing with. I don't know whether they're doing it in four months, three months or two months. I think it's something we need to know.

If we do have a problem with regard to us being encumbered by the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, or having various documents that somehow are being interpreted by somebody somewhere to cause problems, then we need to streamline that.

I know there were questions asked yesterday with regard to how the charter is possibly messing this up, when we, as parliamentarians looking at it, are saying there seem to be pretty clear-cut answers to some of these things.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I would like you to wrap up. You're out of time.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm going to segment into this question, and that is with regard to domestic versus international law—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Are you asking a new question? I'm not going to accept that. I think you made your point and we have to go on.

Mr. Rob Anders: I want to know what domestic or international laws are causing problems in terms of delays and what ones they would suggest possibly changing.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Perhaps Mr. Benoit can ask that one. It's his turn next.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I'll just follow directly on that because I think we're all on sort of the same wavelength here.

• 1005

I find it quite surprising that you can't present before us a written analysis comparing our system to those of Australia, the U.S., the United Kingdom, and perhaps France, or another European nation that has a similar problem with refugees.

I'm willing to accept that we have one of the best systems, but if we're going to do our job really well here, we actually need to see that hard comparison. I am very interested in looking at that hard comparison of the processes used by other countries. I am very interested in seeing where the charter forces us to use a different process.

These are all questions we would like to examine. I hope this committee will formally request that you supply us with that information. Otherwise I will have to go to the parliamentary library.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Could I help? We've actually asked the department to do that formally.

Mr. John Bryden: Oh, I'm sorry.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): We have not asked the IRB to do it; we've asked the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to provide us with a comparative study, in chart form, on the immigration and refugee systems of countries such as Australia, the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany—in particular, the refugee systems of these countries.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was not aware of that. So you will be working very hard on that very soon.

There is something else I'm very interested in. You were saying that of these Chinese migrants who came on one of the earlier boats, the judgments have been reserved on the refugee determination of 60 of them.

Mr. Philip Palmer: I believe the number was 16 or 17.

Mr. John Bryden: Whatever. Can we see the testimony and the deliberations on those particular refugees?

Mr. Philip Palmer: As you know, the refugee proceedings are in camera and the transcripts are not normally made available, unless it's on a judicial review. I think a sanitized transcription, if one is made, can be made available on application, but the transcripts themselves aren't routinely made unless there is going to be a judicial review.

Mr. John Bryden: I can't quite imagine what the process might be to examine these refugees who have come without documentation, in some instances on illegal ships. If I'm going to assess the processes of the hearing, I need to actually see transcripts. I would have thought that if the names were sanitized on the transcripts they would be releasable. Would they not be releasable?

Mr. Philip Palmer: Yes, they would be.

I would first offer that if any of the members are interested to let us know and we can arrange for you to attend a refugee hearing, if not in Vancouver, then in Toronto or some place closer to your particular constituencies. It would be an honour for us, and we would welcome the opportunity for you to be able to see the process in action. We think it's usually pretty impressive.

Mr. John Bryden: I hope we will take advantage of that opportunity.

I have some more formal questions, while I have time, although I don't have much time.

You were talking about the rules of detention—48 hours, seven days, 30 days—and there were various other rules. Are these rules determined by regulation or legislation?

Mr. Philip Palmer: They're provided for in the act itself.

Mr. John Bryden: So if we want to change the ground rules on detention, it's a matter for us as legislators and not for you as—

Mr. Philip Palmer: Absolutely.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you. That's good enough. I have just one other question.

When somebody comes up for review of their detention, if they cannot demonstrate they will not come back, are they released? I can see there's a tremendous problem proving that a person will not turn up, but is the onus on the adjudicator to prove they will not turn up, as a means of continued detention?

Mr. Philip Palmer: It's a civil test. It's on the balance of probabilities, and the onus is on the representatives of Citizenship and Immigration to show that. Frankly, very often it's not that difficult to demonstrate. You're talking about a person who may have entered the county illegally, has no adequate proof of their identification, has no links in the community, and has nobody who is prepared to put up bail for them. What are the odds that a person like that is going to appear for immigration processing?

• 1010

I think, really, in the circumstances we're talking about, there are a lot of factors that would militate against release. I think the longer detention goes on, the more difficult it is to keep people in detention. It is an extraordinary remedy. It's a preventative measure. But nonetheless, the onus rests with the minister to justify the continued detention, and very often, unless the circumstances change from original landing, there isn't much that would militate in favour of an early release.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Okay, thank you.

We're going to go to Mr. Price for five minutes.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you very much for being here. It's all very interesting, particularly to somebody new to this file.

I'll start out with one of the questions I asked yesterday regarding the meeting held in Finland two weeks ago of most of the European countries. The subject was refugee claimants, where they're looking at a common judicial zone. I was wondering, first of all, were we there? Were any of your group there?

Mr. Philip Palmer: The first answer is no, the IRB wasn't present. I'm not aware if the Canadian government, through either Citizenship and Immigration or Foreign Affairs, was present.

Mr. David Price: They said they weren't really. They were following it, but they weren't aware and they weren't sure if anybody from here was.

Mr. Philip Palmer: No, we weren't invited, and I don't think we were even aware of it.

Mr. David Price: Would you be able to get documents out of that meeting, in order to see just what the Europeans are looking at, since they're looking at a common area? I think that would be of interest.

Mr. Philip Palmer: We could try, but our initial channel would be to ask the Department of Foreign Affairs if they have any documentation relating to it. We can try to obtain it.

Mr. David Price: Okay.

Mr. Glen Bailey: This type of related international activity is really the domain where the CIC has been, if you want, an administrative tribunal. These are getting into policy areas that are the role of the department and not of the tribunal.

Mr. David Price: Yes, policy, but they would be looking, of course, at how they're going to handle refugee claimants. That would directly affect you folks.

Mr. Philip Palmer: We're always interested, but we're not always at the table.

Mr. David Price: Yes, okay. I'll follow up on the expedited process. In the beginning of that process, it says, is “a conference with a refugee claim officer”. Now, I gather from that it isn't necessarily physically the claimant being there—

Mr. Philip Palmer: Yes, it is.

Mr. David Price: The claimant is there in that process?

Mr. Philip Palmer: The claimant is there in person and asks questions. Sometimes those questions are pretty probing.

Mr. David Price: Okay. But through that process, then, it goes to a member—

Mr. Philip Palmer: Yes.

Mr. David Price: —the next person. So that's someone who can determine yes or no.

Mr. Philip Palmer: That's right.

Mr. David Price: If it goes through the regular system, it's a two-member panel, and if both members reject, then the claimant is—

Mr. Philip Palmer: He's rejected.

Mr. David Price: —basically out. If one says yes, though, the claimant can be in.

Mr. Philip Palmer: That's right.

Mr. David Price: But if one says yes and the other rejects, the one that rejects has to do a written statement on why he was rejected.

Mr. Philip Palmer: That's right.

Mr. David Price: Why not a written statement on why he was approved also?

Mr. Philip Palmer: We don't require written reasons, but we do require reasons in all cases. We do expect that a member who has approved a claim, who has gone positive, justifies—at least orally on the record—the reasons for their decision.

John, would you like to add to that?

Mr. John Frecker: In the case of dissent, we have a policy that requires that both give written reasons. The operation of law is that the panel is required to deliver written reasons in these cases. In the case where both panel members make a positive decision, the law does not require written reasons, but as Philip said, we have an operational expectation that they provide articulated reasons, not just sort of say, welcome to Canada.

Mr. David Price: If the person appeals after that, those written reasons follow along, I imagine.

Mr. John Frecker: Yes, they are part of the record.

Mr. David Price: Okay, they are part of the record.

Mr. John Frecker: And oral reasons that are delivered at the hearing and are part of the transcript are the same as written reasons; it's just there's not a legal requirement to deliver them in positive decisions.

Mr. David Price: How and when was the expedited process itself started? In looking back, I can't see anywhere where that went through Parliament.

• 1015

Mr. Philip Palmer: Well, it actually did go through Parliament in 1993 with a series of amendments that covered a number of areas and in fact abolished the no credible basis hearings.

It was something that was experimented, sort of piloted, initially in the Montreal regional office. It was just based on the recognition that there were a large number of cases that were being accepted in high volumes, and it was basically a waste of resources to put these through a full hearing when they were manifestly founded.

The concept really is to ensure that we dispose of these claims as quickly and appropriately as possible. Therefore the expedited process, which is the rendering of a decision without an oral hearing, enables the tribunal applying appropriate safeguards with respect to the nature of the cases and the ability to probe the cases to move through cases that really should be approved and free up members to concentrate on cases that are more complex and where the issues are far less evident.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Benoit, five minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In my line of questioning before, you indicated that some of my questions were questions that would better be directed to the department than to the IRB. You indicated you couldn't answer the questions. I find it difficult to believe the one hand doesn't know enough about what the other hand's doing that you couldn't at least answer the questions, even if it isn't in your official area of jurisdiction.

I find that frustrating, because you try to get information and whoever you have as a witness says, well, no, somebody else knows about that. Is there anybody in the department who could answer questions in-depth on the complete system, the departmental activity and the IRB activities?

Mr. Philip Palmer: This is something we have discussed among ourselves, and we had a bit of the same conversation on the subject you're alluding to within our own ranks.

Maybe it would have been a good idea if we had come with the department at the same time, so we each would have been able to respond to the part of the system we run. I know it is confusing and it is difficult. There are things that are outside of our attention and knowledge that are related to us, and we have a layman's knowledge of how the department operates, but no specific knowledge, and nothing we can put on record—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But there's no one person who could really put it all together and answer questions so you can really get a good picture of the system itself?

I've been there when there have been departmental officials present before, and when you get anywhere near the IRB's area of jurisdiction, they say they can't really get into that.

Anyway, if you can come up with that, I'd appreciate it; I don't want to take time on that right now.

In response to an earlier question, you said you can't compare; you don't have any information that makes a quick comparison of the refugee determination process between Canada and other countries. You have no information that, for example, you could give to us that would allow us to make a comparison, even in chart form. As far as you're—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'm sorry, we've already explained that we've asked the—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): —department to prepare that chart. These people would not be aware of that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's exactly what I want to ask them, Mr. Chair—if they are aware in fact of information that would perhaps put in chart form a comparison between our system and the systems of other countries.

Are any of you aware of that comparison floating around in the department or elsewhere?

Mr. Philip Palmer: Not directly, no. We don't have such a chart, and I'm not sure we have the information from which we could develop such a chart. I think we're prepared to, and we will, go back and look at whether we have information that would lend itself to that. If so, we'd be prepared to share that with you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It is not there now, to your knowledge?

Mr. Philip Palmer: It is not there now.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, that's amazing.

I just want to ask some very quick questions on numbers, if I could. Total claims, you said yesterday, were 25,000. Is that right? That's the total refugee claims for a year?

Mr. Philip Palmer: Roughly, yes.

• 1020

Mr. Leon Benoit: That figure would include government-sponsored and private-sponsored refugees.

Mr. John Frecker: No, that's claims made in—

Mr. Leon Benoit: So about 7,500 government-sponsored and about 2,200 private-sponsored on top of that. So 25,000 then would be the total number of people who claim or are processed as refugees.

Mr. Philip Palmer: As refugees, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's the number. There were about 22,000 accepted last year, I believe.

Mr. John Frecker: No, you separate out again the private-sponsored and government-sponsored, so roughly 10,000 are accepted because they are the ones who are processed and accepted.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. They're all accepted—

Mr. John Frecker: In our estimate of over 25,000, about 10,000 were accepted.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, but still a determination is made. When a group says they want to sponsor somebody, or a government decides they're going to sponsor, there's a determination made on that.

Mr. John Frecker: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How many total claims are abandoned? Right from the time the claim is made, how many are abandoned in a year, say last year or the year before?

Mr. John Frecker: Of our 25,000, approximately 22% were abandoned.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So 22% were abandoned. How many—

Mr. Glen Bailey: The abandoned varies from year to year, but you're looking at around 14%, 15%, and then there are another 5% to 7% that are withdrawn voluntarily. Abandoned is a decision by us that the claim is not being pursued.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Plus 5% to 7% are withdrawn.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

I want to follow up on a point of agreement I had with my colleague to the left, and I agree with Mr. Bryden totally when he says he will accept that we have one of the best refugee determination systems in the world. I think that as the tenth year anniversary we should almost have a celebration around it.

A voice: It's an article of faith.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Let me also say to my colleague on the right that I agree with him when he talks about how we should be making a comparison between.... We should be looking at the criminal justice system, and I'll tell you why. Then I have some questions.

Both the criminal justice system and the refugee determination fall under the charter. When you look at the criminal justice system, I agree, when they're dealing with simple offences they will use one judge for summary kinds of cases and some indictable ones, but for serious offences they will use a judge and they will use a jury, and they're dealing with complex issues.

Due process—and I think this is fundamental to us—takes time. We have had people from the Senate and the House in front of the system. None of us begrudge the due process because of the enormous impact of the decision on the individual. All this falls under the charter. So I would ask you to perhaps take a look at that.

When you're making external comparisons, we're going to have the problem that they don't have the charter. Be that as it may, you're making those comparisons. If you could make it not just English-speaking countries, but let's get France in there as well—and this is to satisfy my colleague here.

Getting to the specifics of the system we now have, when you first make the determination to detain or not to detain, if you go to the criminal courts and there's a show cause hearing and the determination is we're going to detain, you don't review that decision every seven days. If you want to appeal that decision, there is a mechanism to do it, but you don't review it every seven days. If you don't review it, you don't appeal it. You're going to be in custody for the duration of your case in all likelihood. That might help in looking at that system.

The other issue is that at the end of the process when the system is done, the determination is made and is negative, we then do a PDRCC and an H and C. I think if we could be doing the PDRCC and the H and C up front in the initial stage, if they qualify on those grounds we don't have to go through the lengthy process of the determination. I know this is one area that the refugee board very much wants to get involved with, because that could help expedite a lot of cases. We could have a short, almost a preliminary hearing and you're accepted, but don't go on the process.

Could you comment on those suggestions, the show cause hearing and the H and C and PDRCC?

• 1025

Mr. Philip Palmer: You've said a lot and it's very hard to know where to begin.

First of all, with respect to the show cause hearings, one of the difficulties we deal with is the nature of the evidence. When you're dealing with somebody who is alleged to have committed a crime in Canada, there is the evidence of the crime. Normally the person has a criminal record that can be made available to judge the risk to the community of their release, the likelihood of their appearing for their hearing, etc. You have the police officers who investigated the offence, etc., all of whom can help profile, if you like, that particular case.

It is one of the difficulties of the system we operate that this is not necessarily...and particularly in the case of refugee claimants who haven't done anything illegal other than enter Canada, to our knowledge...to present that kind of evidence. It's going to be less concrete. It's going to be more amorphous.

Therefore, the risk, if you will, of continued detention, the deprivation of liberty, is that much higher and therefore requires I think a frequency of review that perhaps isn't as essential in the criminal justice system. Likewise in the criminal justice system, of course, a person can apply at any time for a review of their bail conditions or their continued detention to argue in favour of release, and they have, presumably, the resources of the legal aid system and so on to assist them in doing that if they don't have private counsel themselves.

But they are different, and there are different sensitivities that impinge on decision-making in that area.

Manon, would you like to comment?

Ms. Manon Brassard: Maybe only—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): We're running out of time, but briefly.

Ms. Manon Brassard: I would only add that a criminal system is a punitive system and an immigration system is not; it's prevention. As the situation may change with the person, it's appropriate to give them a chance to put forward that their conditions have changed and therefore would warrant release.

As Philip said, there—

A voice: Show cause has nothing to do with—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Excuse me. Are you finished with that answer?

Ms. Manon Brassard: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Following up on the question I left off with last time, I want to have a sense of domestic and international law here. I asked a question yesterday to the people who should have been able to answer all questions and be all seeing and all knowing, and I didn't really feel I got an answer, so I'm going to try to probe again.

What laws or what absence of laws are causing you difficulties and time delays?

You cite that there are different circumstances in Australia and the United States. Okay. Accepted. What is it that we need to change here? Do you run into charter problems? Is the charter an issue?

Mr. John Frecker: The charter is not an issue in terms of the delay issue. I think the fundamental premise may be misguided. We have to respect the charter. We also have to make informed decisions. It's the need to get information to enable us to make informed decisions that causes delay.

We could proceed summarily, bring the person before the tribunal, follow the principle the court has enunciated that evidence under oath is deemed to be credible or deemed to be true, and not have any other information against which to assess the claim. And most people could put together a story that is supportive of a refugee claim and we'd be bound to accept them.

If we want to maintain system integrity we need to prepare for the cases, we need to do research, we need to be rigorous in our examination, and that, in some cases, takes time.

Other delays are administrative ones that we are working on, and we've made major progress in shortening the hearing time. We're down from 14 months average processing time to about 10, and we're moving toward our commitment to Parliament, which is to get it down to eight months average. Even then we will continue to work to reduce the delay even further.

As Mr. Palmer pointed out, the Canadian process, relative to other systems, is remarkably simple and remarkably expeditious because it isn't layered the way the other systems are. When you get your information from the department, you'll want to look at that.

• 1030

There are phases in other systems that are faster than the one-size-fits-all process we have in Canada, but the time lapse to the ultimate judicial determination of the claim, the final decision that says this is now over, is significantly shorter in Canada than it is in other countries.

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm trying to look at the situation in which you talked about rigorous examination. You say you are attempting to restrict the process to eight months, so it's therefore obviously a longer process. We've heard all sorts of different timelines that are significantly longer than eight months, both today and yesterday. How is it that you can't have a rigorous examination in that period of time? Is it because you need to give these people time to produce documents or something? What is it that doesn't allow you to do a rigorous examination quickly?

Mr. Philip Palmer: Perhaps we should explain that the number you look at, at the moment, the roughly 10 months from referral, is a blend of all the cases in our system. Frankly, there are some cases that have been in our backlog for some time, so it's a blend of the oldest cases and our newest cases.

In the last year and a half or two years, we have been striving to complete new cases—that is, cases that are determined within six months from referral—and we've had a great deal of success at that. At the moment, I would say the majority of our cases are actually disposed of within six months of their referral. That figure you're looking at, that of 10 months, is based on the fact that there are some cases that have been in our system for 14 or 16 months, or even, I'm afraid, two years or more. Those add considerably to the averages. But if you're a fresh claimant coming into this country and making a claim, odds are that you'll get your decision from the IRB within six months of the time CIC refers that claim to us, which is not bad.

There are factors in the system that do take time, such as the initial completion of personal information forms, which are really the basis on which we can actually assess the claim, evaluate it, and determine the research that needs to be done, so the information has to be brought to bear on it. There is also the obtaining of counsel and the scheduling of counsel. There is a right to counsel, which is a charter-protected right, but counsel is a limited supply. Counsellors have other engagements. Scheduling is as much an art as a science.

There are a number of factors that do influence our ability to move cases faster, certainly, but I wouldn't say the law is the cause of our delay. Obviously, however, all of these factors do add up.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much.

Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to first of all say that I think we would all agree that we have one of the better systems in the world. We obviously want to put it to the test, though. Hopefully the study we will get from CIC, with your assistance, is going to help us and give us some reference points.

I think there is a collective will, not only on the part of this committee but also on the part of Canadians, to try to understand much better the system and how it works. In most cases, it works very well, but in some cases it doesn't work very well at all. Hence, what we're going through with regard to those recent boat landings is an example.

It would seem to me that if we understand and know that two things should occur, then the process can work better and in a very fair and expeditious manner more quickly, while still recognizing all of the checks and balances in the system. I think there is a collective will on the part of the committee, the government, and also the Canadian people, that we move that eight or 10, 12 or 14 months, to essentially six. Now, lawyers might disagree, because let's face it, some of them make a heck of an awful lot of money by taking advantage of the apparatus.

An hon. member: Come on. Say it ain't so.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I'm not a lawyer, so I think I say that in an objective fashion.

An hon. member: You're very objective.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I think we want to get to a system that's more expeditious while recognizing that you obviously need the safeguards in place. Therefore, if that is one of our goals, I want to ask you whether or not there are legislative changes that one would require. Secondly, is it really a question of human resources to do the administrative work and the investigative work to adjudicate these claims?

• 1035

If you need more people in the IRB, please tell me that's what you need. You know why? Because to detain some people or to have them in the system for two or three years is costing somebody a heck of an awful lot of money. I'd rather deal with it by giving you the resources so that you can make the adjudication—either these people can stay here or they have to leave—as opposed to paying money to keep somebody here until such time as somebody makes a decision.

That's my question. If it's legislation, tell me, and give us a number of options. You say you're looking at a whole bunch of things for improvement. I'd like to see what those options are from an IRB standpoint, and I would also like to know about the human resources part of it, because I think it's very crucial. Program review affected you as well as CIC, and we can get into that.

Secondly, looking at your page 11 here, when a claim comes in, it is reviewed by the CIC to determine if the claim is eligible. If they think it's eligible, it then comes down to you and you decide whether you're going to do the expedited and/or the usual. You know, sometimes banks do expedite, which means you go to this line because you're going to get it done quicker than by being boxed in for hours over here.

I understand how a good system could work, but let me understand what the role is. If they decide the claim is not eligible, it says the claimant may be removed from Canada. All of a sudden, we have CIC making a determination of whether or not it's a credible claim, even before it gets to you.

Mr. Philip Palmer: That means the determination—

Mr. Joe Fontana: I'd like to know why, at some point in time, somebody has to say somebody above you is making the claim on the acceptance of that application. Maybe you can explain a little bit about this part that you haven't talked much about.

Mr. Philip Palmer: The eligibility finding is essentially and fundamentally a screening out of persons who already have protection in a third country. If they have refugee status in France or Sweden or the United States, then they're not eligible to make a claim in Canada.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes, but couldn't you do that determination? Why does there have to be another administrative debacle?

Mr. Philip Palmer: No matter where that's done—and it's not an easy determination for us—it does rely on the exchange of information with other international systems. Frankly, we don't have the apparatus and we don't have representatives in Canadian missions abroad, etc., that CIC has. We couldn't do it. It would really require some redesign work.

Mr. Joe Fontana: That's good enough.

Mr. Philip Palmer: The other major element on eligibility is in relation to criminality. Much of the screening is directed to trying to find from INTERPOL or other sources if a person who comes as a refugee claimant has a serious criminal record in another country, one that would render him ineligible to make a claim in Canada.

Mr. Joe Fontana: So is it at that point—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): We're out of time on your round, Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Could he just answer those other two questions?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): He can answer them, but I don't want you to ask any more.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Sure.

Mr. Philip Palmer: As to recommendations on legislative change, I don't think we've given our attention to that at the moment, so we don't really have an answer for that. But I think one of the things we have noted as lacking is really sort of a holistic approach to this question.

Really, in terms of the bringing together of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, ourselves, legal aid societies, the provincial governments, their welfare authorities and criteria, the interplay between these systems and the potential costs of them is a continuing source of aggravation. The design of legal aid plans in one province is very different from another, and those differences have different impacts on our processes. They do have an impact on delay, and they do have an impact on the amount of time that's required in the hearing room. These are all factors that I think need to be examined.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Okay, thank you.

We have three more questioners and we have just under twenty minutes, so I think we can get them in if we stick to our time.

Mr. Price.

• 1040

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my MP for giving his time to me. He is actually my MP.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'm sure you voted for him.

Mr. David Price: But I do want to make it clear that I have not joined the Bloc.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Price: Now that we have that out of the way, just to continue with the flow chart, I'm wondering if you've looked at the possibility of maybe extending the expedited process a little bit. Since you have, for example, the problem on the west coast of the boatloads of people coming in there and you know that you have a large group of people who quite obviously are economic refugees, could there not be an expedited process for a negative?

Mr. Philip Palmer: There's a big distinction between our hearing processes and the expedited processes. The expedited process is a decision without a hearing. It's a paper hearing, if you will. It is not possible under our present legislation to do that.

Mr. David Price: But what I'm asking you is whether this is something you're considering, having had this problem come up where you have large groups coming in and where it's rather obvious that....

Mr. Philip Palmer: I think our main challenge is not so much that. We've learned a lot over the last few years. Our constraints are largely ones of resources. If you get a flood of arrivals in a particular region, we may need to move resources into that region very quickly, and that's very difficult to do. I think you can picture that.

Mr. David Price: That was my next question.

Mr. Philip Palmer: But our objective—and I think we're meeting that objective—is to quickly get the cases on for hearing. This is absolutely essential where people are in detention, but it's also very important to us as a tribunal where we're dealing with a flood of claims that aren't accounted for by our knowledge of country conditions. We want to get them on early and test them. If it turns out that a large number of those claims are not meritorious, we want to process them as quickly as possible. Our system is founded on the principle that we don't deny a claim without giving a person the opportunity to be heard. That's a statutory requirement.

Mr. David Price: But you still have the next step. I'll ask the question directly. Of the west coast claims you've already heard, how many have appealed?

Mr. Philip Palmer: It's probably too early to give you an assessment. There are very few of them that are over 15 days, which is the stage at which they'd be making a judicial review application. We aren't given notice of the fact that they've sought a judicial review. We learn some time later how many have actually applied for judicial review.

Mr. David Price: Okay. Right now the people are being detained in Prince George. Does that mean you move an IRB board into Prince George?

Mr. Philip Palmer: That's right.

[Translation]

Mr. David Price: Ms. Brassard, are you required to hold a hearing every seven days...

Ms. Manon Brassard: Yes, every seven days, as long as the minister is basing the case on the lack of proof of identity. However, more and more cases are falling into the 30-day category, when the reason given is that the person may not appear for removal.

Mr. David Price: And is the hearing conducted on site?

Ms. Manon Brassard: Yes, we have two adjudicators on site.

Mr. David Price: This requires time and staff.

Ms. Manon Brassard: We need two adjudicators. We have grouped people together to speed up the process when such hearings are held every seven days.

[English]

Mr. Philip Palmer: The short answer is yes, we are planning to move a team—I think it's of six members—of RCOs, interpreters, clerks, and so on up to Prince George in order to support that operation.

Mr. David Price: That's a piece of budget that doesn't really show up in the figures we're seeing coming out of the cost of these refugees.

Mr. Philip Palmer: That's right. For instance, at present we reckon our incremental costs to have been about $200,000, and we would project costs to the end of March of another $1.5 million approximately.

Mr. Glen Bailey: Yes, depending on how things play out.

Mr. David Price: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you, Mr. Price.

Mr. Benoit.

• 1045

Could I just ask the members who are here to stay so that we that we can briefly discuss future witnesses? Thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There are a lot of issues to discuss regarding the refugee process, but before we can do that well and even ask the proper questions, we have to have the basic statistics. I feel that even the basic statistics, which really give us a clear picture of what's happening in terms of numbers, aren't or haven't been made available. So I just want to quickly go through that again, and as I go through, you'll see, I think, why I'm asking these questions.

The total number of claims made in Canada is about 25,000. Is that right?

Mr. Philip Palmer: Approximately.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What's the acceptance rate right now?

Mr. Philip Palmer: It's 44%.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Does that mean that only 44% of this 25,000 stay in Canada?

Mr. Philip Palmer: No, that doesn't mean that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could you explain what—

Mr. Philip Palmer: That means those that have been accepted as refugees.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Right.

Mr. Philip Palmer: They may stay through other ways. They may be accepted on PDRCC or on H and C grounds, or they may be eligible for sponsorship.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's a fairly low percentage that are accepted on another basis. I've seen the statistics on that.

Mr. Philip Palmer: As I understand it, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Those you can get.

Now, there are a couple of areas, though, where it seems difficult to get the information. The percentage abandoned and withdrawn is about 34%. I think you told me that before.

Mr. Glen Bailey: Abandoned and withdrawn would be around 22% of the 25,000.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's the total. That's abandoned and withdrawn.

Mr. Glen Bailey: That's right.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Negative decisions, then, would be 56% of claims. That's less withdrawn.

Mr. John Frecker: Your 100% is made up of 44% positive, 22% withdrawn or abandoned, and the rest negative.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Of the negative claims, what percentage are known to have left Canada?

Mr. Philip Palmer: We don't know that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You don't know that.

Mr. John Frecker: You had figures yesterday from CIC on the number of people removed. You'd have to extrapolate from that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The number of people removed would be a very small percentage of those negative decisions or those abandoned.

Mr. John Frecker: Canada doesn't have exit controls, so many people leave and there's no record of the fact that they have departed.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're saying that even when a negative decision is made, no one really knows whether or not these people leave the country.

Mr. John Frecker: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying—

Mr. Leon Benoit: What percentage are known to leave the country?

Mr. Glen Bailey: First of all, you're looking at issues that are dealt with by CIC. The number that are known to leave the country would be a factor of whether or not removals are taking place at the order of the department or whether or not people have left voluntarily.

Mr. Leon Benoit: And you're saying you don't know those numbers. The departmental officials don't know those numbers either. So whose responsibility is it?

Of the 25,000 who claim in a year, how many are known to permanently leave the country?

Mr. Philip Palmer: As I understand it, yesterday CIC did give some statistics on the number of removals. It struck me that they talked about approximately 8,000 removals, of which 50-odd percent were—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But those wouldn't all be—

Mr. Philip Palmer: —failed refugee claimants.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, 4,000 refugee claimants.

Mr. Philip Palmer: Now, that doesn't relate to the year of decision. Some of them may have been from 1995 or 1996 and are being removed now.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's right. That's what I'm looking for, some numbers that really give a picture here, and you can't get them. We can't get them from the department and we can't get them from you.

A witness: We just couldn't give you—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Be fair. You're not dealing with the department here. You're dealing with the IRB.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But I have a hard time believing that one arm wouldn't know what's happening in the other.

Mr. John Bryden: I have a point of order. Could I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Leon request the chair to get that information for him from the officials, rather than asking the officials here for whom it is not their responsibility. You can make that formal request and the chairman will act upon it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I could do that. That request has been made directly, so I don't know whether it would help an awful lot. I'd really appreciate getting those numbers. If the chair believes he can have more success than I have had, then I would welcome that.

An hon. member: We have a very powerful chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): He's just not here. Trust me, this is a hand-off.

Mr. John Bryden: We can get that, Leon. We can ask formally for that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you want to bet?

Mr. John Bryden: Well, they'll—

• 1050

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Can I make a suggestion that you simply, in memo form, tell the chairman the specific numbers you're looking for, and I will personally take that up with Joe?

Mr. Leon Benoit: That would be very helpful.

Have I got a little more time?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Actually, you don't.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I don't?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Ms. Leung.

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

My question has two parts. The first is regarding the refugee determination. If you base it on CSIS information.... You said there were 600 illegal migrants in B.C., without any documentation. Where does CSIS get accurate information?

The second is about your removal process. In B.C.—obviously, you can tell I'm from B.C.—there are a lot of refugees from Honduras and Somalia. They've been in this so-called stage of removal, but it hasn't been successful. They have become quite a concern in the community. They are involved in crimes and you name it. So I'm really concerned about the process of removal too.

Now, I add another component to the question. You have 400 people in detention in B.C. What is your intention? Are you waiting for CSIS information? Where can you get a source of information? We all know they came as economic refugees, and in the meantime they are being coached by different people: “Yes, but you could use other reasons or vehicles to become a refugee.” We know this. You all know.

Three of us went to China to discuss the concern, and they say it's a kind of joke. You know they're from a certain area. They're all the same—farmers, peasants, whatever—and their purpose is to seek a better life in Canada. They tell you it's because of the birth control and other things.

So I want to get some official feedback on that, on my two questions. Thank you.

Mr. Philip Palmer: Perhaps we should make clear that we're not privy to the sources of information with respect to identity or with respect to the security clearing of claimants that CSIS may carry out, and whether they're dangerous to the public. That's not something we see. It may be a factor that influences CIC's decision as to whether to seek continued detention or not, but all we see is the evidence that is brought before us in a manner that can be disclosed in a court of law. So generally speaking, we don't know anything about whether CSIS is even involved in the process.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Can I interrupt? What evidence do you rely on? They are refugees or they are not refugees. It's very simple.

Mr. Philip Palmer: The basic information with respect to that is the available information with respect to human rights conditions in that country. That comes from a large variety of sources—U.S. State Department reports, Amnesty International reports, international civil rights examinations, the International Commission of Jurists. There are a large number of sources, for example, newspaper reports, both Chinese domestic and international press, with respect to conditions in the country, the arrest of dissidents, the reasons for their arrest, and so on. Those are all available to us. They are publicly available. And those are, if you like, the benchmark against which we make refugee determinations. As you know, it is a process that's limited in terms of the amount of information we have regarding any specific person who appears before us, for reasons that I think you understand.

On the question on removals, with respect to failed claimants, again, I can't talk very authoritatively about that. Normally, delays in removals are caused by either the lack of cooperation from authorities in the country of origin in producing travel documents that enable removal to those countries or the fact that in countries like Somalia, for instance, conditions remain largely unstable and it's very difficult to remove people to safe areas. I think it's Canada's policy not to remove people to situations where they would face immediate prospect of danger.

• 1055

Ms. Sophia Leung: I have just one little—-

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'm sorry, we don't have time.

Mr. Benoit, we do have another issue we have to deal with, and some of us have meetings. I have another committee at 11 a.m.

So I want to thank all of you for coming and for answering the questions in a forthright manner. We appreciate your cooperation with the committee.

Mr. Frecker.

Mr. John Frecker: Can I make one minor correction for the record, Mr. Chair? I said there had been 410 claims referred to us, and my colleague pointed out to me it was 491. I say this just so you know the number of cases we have.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Thank you very much, all of you, for being here.

Mr. Philip Palmer: Thank you all very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Members of the committee, there's an issue that we need some direction on, and that is future hearings. Since we won't be here next week, we don't have an opportunity for a steering committee.

We have meetings established for 3.30 p.m., Wednesday, November 17, when we return, and Thursday morning from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. The question is, who do we want as witnesses? I talked briefly to Chairman Joe before he had to leave about the suggestion of having the committee go to an IRB hearing here in Ottawa.

By the way, Mr. Frecker or Mr. Palmer, if you could provide us with a schedule of those hearings, we'd appreciate it, so that we might be able to coordinate that if the committee's interested in doing it.

Mr. John Frecker: Certainly. The nationalities, the composition of the caseload, will be different here in Ottawa.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): We're interested in your system, not necessarily the nationalities.

Mr. John Frecker: The hearing is virtually everyday.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Could you just provide us with the list, and the time and location?

Mr. John Frecker: Absolutely, we will accommodate.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Provide it to the clerk. Then we can look at it.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Chair, on Wednesday from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., we all have caucus.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): No, it's Wednesday at 3.30 p.m.; Thursday from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is the minister coming Thursday from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.? Is that the date she said?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): No, that's November 24. On November 17 and 18 we don't have any witnesses. So the question is, do we want to get some witnesses? Do we want to try to schedule a session to attend an IRB hearing on one of those two days, if there's one available? And if we want witnesses for one of those two days, who do we want?

I have a list here, and I must first of all tell you that I don't have it in French. I have it in English only, so I'm not distributing it at the moment.

Mr. John Bryden: Can you read it into the record, though?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): There are some options. There's the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That might be interesting to invite the commissioner. There is the Canadian Bar Association. I don't know if we want to get into that.

The other option is that we could invite the CIC people back for another session, to answer Mr. Benoit's questions and others.

Mr. John McKay: What about going to see these guys, and then invite CIC?

Mr. John Bryden: I think that's a good idea.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Is there a general concurrence with that, Leon, that we try to go to an IRB hearing, and then invite CIC?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, I would suggest that we each do that on our own. We can just show up at an IRB hearing on our own any time we want.

I would like to get Martin Collacott from Vancouver—he's very knowledgeable in this area—and Bill Bauer from the Toronto area. Martin Collacott worked as an ambassador to several countries, and I think he also was a board member of the IRB.

I would also like to ask if we're planning to travel out to the Vancouver area on this subject. I think we should schedule that as soon as we can if we're going to travel out to the Vancouver area to deal with this whole issue of the illegal migration.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Well, if we're going to do that we'd need to have the chairman involved in those discussions. We'd need a budget approval.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I could get Martin Collacott or Bill Bauer for that week.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I'm talking about the travel to Vancouver.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, but I'm saying that for that week, I could get them. I think they'd be good witnesses.

Mr. John McKay: I have to argue against that. I think we've spent two days just scratching the surface, and to my mind, it's much more useful if members see hands on what a hearing looks like, what actually goes on. Then they'll have some basis for their thinking as to what changes need to be made.

• 1100

As well, a quick follow-up with CIC seems to me to be a good way to go. Otherwise, you're jumping here on the assumption that something's wrong—a jumpy mare.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I just want to point out to Leon that one reason for the whole committee going to a refugee hearing is that we see the same thing. We have the same experience. When we then talk about that experience, we're coming from the same thing. If we all go independently, we'll see different things.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): And we won't go.

Mr. John Bryden: Or we won't go.

So I very much support what John has just said.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How many of you haven't been to an IRB hearing?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I haven't been.

Some hon. members: I haven't.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So most haven't been.

An hon. member: You've already been.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I've been to several.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): It doesn't preclude bringing your witnesses forward at a further date. We're only talking about two days that we don't currently have filled. I think this is a good way to try to fill them and to be productive, for all members of the committee.

Mr. John Bryden: If we get back and hit the very points you're concerned about, I think you're going to get the witnesses before you that you've spoken about, so why not do it?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): What I'm going to suggest to Chairman Fontana, Madam Clerk, or what you are going to suggest to him, is that we'll try to go to a refugee hearing on—

The Clerk of the Committee: Wednesday, November 17—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): —Wednesday afternoon and have CIC officials on the Thursday morning.

The Clerk: —and on Thursday. Okay.

Mr. Leon Benoit: On a point of clarification, I thought the minister was scheduled to come that week.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): November 24.

Mr. Leon Benoit: When did this date come up? I thought it was the week before.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): It's from the steering committee.

The Clerk: You had requested the week of November 24.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I thought it was the first week we're back after the break.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): Sorry, you were mistaken. It's November 24.

The Clerk: Yes, November 24.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): I recall that from the steering committee.

John.

Mr. John Bryden: I have one more thing I want to say, following up on Sophia's questioning. I think it bears on what I was saying.

It's very important to get the testimony of these hearings so that we can assess what they actually.... Sophia's point is that these are economic refugees, obviously, and yet they seem to be queried for everything but. So let's see what's actually going on.

It's up to the clerks to ensure we get that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): We've agreed on that. Let's not beat it to death.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Steve Mahoney): This committee is adjourned to the call of the chair.