CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 17, 2000

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues.

I call this meeting to order pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111(4), review of the Order in Council appointment of Mr. Peter Showler, PC 1999 through to 2018—whatever that means—and pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of the performance report of the Immigration and Refugee Board for the period ending March 31, 1999.

I think we can probably do both now that Mr. Showler is here.

Mr. Showler, Mr. Palmer, and Madam Senécal, welcome.

Happy birthday as well, Mr. Showler, as I understand it. Hopefully we're going to take that into consideration with regard to our questioning, but there's no guarantee around this place. It's either going to be the best experience of your life or the worst.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): It will be memorable, either way.

The Chair: Yes, memorable either way, as Leon says.

• 0910

We look forward to your opening remarks. We have your speech. Obviously it's going to be put into the record. We ask most witnesses to try to simply summarize, because we like to get presentations of about ten minutes to give us an opportunity to ask a number of questions.

Again, welcome, and congratulations on your appointment.

Mr. Peter Showler (Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you very much. And yes, it is my birthday, so you do have to be nice to me. At the same time, of course, we have affairs to address today.

First of all, I would like to introduce Madam Senécal, executive director of the board, and Philip Palmer, legal counsel to the board. They've both joined me here today.

In terms of my appointment, you have already received my biographical statement, so you'll have a general sense of what my history is. I'm certainly not going to repeat it. Let me simply say, though, that when I came to the board six years ago, sitting as a convention refugee member, I had very strong interests in research issues, other parts of the board, besides the sitting itself. Primarily, those were case management issues in terms of the efficiency of the board.

For many years I sat on the hearing committee in the Ottawa office. Subsequent to that, I became director of the personnel committee. I was primarily concerned with issues of training in terms of members and refugee claim officers.

I have told all members and also all personnel on the board since becoming the chair that I view myself as coming to the chair from the shop floor, because the hearing room is the shop floor for the board. That's where we make our decisions, that's where we hear the evidence, and that's where we come to conclusions. So that's the perspective I'm bringing when I perform as the chair.

Before talking about our performance report in a general way, you will see in the speech before you that I wanted to point out four realities our decision-makers deal with on a daily basis in the hearing room.

Mr. Fontana told me this morning that several of the committee members are long-standing members of the committee, so I know you have experience with the board. I know you understand their processes. But we often talk about the board in terms of the number of cases completed per month, or per year at 25,000, or talk in terms of processing time of 9.3 months, or in terms of the appeal division doing so many cases per week. I want to bring us back to what happens in the hearing room on a daily basis. I'll refer to the refugee division because that's the one I know best.

The starting point is that on a daily basis, when the members walk into that hearing room, they're confronted with a person who's going to be telling them a quite horrific story. It often involves rape, murder, pillage, death, threats of death, and brutalities toward their near relatives, their fellow villagers, or their fellow tribespeople. It's often an extremely shocking story.

Of course the job of the board member is to decide whether or not that story is true. In hearing that story, it's not that you always have to hear the specific details of the torture. What you are confronted with is having to in some way enter the intimacy of that story to hear the precise details of that person's life. A type of relationship evolves out of that.

The second reality the board member deals with—and this is the pleasant one—is that you often get a chance at the end of the hearing to say “Yes, you're safe, you're protected. You have asylum in this country.”

Now, that's not just a pleasant duty; it's also a great privilege. I don't know a single board member who doesn't feel that. You hear not only the misery and suffering in their life, but often you develop a great respect for them. A lot of refugees have a tremendous sense of personal dignity and a tremendous amount of courage. That's how they've managed to survive what they've survived and get here to Canada. That's often a very pleasant experience, and I mention that because for a lot of board members that's what keeps them going.

To give you a brief anecdote, some board members have just come down from five weeks of hearings in Prince George, hearing the Chinese refugee claims. If you have followed the statistics on that, you'll know that there have been so far four positive decisions and well over 150 negative decisions. Without prejudging any of the others, certainly it's expected that by far the great majority are going to be negative.

The problem with this is that it's tough saying no every day. I think those members have done their duty. You can tell it by the statistics.

• 0915

If you're hearing those stories day in and day out, though, even if you decide they're false, often it's very difficult, because the third reality is that often when you say no to refugees, there's an assumption that, well, they're not refugees, and therefore the claims are fraudulent. But that's often not the case. They often do have a story of misery and oppression, but it happens to be one of poverty. They've often either lied about their story or exaggerated it. So even though some elements of the claim are very difficult to hear, at the end of the day you decide they're negative.

Of course you hear some claims where not only are the claimants telling a fabricated story but you also conclude that in actuality they've come from a country where there is significant oppression, and they are from the class of people that's benefited from that oppression. We know there is a significant number of those people. That's why they've had the money and the means to get here.

Lastly, on the worst of occasions, sometimes you hear claimants where you actually believe, at the end of the day, they're not the persecuted but the persecutors. The reason they can testify so well about it and describe the torture in such detail is that they've been there, all right, but they've been there on the other side of it. Although in most cases it's very difficult to prove it, you can certainly draw that conclusion.

The last reality to talk about is the difficulty of deciding whether the person is the sheep or the goat, whether they're one side or the other. In the majority of cases there are some extremes on either side where it's quite obvious, even from the paper documents, that it's almost certainly a positive decision. There are also situations where you're pretty sure it's going to be a negative because they don't have a case made out. The great bulk of the cases, however, are in the middle, in the grey area.

The member's job is to listen carefully to these facts, think about them, and at the end of the day draw a conclusion. Usually those conclusions are based upon credibility.

I just wanted to set this out for you, then, in terms of hearing-room realities, because that's what members deal with not once, not twice, but on average six or seven times per week. It can be wearing. It can be demanding.

I mention this not to alleviate the demands made on the board, because we know the other consideration is that things go too slowly. Case processing has to happen more quickly than it does. This is a great concern for the Canadian people, a concern for Parliament, and we're very aware of it in terms of board management.

We have tried to take a significant number of initiatives in the past few years to improve our efficiency, improve our case processing. I've laid these out in the paper. There are several initiatives I didn't refer to, but I have listed the principal ones.

The first is the expedited process. We know we have to find the so-called easy cases and find a way to identify and process them early. We're still struggling as to how we do that, but what we have done a much better job of is that when we do identify them, we get them through the system much more quickly than before.

Case management is a big issue for us. We're looking for better and better ways in which we can not only identify cases but also move the files more efficiently through the system. I'll talk about that later.

Priority case processing has become a big issue for us. We have a mandate and an agreement with the immigration department to do priority processing for detained cases and minors. We've also tried to do it wherever we have large influxes of individual countries, such as with Chile or with the Tibetan claims in Toronto. The best example of that, of course, would be the Chinese boat claims out on the west coast.

Although there have been many challenges, I wish to tell you there also have been many successes. As I speak today, the last hearing is being completed in Prince George. Of the nearly 500 claims that were referred to the board in July, August, and September, except for ten claims, which, because of complexities, will be heard in Vancouver, all of those claims have now been heard. We still have some decisions to write on some of them, but the claims have been heard.

In actuality, then, the board did what it said it would do—that is, process the great majority of those claims in six months. Apart from those ten claims that remain, the final claim is scheduled for March 27. We had said we would complete those claims by the end of March, and we intend to do so. I think it's our best example so far of priority processing that has worked.

• 0920

I anticipate, of course, there will be more detailed questions on the claims from the Chinese boat people later.

I have referred to some of the other areas briefly, and I won't go into them in detail now because you will be asking me questions about them. There are oral reasons, lead cases, and an alternative to dispute resolution within the immigration and appeal division. There are lots of other initiatives we can talk about.

I do, though, have to bring you the other part of the news. We've made significant progress, and in my paper you will note at page 5 that I've outlined some of the areas where we have made significant improvements. I think the big one is the processing time. In the original report we were at 13.2 months. In 1998-99, the year we're reporting on, it came down to 11.9 months. By the end of December 1999 we had come down to 9.3 months. So we've made a lot of progress there. You'll see areas where we've made progress as well, in terms of processing our old cases and improving on our abandonment procedures.

The bad news is that we're going to have trouble sustaining that, because this year we have had a 25% increase in our intake, and a significant amount of that 25% increase has come in the last half of the year, since June. The heaviest increase has come in our third quarter, which was from October through to December.

We are now struggling with the notion that at the beginning of the year we had hoped to reduce our case inventory from approximately 23,000 down to 18,000. For us that was a kind of magic figure, because it really represented backlog. After that we would really eat into processing time, because we would be dealing with nothing but new cases. We would not have to deal with cases that had already been sitting on the shelf for two, three, or four months. As our inventory climbs with increased intake, of course, that means we will be putting more and more cases on the shelf, and we're going to start paying the price in terms of processing time.

It's a tremendous concern to us. I've given you some outlines in terms of how we want to deal with it, because it means we can't stand still. We actually have to try harder and do better than we've been doing so far.

On some of the ways in which we're going to do that, first of all, in terms of case management, we've become far more aggressive. At the moment we're implementing new case management systems in both Toronto and Montreal. They're a little different in their design, but both of them are doing the same thing: they're trying to identify the easy cases early to expedite them, and even the negative cases that can be processed more quickly. So we'll be doing a lot of work there.

I've indicated in the paper that I think we have to improve our members' skills in several ways. I'm quite prepared to talk about initiatives in terms of member training and some amendments to the appointment and reappointment of members. This is particularly a priority if we end up going to a single member. You've heard the minister talk about using a single member. She's on the record as saying she would certainly like to see us go there.

Within our present system, we can only have a single member with the consent of counsel. We've increased that significantly, and 40% of our cases are single member now anyway. So we've been looking for ways to do that.

Single member is a dramatically more productive and efficient way to decide cases. At the same time, if there's a legislative amendment and the result is that approximately 90% of our cases are single member, we will certainly have to address the issue of member competency and find ways to further support our single-member decision-makers.

In the paper I've made brief reference to the issue of an internal appeal. The minister has asked our opinion on internal appeal, and we've provided advice to her. We've certainly said that if you're going to single member and there are concerns about consistency and the quality of decision-making, an internal appeal can do that. We've suggested ways in which an internal appeal can be implemented without adding to processing time, which is the big question, in terms of internal appeal. I certainly welcome questions on that topic and issue.

Certainly our advice has been that you have a far more efficient decision-making process if you have single-member decision-making with an internal appeal within the board itself.

• 0925

Those are the generalities of the paper, and that's basically the logic of the paper. I think we have tremendous challenges ahead, particularly if the intake increases—and I will tell you, we don't see it necessarily ending early. The intake is coming from predictable source countries, traditional source countries, and it's right across Canada; it's not one particular office.

We certainly appreciate the challenge and want to find every way in which we can be more productive. If we feel we've tried every way to be more productive and are struggling with an increasing caseload, at some point, of course, we may have to come back to Parliament and say the answer is more resources. In the beginning, that's not the first solution we're looking for.

I certainly welcome your questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Showler.

You see, already you've gotten off to a good start on your birthday. I've given you fifteen and a half minutes. Usually I'm much tougher on witnesses than this.

Mr. Peter Showler: I apologize. I told them I was going to take five minutes.

The Chair: Not a problem.

I'm sure you know, because the IRB has been here at least a couple of times, this committee has undertaken a study with regard to the refugee determination system in illegal migrants. You may find that some of the questions, and perhaps your insight and some further questions.... We are in the midst of hearing some of our last witnesses and submitting a report to Parliament and to the minister. So on your timing for being here, not only because of your appointment and your performance, but also the very study we're doing, I think this meeting will be most productive. I want to thank Phil and Madam Senécal for being here also.

Mr. Benoit for ten minutes.

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

Good morning to all of you. I'm very pleased to see you here.

Your job is such an important job, and from your introduction this morning I think you've pointed out how difficult a job it is, because you're dealing with real people in some almost unbelievable situations. They are unbelievable to most Canadians, really, because most of us haven't experienced many of the things you and your board members have to deal with from day to day. I can't over-emphasize just how important the job you're doing is.

I also want to say that I sense there's been an improvement at the board over the past five years, just from what I've heard. I think it's moving in the right direction, and it will be a difficult job for you to keep moving it along fast enough to deal with the situations you're likely to have to deal with.

Probably a lot of us saw the documentary last night on Sierra Leone. You see scenes like that and know there is a need for countries around the world, including Canada, to provide refuge. That's what you're dealing with every day, of course.

There are also the Chinese migrants who came, starting in July. You've expressed how difficult it is to deal with people who are here to improve their lives but who still don't qualify as refugees. I appreciate how difficult these decisions are and how important your job is.

I've often said that if I were in a situation like that of the Chinese migrants, I'd probably do the same thing. I assume I would try to better my situation too.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): They'd send you back.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But what's important is balancing all of that against the security of Canadians and a lot of different types of costs to Canada. That's the difficult job you have, and I do appreciate it.

I want to start just by asking, if you could have government change two things that would help you make your job easier, what would they be?

The Chair: Are you sure the word is “easier”?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Easier and faster.

Mr. Peter Showler: I can answer that because I've already addressed it, and the minister has spoken about it.

Of course it's for Parliament to make any changes they're going to implement, but in my view, in terms of the system.... And we've given this as advice only to the minister; of course there may be other considerations. It's a theoretical model.

If you have single-member decision-making with an internal appeal, it is a far more efficient system. When I talk about efficiencies, we often talk about fast and fair, and sometimes people think fast or fair, and sometimes it is fast or fair. But I think that system is actually fast and fair.

• 0930

There are all kinds of ways in which with a single member, assuming that the front-end processing would be far earlier, with immediate reference to the board and consolidated decision-making—all of the things the minister has recommended—you would have far more front-end processing with a single member. The complexities of two members and scheduling are just stunning. It's very difficult to appreciate. Once you have members sitting with someone else, very quickly you get a kind of gridlock in the schedule. It's something the board has fought for years.

So if you have single-member decisions and at the same you have an internal appeal process—that's a paper appeal—

Mr. Leon Benoit: How would you see that internal appeal process working? And would you anticipate that there would still be as many cases as there are now appealed to the Federal Court, or would that be disallowed in a majority of cases as a result of this internal appeal?

Mr. Peter Showler: Well, in the theoretical model, the advice given is that it would be a paper appeal on the fact and the law. So it's a full appeal on the fact of the law. It's only on the evidence that was already heard. There would be no live evidence by the review panel, the appeal panel. You would add way too much time to the processing system if you did that.

You could do that on the merits. You could do it in a far more focused way than the Federal Court is able to, and of course it's a higher standard, because it's not judicial review, it's full appeal. In my view, it can do it. Your review panel would all be members with at least five years of experience on the refugee division. So they're experienced, and they would also be country specialists. I cannot emphasize how much country specialty makes a difference, particularly when you're making a review. I think a system like that could work.

In terms of going to the Federal Court, privitive clauses have never worked in this country, in the sense that you can never completely exclude judicial review. It would be my great hope, however, that if you had an effective appeal system.... And I would say part of that recommendation or suggestion would be that 30 days after the appeal decision, if the appeal is rejected, the person becomes removable. So they would actually have to seek a stay of removal from the Federal Court. In my view, the Federal Court would be quite deferential to the expertise of the board and the appeal division in a great majority of the cases. Now, that's purely speculation on my part.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It seems to make a lot of sense. It's something that I and my colleagues before me have called for, certainly. It really does seem to be a practical way of speeding up the process and making it work better.

That was your first....

Mr. Peter Showler: If you don't mind my adding, there's one other aspect to it you should know. If there's an appeal division, you could have what are called precedential decisions, which let you choose particular issues.

Right now there are issues before the board that never seem to get settled. The Federal Court, because it really works as a trial court, really isn't providing the kind of case law we'd like. If we could define precedential decisions and assign three-member panels in the appeal division to deal with them, I think we could have a far more coherent system of case law for our decision-makers at the front end. That would be two or three years in the works, but the result of that would be another way in which you would have faster and fairer at the front end.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, now I want to go to some numbers, and I think I will. I'm going to change the order of my questions here.

You have the processing times dropping in pretty well all situations, but one thing that's obvious is that the number of abandoned and withdrawn cases is increasing, and of course those will make the numbers look a little different from what they should be. Usually those take less time, and if you average them in with the overall numbers, it's going to improve the numbers. But in fact those situations haven't been dealt with. Chances are those people are still in our country, and in spite of the fact that they haven't been accepted as refugees, they are in reality living here and they've gotten a lot of the benefits of receiving refuge.

How much of an impact does that have on the numbers, and what would your suggestions be for how to deal with the number of abandoned and in fact with the number of cases? You know, our official acceptance rate was about 44% in the last year we had stats for. In reality, almost 80%—

Mr. Peter Showler: I'll confess, we're up to 48% now.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In reality, almost 80% of people are allowed to stay. In other words, they're maybe not allowed to stay, they may be asked to leave, but the reality is that chances are they're still in Canada. There's no evidence that they leave. So we have an effective acceptance rate of almost 80%, which is extremely high.

• 0935

So what about the difference between the official acceptance rate and the reality of the percentage allowed to stay? How can you deal with that?

Mr. Peter Showler: The answer is we can't deal with that at the board. Candidly, it's not our job. Whenever we get referrals, we can try to make our decisions as quickly as possible. We can try to spot the abandonments early and declare them abandoned, so that at that point they become illegals. But after that, it's literally out of our hands. It's not our responsibility. What else can I tell you in that regard?

The Chair: Unless you want your own police force.

Mr. Peter Showler: Most tribunals don't have that, but in some of the countries we hear cases from, they do.

Mr. Leon Benoit: They actually have investigators that will follow up...?

Mr. Peter Showler: No, I'm being sarcastic. I mean the human rights abusers.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Oh, I see.

Mr. Peter Showler: Those tribunals often have their own police forces.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Yes, that's right.

To go back to my initial question then, what impact does putting the increasing percentage of withdrawn and abandoned cases in with the overall numbers have? I'm just trying to get an idea of how much the processing time has really improved.

Mr. Peter Showler: Even in terms of abandonments, though, that's a generalized figure. I've had cases where the abandonments have happened when we've already had one hearing. They've been thoroughly grilled and the case isn't over, it's adjourned, and they don't show up for the second hearing. That just goes as an abandonment. I have to say, as a member I'm sort of frustrated. I feel that's a case that's actually a negative. I've done my job and I've asked the tough questions, and all of a sudden they saw the result coming, so they managed to pull out ahead of time. So there are a significant number of abandonments that don't necessarily happen at the front end.

I've just been handed something. I thought this was the case, but I wanted to clarify it. In actuality, the combination withdrawn and abandonment rate has been quite constant. The combination of the two runs around 22% or 23%. But that's been going on for quite a few years; it isn't increasing.

Mr. Leon Benoit: When I asked you about the two things you would do to help speed the process up and make it work better, you didn't mention having a thorough review of the Singh decision and other subsequent decisions, which, combined with the charter, make it very difficult, I think, for people in the department generally and in the IRB to do their jobs. I'd like you to comment. It seems to me that you can change the legislation, as the government's proposing to do, in the department, or in the IRB you could want to change the system—and you can make some changes—but the Singh decision and subsequent decisions really do tie your hands in a lot of ways.

I'm not sure that governments—the Conservative government, and now the Liberal government—have interpreted the Singh decision the way it was intended initially. I'd like to ask you about the impact of that, and if that could be dealt with, just how it might help you in the board.

Mr. Peter Showler: Of course the legislation we now work under was based upon the Singh decision, so we don't have a lot of latitude in that regard. If there are changes, of course that's Parliament's job, not ours.

However, to give you an example of ways in which we can be creative, the Singh decision said that everybody should have a hearing before a decision is made, because it involves their life, liberty, and security of person. In our expedited system, they don't have a hearing; they have an interview with a refugee claim officer, but that's only if it's a positive decision. So we've tried to be creative and said okay, if we're making positives, as long as we're sure it's a positive, it's true that the person could say they didn't get a hearing, but since they got a positive decision, obviously they're not going to complain about it. So that's a way we've tried to be creative within Singh.

Of course the law is quite clear: if we're not satisfied that it's a positive decision, we have to send them to a full hearing. But the core of the Singh decision is that people who fear for their lives or liberty don't get removed from Canada unless they get a chance to tell their story in front of a decision-maker, live. That's the core of the Singh decision, and that's what the board's work is doing.

We can try to speed that up, we can process it, and we can try to be imaginative. If we have sixty claims that are the same, we can do two lead cases to clarify a lot of the country evidence, and then do the case itself very quickly.

• 0940

Those are ways in which we can try to be imaginative within Singh. But at the end of the day, if we're going to tell someone we don't believe them or they have to go back to their country, even though they say they could be tortured or killed or even just injured, then we have to give them the opportunity, live, to tell their story. That's the essence of Singh.

The Chair: Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned earlier that there's been a very recent 25% increase in intake. I'm wondering if you have any idea why that is the case. We've heard that the U.S., for example, are not allowing as many. Is that a factor, or is it just that people are finding more ways to get here?

Mr. Peter Showler: No, we don't think it's a factor, because we've looked at other countries.

Let me tell you a little bit about that intake. First, as I said, it's across the country, because the first thing we look for is whether it is located in one region. It isn't.

Secondly, we're looking at the traditional source countries it's coming from. It's coming from Pakistan; it's coming from Sri Lanka. Most of the countries it's coming from are ones from which we've been receiving large refugee flows for years.

So the message to us then is that it's a generalized increase. But there have been significant increases in other countries as well. Particularly in the U.K. there have been far higher increases. They've had about a 38% increase. Sweden has large increases. Some of the European countries do. Germany doesn't. The United States doesn't.

So there's been some inconsistency, but as a generality it's going on in several other cases. Why that is, part of the reason certainly—remember that UNHCR says there are approximately 21 million people out there who would roughly fall into what would be considered convention refugee status, or certainly would be seeking that kind of claim. That's a lot of people. So we're really still not getting a lot, but we are getting more. The fact of the matter is it's a shrinking world. This is globalization. Every day there's more.... It's not just transport; it's communication.

Mr. Rick Limoges: In other words, we're just going to have to deal with it.

Mr. Peter Showler: Well, we haven't been able to identify a particular reason to see if that's going to level off or come down. We're not able to identify it if it's there.

Mr. Rick Limoges: You mentioned as well in your remarks changes that are perhaps required in the appointment and training of new members. I'd like you to expand on that. We've heard from other witnesses. For example, they think it should be lawyers as a minimum and then people with experience and so on. Others think experience is more important than the credentials. Could you give us your thoughts?

Mr. Peter Showler: Certainly.

First of all, in terms of the present system—and I'm not sure it's fully, clearly understood—with the application of the minister's advisory committee, there's a process they go through, and I think you're aware of the basic requirements: that they have university education or five years' equivalent experience. I think certainly we will ask the minister to consider going back to that and see if they want to add particular credentials. For example, it's a concern to me that the use of computers by members is so frequent now that there maybe should be computer skills—other areas.

Essentially, with the written test that goes on—and there is a written test—we looked at the 1998 figures, and 60% of the applicants were screened out on that test. Ordinarily we would be looking at 40%, but we had 60% on the MAC process that were removed before they went to the committee. The committee interviewed, and the committee screened out approximately another 30%. So originally, of about 700 applicants, approximately 150 actually were then deemed to be candidates. Of those, 56—about one-third—then actually received nominations.

So that's the current process. I think we can do better. I think there are ways in which we can make more rigorous screening at the front end to improve even more on the skills and the abilities of the people entering the system.

I certainly have concerns on the other aspect, what we've asked the minister to consider, and the minister has now said she's prepared to do it, which is to have short-term appointments of two years to start with, have a very intensive training program, a more rigorous evaluation program, which is in place now, and then long-term appointments.

In terms of that two-year program, what we're looking at is.... We've always done a fairly good job in terms of initial training. It's been a three-week program. Compared to other administrative tribunals it's absolutely first rate. We think it's necessary because of the skills and the demand and the work. We would continue that, except after that most members have only had generalized training. There has been a mentor system in place, but it hasn't been fully implemented. We will have a very organized mentor system and we will have a customized training program, so for any member who is having problems with any aspect of their work during that first two years, it will be identified early and it will be addressed in training. Our strong feeling is that we first have to address it in training.

• 0945

The next thing we're going to do, though, is evaluations, and our evaluators—those would be what we call our CMs, our coordinating members—to date have had no training in evaluation. So they've been asked to evaluate members and they themselves have had no training in that. That course is already scheduled. It will be taking place in early April.

So we're going to have very clear and thorough training. We're going to look for consistency across the country, but we're going to be telling our evaluators they have to be direct and clear and rigorous in doing that evaluation. The minister is quite willing to hear that if there isn't a clear recommendation from the board after that two-year period, then reappointment would not be considered.

So that's the way in which I think we can work more on training and improving the general quality of board members.

Mr. Rick Limoges: On another issue then, you mentioned that we're at about a 48% approval ratio right now and 22% approximately withdrawn or abandoned. Are those comparative figures? Can we just add them and say there's another 30% that don't fall into either category?

Mr. Peter Showler: That's fair.

Mr. Rick Limoges: In terms of what Mr. Benoit referred to earlier, effectively 80% of them remaining in Canada, is that in fact the case? Are we being successful in ejecting 20% of the overall claimants and the rest are in effect staying here, or do you have any thoughts as to what else might happen to these people? Have they gone back voluntarily? Have they gone on to some other country?

Mr. Peter Showler: The answer to that is I don't know.

The working number that is always heard in the refugee trade isn't 80%; it's usually 65%, in general. But in terms of removals, that's literally not our area. That's not our job. That's the immigration department's job. You know there are some difficulties in it. It's just not a matter of handing them a plane ticket and saying goodbye. That's an answer they'd have to provide for you, because that's not our area of expertise or knowledge.

Mr. Rick Limoges: So you're dealing with the applicants, and if they don't show up or they're abandoned or whatever, then you just move on, because....

Mr. Peter Showler: Well, we try to abandon them early. The minute we abandon them we inform the immigration office right away and say this person is abandoned. But what we're really doing is handing the ball off to them and saying it's now up to them. But it is part of our job. It's not that we're not concerned. In the history of the board, abandonments have floated around for years in the case management system. We're very, very stringent about identifying them as early as possible and at least getting them to the point where they're now illegally in the country and removable.

The Chair: Final question.

Mr. Rick Limoges: You mentioned as well precedential decisions in the appeal division and the ability to use them at the front end. Could you expand on that a little bit? How much of a tool would this be, or how much of a tool is this now and you would like it to be in the future?

Mr. Peter Showler: It's a tool now in the sense that we have case law from the Federal Court. At one time judicial review was done by the Federal Court of Appeal. It was a fairly coherent body of case law. But with the number of cases that have gone through to the trial division—and I think it's just the nature of the division, it's not a criticism of them—often what happens is they are fact-oriented decisions. Either it's quashed or it's not quashed. So what you get is a tremendous range of decisions.

I'll give you a good example: Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has had a civil war going on now for 15 years. Within that there was a big issue. If young Tamils went down to Colombo, the capital, would they be safe there? That's called an IFA, an internal flight alternative. So that was a big issue. That issue went back and forth, back and forth, and the board was all over the place in terms of the decision-making, and so was the Federal Court, trial division. The fact of the matter was that could have been identified as an issue very clearly. It involves country facts. It also involves, of course, just the issues of law.

That is the kind of case we would send—not just one, but maybe two or three. We would identify those as issues, send them to the appeal division for a three-member panel, and get clear, cogent decision-making out of that. That would actually be a tremendous efficiency when you think that sometimes the hearing, instead of going on for half an hour on one issue, goes on for two or three hours or maybe there's even an adjournment because the issues aren't clear. So clarification of issues really will contribute in the end to efficiency.

• 0950

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): I'd like to thank our witnesses for coming here today. I apologize for being about twenty minutes late in arriving.

Naturally, my question pertains to the Montreal regional office. Perhaps you broached this subject prior to my arrival. As you probably know, any change in mechanism or procedure must bear in mind three basic things, namely that the process must be fast, efficient and fair. I think we can all agree on this point.

The new mechanism in place for summoning lawyers and scheduling hearings which has been adopted by the Montreal office has been called into question by the Quebec Association of Lawyers for Immigration Rights. I was summoned on January 18 and I know that you were summoned as well. One of the many problems identified by the Association concerns the limited availability of lawyers. I'm curious as to the steps you have taken to regulate this situation.

Mr. Peter Showler: In Montreal, our primary objective is to process cases within six months and to this end, we have adopted new case management procedures. A number of lawyers, as well as the Association, have voiced some objections about these new procedures because they impose some restrictions on their schedule and because lawyers responsible for 400 or 450 cases are unable to provide a response within a certain time frame. They are unwilling to accept constraints of any kind. The claimants' right to choose their own counsel is being compromised. We felt it was important to defend the fundamental principle whereby cases should be processed within six months and we understood that this was very important to Parliament and to Canadians.

I'm very pleased to inform you that the Association and board administrators met yesterday and worked out an interim agreement. The lawyers met yesterday evening. I don't know whether the agreement was ratified, but I would be inclined to think that it was.

We will make some minor changes to the hearing scheduling process over the next three months and at the same time, negotiations will continue between the two associations with a view to hammering out an agreement that is acceptable to both parties. We continue to defend the fundamental principle whereby the system in place must be such that cases are fully processed within six months.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I understand. Do you deny that the Board allegedly instructed some of its employees not to recommend certain lawyers because they had fallen into disfavour?

Are you prepared to pledge today that any future procedural changes will be implemented only after stakeholders, including the lawyers, who are just as important to the process, have been consulted? This would ensure the process was in keeping with our objective, namely ensuring that the process is fast, fair and efficient.

• 0955

Mr. Peter Showler: I admit that consultation is very important to the process. Over the next three months, we will undertake this kind of consultation and we will devise solutions that are satisfactory to both parties. Obviously, we recognize that lawyers are very important partners in this process and that they help ensure that the system runs smoothly.

A handful of lawyers alleged that the board preferred not having to deal with certain lawyers. In my opinion, this charge is unfounded.

[English]

The Chair: Rob Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): I'd like to follow up, if I could, on the whole idea of the 48% that's the official acceptance rate and then those people who stay beyond.

I realize that you're possibly not equipped and that it's not really your job, as you described it, to deal with the removal of some of those people who aren't officially accepted yet manage to stay behind. I'm wondering if you can give me some idea....

I want you to be able to comment fairly on this without fear of criticizing the department. I realize that this is part of the concern you have about appearing before a committee like this, so you're somewhat reticent to stray down those paths, but maybe you can give some ideas about how to improve the efficiency of the removal process. Maybe you can compare our system with other countries that have a more effective removal process.

I'm just guessing out loud here, but if Australia has a detention process, I would assume that if the people don't really leave their site, they're probably more efficient with regard to the removal of those who aren't officially accepted.

Perhaps you could give me some sense as to how we could streamline that so that we don't go from 48% to 80%, 65%, or whatever it is, with a significant increase in the number of people who probably shouldn't be here but are.

Mr. Peter Showler: I suppose the short answer is that I can't, because it's not my area of expertise.

I can tell you that removal rates are very difficult, even internationally when we're comparing them. In general, it's known that not just Canada but a lot of countries have problems in terms of their removal rates. Countries tend not to be forthcoming with what those removal rates are simply because it's inconvenient information for their own national populations. But as a generality, I can tell you that it's certainly seen as a problem.

I can only speak to it from the point of view of what the board can do to assist. I gave you one example about early notice of abandonments. But particularly if we've identified very problematic cases in the system, or for example if we make findings of no credible basis, or if there are exclusions where there have been findings that a person has actually been complicit in or has committed human rights abuses, I think there are ways in which we want to get that information very quickly, prioritize it, and make sure that not only is the information conveyed but also the content in that information. So I look at it more from the point of view of what we can do to assist.

Mr. Rob Anders: With regard to the detention process that was exercised, for example, with the Chinese boat migrants, I assume that if we had a detention process like the one I understand the Australians are looking to implement or have implemented, it would result in a much more efficient method of being able to track and remove those people who are not officially accepted. Is that a fair conclusion?

Mr. Peter Showler: If you have them detained the whole time, yes, I think it's a fair conclusion that you could certainly remove them a lot more easily then, if you're able to.

Mr. Rob Anders: Obviously if somebody doesn't show up for a meeting with you and they are just kind of abandoned or disappear or are filed as being missing someplace or whatever because they're not there and they haven't chosen to reappear, then of course you have no sense of being able to track that, because who knows where they are. Is that right?

Mr. Peter Showler: Yes.

Mr. Rob Anders: They're not detained. They're free and about. If they choose not to come to a meeting, then you're out and so is everybody else, and you don't know.

• 1000

But let's say, for example, they come to a meeting and you've made a determination that they shouldn't be accepted. Does that person walk free from that meeting, such that if they know that they've not been accepted they're still free to be at large? Or are there immigration officials there to go ahead and act upon the determination?

Mr. Peter Showler: No. If there were a decision—

The Chair: They're not guilty of anything.

Mr. Rob Anders: There's a risk of flight.

Mr. Peter Showler: If there's a decision to detain, that's made by the immigration office. So if they're not detained, if they walk in in Ottawa here into the hearing room and they have their hearing and at the end of the day we make an oral decision and say our conclusion is they're not a refugee, it's correct, they walk out of that room. It would have to be an immigration officer who made that decision.

If they're already in detention, which is the situation with the majority of the Chinese claimants who are in Prince George, then it's the decision of our adjudication division, our adjudicators, whether they would be released or not. And that's not relevant to whether or not they've had a refusal; what it's relevant to is whether there would be a fear of flight. In other words, would they attend for removal—that's the base—or would they disappear? That's the logic upon which so far there's a decision to continue to detain them.

The Chair: Mr. Price.

Mr. Peter Showler: May I make one added response? In terms of Australia, in terms of their detention and rapid removal, it's interesting that our figures indicate that the processing time on claims in Australia is 19 months. A question arises in my head immediately, which is if they're in detention, if supposedly they're far more accessible for the processing, I wonder why it's taking them 19 months to do that.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for being here today. I think it's very important that we get started to meet the new head of the IRB, since indirectly we'll be working together for the next little while.

I found your presentation very interesting in the beginning, particularly the part where you talk of the stress IRB members have to go through. Having been there on the ground for a while, you can talk directly about it. You've felt this. I'm wondering how you deal with that, and what type of turnover you have in board members because of the stress factor. How is this taken into account?

Mr. Peter Showler: A lot of members certainly feel that there is stress, but most want to be reappointed.

The Chair: It's a lot more stressful.

Mr. Peter Showler: It appears the loss of income is more stressful.

A lot of members love their job. They love it. It's very difficult. I give the example that if you're always doing negatives, it's like working in an emergency room in a hospital. That's horrible, difficult work, but the reason you keep doing it is because you actually save some people. If you felt you were hearing nothing but claims that were already going to die, if you're hearing claims that were all refused, after a while you start thinking maybe you really want to be in another area of work. But the fact is that stress is an issue, and we haven't addressed it well on the board. We are going to be looking at stress-related training for members, which we haven't done yet, because it might add to their efficiency.

Mr. David Price: That's what I was getting at.

I'll go directly to another question. It's going to hit you pretty hard in the coming months, probably. The minister has said she wants to increase the number of immigrants into Canada. Right now we're running about 180,000 to 300,000. How are you going to be able to handle that?

Mr. Peter Showler: The number of immigrants?

Mr. David Price: In relation, the number of refugees will go up also.

Mr. Peter Showler: I think what she's talking about is how—as I understand it, and you may have more knowledge about this than I do—the overseas independents application process would be greatly increased, that she wasn't satisfied with that. I'm just going from comments in the press. That's where there would be far greater increases. So that wouldn't have any direct impact on refugee determination within Canada. There really wouldn't be a relationship between the two events.

Mr. David Price: So you don't feel this would be an increase?

Mr. Peter Showler: No, I don't think it would in any way add to the intake flow we have.

Philip, do you want to make a comment on that?

Mr. Philip Palmer (General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board): Where it might show up is downstream a couple of years, when large numbers of people were resettled in Canada and they'd be seeking to sponsor their own relatives from abroad, family members, dependants. In that case, it may show up as appeals of rejections of sponsorships in our appeal division, but not in the refugee division.

• 1005

Mr. David Price: You mentioned the country specialists, which I found very interesting. I think that's quite an interesting angle. How are you going about this? Are you looking at the new people you take on or suggest for the IRB? Is there a particular priority given to somebody who is a country specialist and who maybe has language skills to go with that?

Mr. Peter Showler: Factors that are looked at are those such as language skills. Of course that's one of a broad range of professional expertise. Our members do come from a very broad range. Someone who was an anthropologist or someone who had excellent research skills, for example, might very well turn out to be every bit as good a board member as someone with legal skills.

In terms of general skills we look at, we don't look at particular country expertise. We do that once they're within the board. Particularly we're more successful in the larger areas, for example Toronto and Montreal, because we have so many members there. Ordinarily you're talking about enough members that we break into teams, and those teams have geographic specialties. So we will have a team that will be specialized, for example, in dealing with Bangladeshi, Indian, and Pakistani cases.

It's not just a matter of knowing the geography of the country; it's knowing the particular details and the particular human rights abuses. As I explained before, so many cases come down to credibility. You really have to understand very thoroughly the background of what occurs in that situation. If someone refers to a strike that occurred in Jaffna in 1994 and if they said there were hundreds of people there and you knew that was a small strike where only two people were arrested, that's the kind of background knowledge you need. You don't have time to go look all of that up in the document for every different case.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Price.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I too would like to welcome you and to wish you personally, and the Immigration and Refugee Board in general, much success in your endeavours.

I have several questions for you. The first concerns the lack of consistency, in terms of the decisions made, between the various communities across Canada. As everyone knows, I served on the IRB before being elected to Parliament. I think committee members also know that if we look at claims from individuals from the same country, Israel for example, there is a blatant lack of consistency in decision making in terms of the number of claims approved in Montreal, Toronto and even Vancouver.

When questioned, your predecessor explained that board members acted independently when it came to making decisions and that's indeed correct. However, in my opinion, cases could be reviewed in a more consistent manner and the same criteria could be applied in decision-making. Moreover, board members should have access to the same information.

Would you care to comment?

Mr. Peter Showler: That's an excellent question. As a former board member, surely you understand that there are problems in this area. First of all, we must keep a close eye on any inconsistencies in terms of data and our policy is such that if, over two quarters, we observe a difference of 30 per cent with respect to claims from one particular country, we are required to draw up a report endeavouring to identify the reasons for this discrepancy.

We have established a nation-wide network of experts on country conditions who participate once a month in a videoconference to discuss problems of this nature. However, this is not an entirely satisfactory solution and this is one problem that the IRB needs to resolve.

• 1010

We have appointed a lawyer to Mr. Frecker's office and given him the job of coming up with some solutions. We must try and uncover the reasons for these discrepancies. Sometimes, it has to do with differences in the claimants' profile. For example, on the West Coast, the rate of acceptance of claims from Chinese claimants who are primarily from the Fujian region is very low, whereas in Toronto, Chinese claimants from Tibet present a totally different profile and therefore, the findings in their case are different.

In both regions, documentary evidence must be weighed and a determination made as to whether this evidence is the same, or different. Occasionally, highly relevant documentary evidence may be used in one region, but not in another. If that's not the solution, then we need to look at other reasons and ask ourselves if in both instances, circumstances have been analyzed in the same light. For example, we might ask ourselves if in one region, the claims are coming from people fleeing the country, whereas in another regions, the claims are from individuals seeking a better life for themselves.

We can also look at the whole issue of the training of board members, and at the principle whereby they must be independent in the decision-making process.

We need to conduct a thorough review to identify differences and then conduct an analysis to see if there is some rational basis for arriving at different decisions.

The Chair: Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have one more question, if time permits, Mr. Chairman.

On page 36 of the English version and page 37 of the French version of the Immigration and Refugee Board Performance Report for the period ending March 31, 1999, under the business line“Refugee Determination”, we note that actual spending in 1998-1999 accounted for 47.8 per cent of the overall budget, whereas under the business line “Corporate Management and Service”, actual spending for the same period totalled 28.3 per cent. This table appears to indicate, and correct me if I'm wrong, that 47 cents of each dollar are spent on board members and staff who make decisions, whereas 28 cents of each dollar are spent on management. That's seems to be a very high ratio. Instead of spending more to hire additional board members to assist in decision-making and process cases quickly, a substantial amount of money is being spent on corporate management and services.

Could you explain why this ratio seems so disproportionately high to me?

Mr. Peter Showler: Well, in answer to your question....

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes?

Mr. Peter Showler: ... I'll let the Executive Director respond.

Some hon. members: Oh! Oh!

Ms. Nicole Senécal (Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you, Ms. Folco.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Senécal, could I ask for a clarification from Madame Folco? If she's reading through the thing, I'm not sure those are percentages. I'm sure we're talking millions of dollars here.

Ms. Nicole Senécal: No, millions of dollars.

The Chair: Just so I understand that, on page 36 or 37—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: We've taken it to mean—

The Chair: It's just that those are not percentages. I think those are millions of dollars. I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Okay.

The Chair: Because there are people, believe it or not, who are listening to this on the radio. That's why every once in a while I have to tell them, first of all, I'm in charge, and secondly, identify who is talking and everything else.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, you're quite right. However, the ratio remains the same, as does my question: Why is so much money being spent on management and so little on the salaries of board members?

Ms. Nicole Senécal: That's an excellent question and I would be delighted to respond.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I've very pleased that you pointed out that the reference in this table is to millions of dollars, not percentages.

• 1015

Secondly, if you think that the business line “Corporate Management and Services” refers to operating costs and to what are commonly referred to as general expenses or overhead, then you are mistaken. We determine how much will be allocated to each envelope according to an accounting method based on business lines.

Take, for example, the registry office, be it the one in Montreal, Toronto or elsewhere in the country, which works for all three divisions. Its budget doesn't come under the Refugee Determination business line, but rather, under the Corporate Management and Services business line, simply because, from an accounting standpoint, it would be too difficult to manage a percentage of a person-year. Another example of a similar type of expense is the policy unit in Ottawa, which as you know, since you once served on the board, incorporates all research services. When a board member asks a very specific question, for instance, whether there was a strike at a particular point in time in Sri Lanka, this centralized service, which comes under the Corporate Management and Services business line, does the required research, even though it is in fact responding to a request from a board member.

Although my office has responsibility for this $28.3 million, I can assure you that my service doesn't spend $28 million a year all on itself. When it comes to public sector accounting, people don't always agree on the definition of overhead. Generally speaking, I would have to say that this corresponds to the funds allocated to the communications, administration and human resources unit. Currently, my service's expenditures total between $12 million and $14 million. I can assure you that our spending levels are much lower than the report would have you believe. Our spending accounts for approximately 15 per cent of the Board's overall spending.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Folco.

[English]

Mr. Benoit, from the Reform Party.

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

Mr. Showler, I didn't have time before to follow up on your answer in regard to the note that was handed to you by your director, Ms. Senécal. In my question I asked what impact the increased rate of withdrawn and abandoned cases had on your processing times, and therefore the cost per case.

In the answer I was told that in fact there hadn't been an increase in the rate of abandoned and withdrawn cases, but from the numbers I have here from the IRB, from 1991 to 1998 there has been a 500% increase in the rate of withdrawn and abandoned cases, up from—

Mr. Peter Showler: Which rate are you looking at?

Mr. Leon Benoit: This would be from the 1989 to 1998 refugee status determinations from the IRB.

Mr. Peter Showler: Are the national indicators up at the top?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. It's not in the document you've given me; it's in another document. It's appendix 5 to a document entitled “Refugee Claims in Canada, 1980-1998”, from the board.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, excuse me. I will clarify it.

Mr. Benoit has already indicated that he has a document. I think it's a little unfair to be quoting from something they don't have.

Mr. Leon Benoit: This came from the IRB. They would know the numbers.

The Chair: But you can't identify it. Maybe you could take the time, because I see them struggling to look through some binders. Maybe you can put the question.

I think you might be able to glean it from something you have, or maybe Mr. Benoit would be fair to the committee and show us all the documents.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's what I was doing. I'd be happy to pass this around. In fact, I'm sure you've all had it.

This chart from the board shows that in 1991, as an example, the number of claims was 29,000. The number of abandoned and withdrawn claims was 1,394, which was about 5%—4.8% abandoned and withdrawn. In 1998 the number of claims was 24,000, and 6,200 were abandoned or withdrawn, which is a 26% abandoned and withdrawn rate. So it's a 500% increase in the abandoned and withdrawn rate.

• 1020

As I was pointing out in the prelude to my question before, that will have an impact on the processing times. My rough figuring is that the processing time that you have in your document for December 31, 1999, is 9.3 months, and with the adjustment I've made there it would in fact be 11.3 months, which would be very little change from 1998-99.

Furthermore, in your document you have the cost per case as having been reduced by $112 over the previous year. With this adjustment, in fact the cost will have increased. So I'm just—

Mr. Peter Showler: Well, I think we're going to have to look at that.

First of all, sir, in no way did I intend to mislead you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that.

Mr. Peter Showler: What we ordinarily look at is our national key indicators. We have our statistician here, who might assist me, but I can tell you that our numbers.... We'll have to see your document. Our numbers show that in 1998-99, for example, our abandonment rate was 16%. The previous year it was 16%, and in 1996-97 it was 19%. In the quarters since then, reading the quarters right across, we have 17%, 17%, 17%, 15%, 14%, and 16%. So those are—

Mr. Leon Benoit: You're treating abandoned and withdrawn as a percentage of claims made in that year?

Mr. Peter Showler: Of total claims. Those are the percentages of claims. That's just abandonment. The withdrawal is 7%, and then right across it's gone 7%, 7%, 7%, 7%, 8%, 7%.

The Chair: Mr. Showler, could I just ask for the rest of us, who are unfortunately not.... I don't know what document you're referring to and I don't know what paper Mr. Benoit is referring to. Which document are you referring to in terms of your numbers, just so that we all know? Is that from the IRB performance report?

Mr. Peter Showler: We'll pull that out from our blue document.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We'll give you a copy of the document so you can have a look at it. It was from you, from the IRB.

The Chair: Just wait a minute. I thought I had the floor for a moment.

I'm just trying to get clarification for all of us as to what documents and what figures we're doing, because it's unfair to the rest of us to be hearing this dialogue without at least having a reference as to where it's coming from.

Mr. Peter Showler: The document I'm working with, Mr. Fontana, isn't simply the report from last year, because we have the up-to-date numbers since then.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Peter Showler: But I can tell you that in that document—

Ms. Nicole Senécal: The abandonment is not there.

Mr. Peter Showler: The abandonment rate is not contained within that?

The Chair: I wonder, Mr. Showler, if you could do this. You could answer Mr. Benoit's question, of course, but if in fact you have some additional information you're quoting from that may or may not be here, perhaps you could give it to the clerk at some point in time so that we in fact can review that at a later date.

Mr. Peter Showler: Of course. I will undertake to provide that for you. I understand that any evidence tabled before the committee should be bilingual. I have the English version here. We have it in French, of course, and we certainly will file it with the committee.

The Chair: That's fine. Thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But that document is from the IRB, as you can see, and that's what it says. It's clear. I'm wondering why—

Mr. Peter Showler: Are you referring to 1998?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, compared to 1991, for example. We have the percentages worked out there.

Mr. Peter Showler: I note that above the figures it says “withdrawn, abandoned, and others”.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

Mr. Peter Showler: I have no notion what “others” means.

Would you have any idea what “others” means?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's very low, anyway.

Mr. Donald Smiley (Standards and Monitoring Officer, Immigration and Refugee Board): It's a small number of....

The Chair: Excuse me. If you're going to give testimony, you have to get close to a mike.

Just to solve this, because you've been given a document you haven't been able to see, now that you understand and know the question, I wonder if you may be able to provide us all with an answer. Rather than scrambling around, I think the fairer thing would be, as he's given you a document, if you could respond to his question to us in writing a little later—unless you have an answer right now.

Mr. Peter Showler: All I can tell you is that from the numbers you've presented here, they certainly contradict the numbers in the other document. What I will undertake, sir, is to put them both together and provide you with a written report to clarify the situation.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I really appreciate that.

The Chair: Perfect. Thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, now I want to get on to the next question. I wanted to point that out, because I recognized there was a contradiction and that's what I wanted to straighten out.

You comment that there is a 25% increase in the number of claims, I think, this year over last year.

Mr. Peter Showler: That's right. We of course ordinarily work in fiscal years, which ends March 31. But certainly so far it's been in that last part of the year that we've had it. In the last two quarters is where the increase has come.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm not trying to pin you down on it. That's good, a 25% increase. I want you to give me your best guess or your idea as to why there's been that increase.

Mr. Peter Showler: Well, I tried to respond to that question before. The answer is we don't know. There's no obvious solution to it. The answer isn't that there's been a huge influx of refugees from a particular place. The answer isn't that a visa restriction was lifted by Canada and we had a big flood of people coming from one area.

• 1025

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could I give you my guess as to why that is?

The Chair: You'll have to do that later, Leon. Right now I'm going to go to Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Joe, you're so mean.

The Chair: No, I've given you eight minutes. I'm being very generous today, and that's because it's Peter's birthday.

Mr. Peter Showler: I would be delighted to talk to you afterwards, because I would like to hear it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. I'll have another chance here, I think.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, please.

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

Mr. Showler, I very much enjoyed your document. What I find particularly impressive in it is that you very clearly point out that you have very difficult decisions to make. If I were to compare you to the judicial system, I could say that in the judicial system there is much more backup. But beyond having much more backup, we do not have the death penalty in Canada. If you really mess up on a case, it could actually result in death. So your focus on the quality of decision-making is something I think we all find very gratifying.

You were speaking earlier about some international comparisons. When I had occasion to talk to people from British immigration when I was in India recently, I asked them how many people seek asylum and how many of them actually leave the country. The numbers he gave me—and I guess they must have been dated a couple of years—were that approximately 70,000 seek asylum, and out of that number, when all is said and done, something like a thousand get out of the country. This really had me wondering about international comparisons.

To what extent could you, or are you in a position to, provide the committee with comparisons on the refugee side—on the hearings, on the successes? You mentioned that Australia's average time for cases is 19 months. It would really be good for us to be able to put it in context.

Mr. Peter Showler: I would be pleased to provide the committee.... We have just prepared a chart. First of all, I hope all the committee members understand, because I know you've struggled with this for quite a while, that there are two outstanding problems in terms of doing international comparisons.

First, it's often apples and oranges that you're comparing. Several of the countries first make an administrative decision, and they've got one and two levels of appeal after that. Often they'll give numbers for one, but not give numbers for the second or the third. So you really have to try to work very hard to look behind to really add up the total number of decisions.

What we're interested in is protection: What is the percentage of people being protected in each country? We have just completed this chart. Once again, I must unfortunately tell you that it is only in English. We are preparing a French version of it. We will certainly be providing a copy to the entire committee.

In particular, we had some concerns, because I know a chart was provided to you by the Department of Immigration. That chart focused on comparisons in terms of policy and made references to some numbers. It's not so much that the numbers were inaccurate; it's simply that they were incomplete.

We have done some vigorous research to speak with UNHCR and to speak with some European agencies to get numbers that we think are much closer to the accuracy of the number of decisions in terms of protection and the determination rates. Again, I undertake to provide that to the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): The refugee claim of one of the Chinese migrants was accepted on the basis of persecution because of the birth control requirements of her home country. I'd like to know the rationale of that decision, whether it was a first decision, whether the decision was made by an individual, and whether it sets a precedent for future decisions in cases like that.

• 1030

Mr. Peter Showler: I'd be pleased to respond to that.

First of all, of course the Chinese one-child policy is not a new issue for this board. We've been hearing those claims for many years. Several of those cases went all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal to be determined—the Chan and Cheung decisions.

I can tell you that the board has come down both ways on it. It's not simply a matter of the one-child policy and because you can't have a second child you're going to be persecuted. There were many situations where there was compulsory invasive surgery, basically compulsory hysterectomies. There were some very, very difficult situations for some of the claimants. There were other claimants that simply said “I think I would like to have a new child, so maybe something would happen to me in the future”.

We know that in China there were some very draconian policies, but they were enforced very inconsistently. So the range of the board's decisions in those areas have actually fallen on both sides of the fence. The decision in Vancouver, without talking about findings of credibility, certainly in terms of the theory of the decision was quite consistent with prior decisions of the board.

I'd like to ask Mr. Palmer if he wants to add something on that.

Mr. Philip Palmer: No, I don't think there is really anything to be added. The fact is that we have had a history of cases that go in both directions. It's really very fact-specific and depends on the particular region the claimant comes from and the evidence with respect to the enforcement policies and the severity of the enforcements that take place.

Mr. John Bryden: Because it affects a policy in another country, is that an issue that is larger than a simple decision from the board? Is that something that should be looked at by a higher authority? In the legislation, for example, is this something Parliament should be concerning itself with? You're talking about a billion people over there, and a one-child policy. I guess my reaction to the news story when I saw it was this finding could be applied to an awful lot of people. I just wonder whether it's something that should be looked at by a higher authority than the board itself.

Mr. Philip Palmer: Well, it has been looked at by a higher authority. There is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that clearly held that invasive surgery in order to enforce that policy would be a massive and serious invasion of human rights, of fundamental rights and integrity of the person. Therefore, in circumstances where that is a real prospect—and the real art of this is determining whether that is really the consequence that individual is likely to face—in those circumstances, according to the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, that might well be a situation in which you would find that there was persecution and therefore a convention refugee situation.

There are other circumstances in which, for instance, the one-child policy is enforced by fines, administrative sanctions, withdrawal of certain privileges and benefits. In those circumstances, generally speaking, the action by the state is not persecutory.

So it's not a challenge to the policy in itself. The one-child policy is not something we regard as being fundamentally at odds with sustaining fundamental human rights. It is the method of enforcement that is at times chosen.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you for that clarification.

Could I have one other question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: A quick question, a quick answer.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Anders raised what I thought was an interesting issue. What would be the effect on genuine refugees if there were a policy of detainment and quick removal for failed claimants? Would it actually have an adverse effect on the genuine claimants who came before the board?

Mr. Peter Showler: Of course for some it would. Some of these people, the genuine claimants, have been tortured. A lot haven't. Some of them have been victims of oppression for generations. They come from groups that have been brutalized and treated as the bottom of society for ages. If you're detaining them over a period of time, you have all kinds of potential problems that could arise out of that for genuine refugees. Particularly, if you come from an oppressive totalitarian state and you arrive here looking for safety and the first thing that happens is you're put into a jail, that would be a problem.

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, that wasn't my question.

The Chair: He answered your question.

Mr. John Bryden: But it wasn't my question.

The Chair: Yes, it was. I heard your question.

Mr. John Bryden: He misunderstood.

• 1035

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The advantage of having a new chairperson is that we can ask him for his assessment of the current immigration system and for his vision for the future. My question will focus on these two considerations.

I'm curious about the effects of the delays experienced within Canada's immigration system. According to the latest figures, which date back to December, at the Montreal office alone, there are 7,000 outstanding requests for asylum. This represents one third of all requests in Canada. You said you wanted to reduce processing times from ten to six months. Do you think that as a result of the current delays, some claimants are presenting new claims on humanitarian grounds, for example, family reunification, further burdening the Canadian immigration system in the process? I'm not talking here about convention refugee claims.

Would you care to comment or to analyse the impact of the delays by the Board in processing claims, as well as the effects of these delays on Canada's immigration system?

Mr. Peter Showler: It's very difficult to answer a question like that. We know that there have been delays and that these delays have been cited as the reasons for bringing other people here. These delays also adversely affect the other systems, particularly at the provincial government level. They could result in additional claims being submitted and in claimants receiving support while they are here.

We haven't analysed the situation, although we're aware that a problem does exist. In our view, the solution involves finding ways of making decisions faster. That's about all I can say.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

David Price—one question, please.

Mr. David Price: To follow up on Mr. Bigras' question on the involvement of the RCMP in giving you background checks on the people you are reviewing, we've had the RCMP before us, and they have said they do have a problem in dollars, people, the whole works. I imagine this does slow down your process, or help to slow it down. I'll ask the obvious question. What do you think we could do to help to bring this forward a little more?

Mr. Peter Showler: Well, it's a pleasure to ask for support from others for a change. Yes, we could use all kinds of support. I can tell you, for example, just in terms of forensic evidence, when we have documents, often the determining issue in a case will be whether or not the documents are false. The RCMP have been very supportive in doing very effective work with their forensic laboratory, but we've had delays of sometimes six weeks, sometimes months, while that claim cannot get decided. What we can do is push our members and ask if that is the deciding factor of evidence. We don't wait if there's some other way of deciding the case. But if that's the determining point, we are literally stuck and we have to wait.

The other issue, which is far more problematic, is in terms of the security reviews. Right now, as you know, the policy is—and I think it's probably for lack of resources—that there is a minimal security review done up front and there's a very serious security review done at the landing stage after it's gone through our process. Of course more security information up front would be very helpful to the tribunal, particularly where there is any possibility of exclusion issues.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Price.

Raymonde Folco—one question, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: My question ties in with the one raised earlier by my colleague Mr. Bigras about the time factor in terms of the convention refugee determination process, the risk of removal and humanitarian grounds.

• 1040

When it last met, the committee recommended to the minister that the three levels of decision-making be combined into one, to avoid a situation where a person who has been denied refugee status has to wait until a determination is made about his removal and then experiences another lengthy delay when humanitarian grounds are invoked.

Has the IRB come to any decision regarding this matter? Have you considered the possibility of allowing the same board member to rule at all three levels simultaneously?

Mr. Peter Showler: I'm sorry, Mr. Bigras, if I misunderstood your question earlier.

The Minister has already announced that she is in favour of consolidating the process and of course, we've acknowledged that this is a sound idea. We are prepared and capable of making a determination taking into account all issues associated with risk or danger. However, it's quite another matter when it comes to humanitarian grounds because all we have to go on is the information gleaned here in Canada. It's not something that we are capable of addressing. When it comes to weighing risks and danger, we are in a position to make determinations simultaneously before the tribunal.

[English]

The Chair: You have one question, Mr. Bryden, quickly, then Mr. Benoit and Mr. Anders. And then I get one, maybe, if I'm lucky.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I'll just try again.

Mr. Peter Showler: I'm sorry, I may have misunderstood your question.

Mr. John Bryden: That's okay. That's fine.

Mr. Anders raised the question of what happens if a claimant fails, goes before the board and the board renders a decision. You replied that the failed claimant then can walk away and a removal process takes place. My question was what if, on hearing the decision that the claimant had failed, that claimant were to be immediately put into detention for prompt removal? What impact would that have on genuine refugees who are coming into the system and on the system in general? Would it have a negative impact?

Mr. Peter Showler: Again, it wouldn't be so serious, as I said already, but of course most genuine claimants are extremely frightened when they come to the board. They don't understand the system. If, on top of everything else, there were threats or fears of being detained, it would be a threat. But whether or not, in its wisdom, Parliament feels that would be a more effective system, I have no comment on that, because clearly it's within the mandate of Parliament to be making those decisions.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, and then Mr. Anders. One question each.

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

In the comments made before, I asked you a question about why you thought there was a 25% increase in the number of claimants. I would say it's probably because Canada is seen as a soft touch. You've just talked about the one-child policy, and you're saying you're not accepting based just on the one-child policy but on what you would view as the negative ways in which China deals with people who don't abide by the one-child policy.

But by accepting people on that basis, isn't that sending the message, even reinforcing the message, that Canada is a soft touch? If you come to Canada, you may not be formally accepted—although now you may well be, based on the one-child policy and some possible consequences—but 80%, or probably more if you really work it though, are allowed to stay. So you're sending the message that Canada is a soft touch. By adding the one-child policy to that, isn't that going to encourage more to come and claim that they fear grave consequences as a result of having more than one child?

Mr. Peter Showler: I think there are two answers to that. First of all—and that's why we looked at these numbers—for 1998, Denmark had a 54.5% acceptance rate; Sweden, 49.8%; Norway, 39.4%; Switzerland, 36.8%; and the U.K., 38%. Now, the U.S. is low. There are others that are low. But I think it's a myth—

Mr. Leon Benoit: The United States, Australia, and New Zealand are countries most similar to Canada, and their acceptance rates are much lower.

Mr. Peter Showler: Simply from the point of view of who is seen as a soft touch, that's one thing. But the other half, to be fair and open, is I think Canada, not just in terms of the board, but in terms of its legislation and its case law by the Federal Court and the Supreme Court, is one of the more protective nations, if you will.

But, sir, I have to tell you the number of times I've heard from people that Canada has good human rights. When genuine refugees see this as a haven, as a Canadian I would say I'm certainly not ashamed of that. That's something to be proud of. Not that you want false refugees to come, but to be known as a safe place in this world I don't think is a shameful thing for Canada to have.

• 1045

The Chair: Mr. Anders, final question.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This actually is touching on the question I was trying to ask earlier and Mr. Bryden was following up on. If someone is a genuine refugee and they succeed in being accepted through our process, that's one thing. But certainly if they fail, I don't see how having immediate detention so that they can be sent back because they are not a genuine refugee can impact genuine refugees, because they have been determined to not be genuine refugees.

Mr. Peter Showler: Well, my answer was purely speculative. I have to say that people may be genuine refugees, and they may know that, but they're not convinced we know that. It's not as though refugees don't have tremendous trepidation coming forward.

I'm making no comment whatsoever on putting such a regime into place. I was asked the question and I answered essentially from my knowledge and experience of dealing with genuine refugees. In terms of whether you put such a regime in place, that clearly is the role of Parliament.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Anders.

I wonder, Mr. Showler, if I could ask you some very quick questions, because we have to abandon this room in about five minutes. I wonder if I could ask you a couple of supplementary questions to those that have been answered.

You have been experiencing an increase in claimants in the past couple of months and will no doubt experience this in the next two quarters. If in fact this committee and the minister decide, as you suggested also, to improve the process, will that be able to at least...? We want to move that from 9.3 months to six months. I think everybody has indicated, including the refugee board, that the new yardstick should be six months or so. Will you be able to do that, or will you need additional resources? I'm wondering about an operational plan. I think you've been asked. One is how do we improve the process. The other one may very well be the resources required in order for us to get to that benchmark. Is it going to be a combination of both, or if in fact you build efficiencies into the system, and we do, will you be able to get to six months without any additional resources?

Mr. Peter Showler: I think we're going to get a lot closer to it if we put in the kind of regime we're talking about. Whether we get there depends on this one big external factor. I mean, a 25% increase is a huge wallop. We're not talking about a small increase. If it levels off, my answer would be that I think we can do it without more resources if we come up to complement. Right now we're not even up to complement, so we have to do that. But if we go up to complement, I think we can do it. If there's a continuing increase in intake, at some point there's going to be a need for additional resources.

The Chair: Based on the testimony so far with regard to the refugee determination system and even the committee, we have to be very careful that the public has confidence in our system. Therefore, as the minister pictorially puts it, we want to make sure that our front door is open to legitimate refugees, but we have to make sure that the back door—which is where the illegal migrants, smugglers, and obviously the snakeheads are playing to, to get people in—isn't open so that people don't lose confidence in the front door.

Based on your experience and what you've just indicated now—four cases out of 200 that you've adjudicated with regard to the Chinese—I'm not sure it would send a signal that we're a soft touch at all. In fact, it seems as if we're doing our job in making sure that those particular people who in fact have arrived through smugglers see that we're not a soft touch at all.

In order for us to ensure public confidence, what would you do, based on your experience with the Chinese boat people, with regard to the smugglers? We heard the UN delegate here indicate that people are using whatever methods they can to get to this country, including the use of smugglers and snakeheads, and are prepared to pay an awful lot of money or put their lives at the mercy of these smugglers for ten or fifteen years, mortgaging their lives, so to speak. People who want to get out of certain countries will try desperately and do anything. How do you think we should deal with that, with regard to smugglers and everything else? Has your experience pointed out that these people are abusing these so-called refugees who are trying to come into our country? What should we do with the smugglers?

• 1050

Mr. Peter Showler: That's an enforcement issue. It's difficult for me to respond. I would say that smugglers—

The Chair: But based on your experience, is that what you hear?

Mr. Peter Showler: That's what we hear. Smugglers of course address two different clients. They actually provide assistance to genuine refugees, because genuine refugees often can't get documents to get out of their countries; they can't get visas to get into countries like this. So they service genuine refugees at the same time as they create all of the falsification necessary for phoney refugees. And those are the smugglers. You're talking about something different on the west coast, because there you're talking about traffickers, human traffickers. The minister has spoken about that. That's something even worse, because essentially it's a form of modern slave trade. So that's far more problematic.

The Chair: Lastly, with regard to this so-called effective rate, if we're only approving 43% because we can't remove the other people we deem not to be refugees, Mr. Benoit has suggested it's as high as 80%. You've even suggested that perhaps if you add the 43% plus what we're not removing, it's 65%. Perhaps that again is giving the wrong indication, that it doesn't matter whether or not you get accepted as a refugee, the chances of you getting removed are pretty slim, and therefore for all intents and purposes you can stay in this country.

I'm not sure that's the kind of message we want to send out there. In my opinion, if you get approved, that's your card in; if you get removed or at least disapproved, at some point in time your life out there is subject to removal at any time. So there's no degree of certainty.

I think we're trying to dispel this thing that there's an effective rate of being able to stay in this country, which is essentially the approval rate plus your chances of being able to stay. Compared to other countries, I think we're doing rather well, but I wonder if you could shed some light on it. You don't obviously take that into account in terms of your statistics, do you, that you're accepting 43%, and we're not removing quite as many on a timely basis, and therefore you look at that as if it were an effective rate of refugees in this country?

Mr. Peter Showler: No, we don't take it into account. I will say that it affects the morale of my members. If you work very hard, you come to a very difficult decision, the kinds of decisions I've described, then if you hear that the person is in the country two years later, it's not that the board favours this; this is very difficult for us. I've heard cases where people have made credible basis decisions or even exclusion decisions and they see the person in the street two years later. So from the board's point of view, we try to do our job as well as we can. After that, it's not our job, but we certainly would be pleased to see if it's—

The Chair: And the public, and believe it or not the politicians, agree with you totally on that point with regard to public confidence.

Mr. Showler, Mr. Palmer, and Madame Senécal, let me thank each and every one of you for taking the time to answer. I think we haven't been that tough on you, Peter, in terms of—

Mr. Peter Showler: You've been very kind. Thank you.

The Chair: We would have had a cake for you had I known.

Let me just say this. I think that based on the experience you've had with the IRB you've been able to put a human face on what I think is a human issue here. Processing and everything else of people and applications is one thing, but I think you've been able to, in your deliberations so far today, put that human face on what some of those people are going through who obviously want to come to this great country—what they're experiencing. I know that yesterday as our committee was trying to deal with additional witnesses, we were wondering if we could hear from the men and women on the front lines and even from some of the refugees in terms of what they're experiencing and what they've gone through.

I don't know whether or not that would be possible because of some privacy issues and whether or not refugees would come forward. We're looking at that. But I should tell you, Mr. Showler, that because of your experience—I think you've probably seen it all—you've been able to put that human face on a very challenging issue for us. I want to thank you on that basis personally for letting us see a little bit about what's in the hearts of those people as they want to come to this country and obviously get away from the atrocities in their countries. So thank you very much.

Thank you all.

We may be in touch again with regard to writing our final report. We may need another meeting with you, Peter. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned until Wednesday, February 23, nine o'clock.