Skip to main content
Previous Section

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION

has the honour to present its

THIRD REPORT

In accordance with Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration undertook a study on the proposed regulations regarding the landing of undocumented Convention refugees.

INTRODUCTION

On November 16, 1996, regulations proposed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada regarding the landing of certain undocumented Convention refugees were pre-published in Part 1 of the Canada Gazette. Interested parties then had 30 days within which to make representations concerning the proposed regulations; the target date for implementation was December 30, 1996.

Parts of the proposed regulations have proved of concern among a number of commentators and members of the two communities most affected. In view of this, and because of the importance of the rules to a significant number of people, the Standing Committee conducted public hearings on the matter on December 3 and 5, 1996 and now wishes to submit its views on the proposed regulations to Parliament within the time period allowed for public comment.

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 1993, most of Bill C-86, which amended a good deal of the Immigration Act, came into force.(1) The Bill contained a provision that affected the right of individuals determined to be Convention refugees by the Immigration and Refugee Board to be granted permanent residence. Section 46.04(8) of the Act now states as follows:

An immigration officer shall not grant landing either to an applicant . . . or to any dependant of the applicant until the applicant is in possession of a valid and subsisting passport or travel document or a satisfactory identity document.

(1) S.C. 1992, c. 49. The Bill received Royal Assent on December 17, 1992.

This provision has prevented a considerable number of Convention refugees from obtaining landing in Canada because they could not meet the requirement for documents proving their identity. Before its enactment, Convention refugees recognized in Canada were exempt from the requirement to produce such documents in order to obtain permanent residence.

The provision in Bill C-86 was part of a package of measures designed to deter individuals making refugee claims in Canada from destroying their documents. The former government maintained that, since all individuals arriving by air have documents (whether genuine or false) when they board an airplane, measures were needed to encourage retention of those documents in order to facilitate efforts to combat smuggling, in the case of false documents, and to assist in identifying refugees, thereby protecting Canadian society and countering abuse. (Genuine Convention refugees are not penalized in their claims merely by virtue of the fact that they have relied on false travel documents.)

Almost four years later, the provision has led to a significant number of Convention refugees who have not received permanent resident status because they have been unable to satisfy the requirement for identity documents. Some have been unable to produce any such documents. Others, however, have produced identity documents that have been rejected as unsatisfactory by immigration officers. While their refugee status ensures protection against being returned to their countries of origin, without permanent residence status many Convention refugees feel marginalized in Canada. They may suffer impediments in the job market because some employers prefer to hire permanent residents; they are ineligible for student loans, scholarships and bank loans; and they may be penalized in a variety of other ways, including the fact that the date at which they may become citizens of Canada is also delayed. By far and away the most significant hardship, however, is that they cannot sponsor their family overseas. In some cases, family members have been separated for years, and the psychological toll is great.

THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

The proposed regulations would create a new class, the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class (UCRCC). Members who qualified for the class could be landed, provided they met the requirements. Implicit in the regulation would be a distinction between individuals from countries that the Canadian government feels can provide adequate documents, and individuals from countries that cannot provide such documents because they have no effective central government. Thus, the regulation would open membership in the class only to undocumented refugees from Somalia and Afghanistan, the countries without effective governments at the present time.

Officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada estimate that there are some 7,500 individuals from those two countries who have been recognized as Convention refugees but who have not been landed solely for lack of documents. Of this population, over 90% are Somalis, 40% are women, and 40% are children. Departmental officials project that approximately 3,600 of the 7,500 will qualify for landing within the two-year period before the regulations expire, unless they are extended. It is not known how many recognized Convention refugees from other countries have been unable to obtain landing solely for lack of documents.

A further requirement for membership in the UCRCC would be that five years would have to have elapsed from the date that the person was recognized as a Convention refugee. This means that, unless and until the regulation is extended, the only people with a right to expect that they would qualify for the class would be those recognized as Convention refugees in Canada before December 30, 1993. Individuals would also be required to have made an application for landing as Convention refugees following their recognition and have paid all applicable fees. Since a number of people did not apply for landing within the existing deadline because they understood that they would be refused, the regulation would give them an additional six months to apply.

Members of the UCRCC could be landed if they met a number of requirements. In addition to technical matters, the key requirements would be as follows:

With regard to the last two criteria, the member of the class could still be landed even though the dependants did not qualify.

Children who were under 19 and unmarried at the time of the original application for landing as a Convention refugee would still be considered dependants, as long as they had not married, even though they might be 19 or more at the time of application under the UCRCC. This would not apply to dependants overseas.

Where criminal charges were pending, officers could hold the application for up to a year so that charges could be laid. If charges were laid, the application could be held in abeyance until the courts had disposed of them.

GENERAL CONCERNS OF THE WITNESSES

All the Committee's witnesses were critical of the proposed regulations to some degree. Indeed, all were critical of the statutory requirement itself which mandates identity documents. While recognizing that the government has a duty to verify identity so as to protect the Canadian public and prevent abuse of the system, they maintained that the solution chosen did not address those problems, and was in any event piecemeal and draconian. It was argued that the aims of the regulations could be accomplished without subjecting the affected communities, particularly separated family members, to further unnecessary hardship. Finally, for undocumented Convention refugees not included in the proposed class, no end to the hardship is in sight, even though the witnesses maintained that there are valid reasons why, in addition to a breakdown of government in their country of origin, those refugees might also be unable to obtain adequate travel or other documents.

THE WAITING PERIOD

The most problematic aspect of the proposed regulations is the five-year waiting period for landing. Witnesses pointed out that some claimants go through an expedited process and may be recognized in mere months; for others, the time period may be considerably longer. For those who are initially rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board, and who are ultimately successful in their claims following judicial review by the Federal Court and a second hearing, the process is measured in years. Under the proposed regulations, this group would then be required to wait an additional five years before becoming a member of the class and eligible for landing.

Whatever the time period before recognition, still more time would be required to process the application. A five-year waiting period, therefore, could easily mean that a person could be in Canada for six to nine or more years before obtaining permanent residence; moreover, following landing, a further period of time would elapse before the person could be reunited with family abroad.

While we recognize that some of our witnesses reject a proposal for any waiting period at all, the Committee accepts the government's premise that some period of time in Canada is warranted, after recognition of refugee status and prior to landing, in order to safeguard Canada's interests. Coming to Canada without documents is a serious matter that justifies a response. We feel, however, that the proposed regulation does not strike an adequate balance between satisfying that goal and the need to act in a humanitarian way towards those who will continue to live among us and whose refugee experience by its very nature has been one of displacement and insecurity; we should do everything we can to offer refugees stability and full access to Canadian life, including the possibility of a normal family life. We note in this connection that Article 34 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees requires states to facilitate the integration of refugees as much as possible.

Continued family separation intensifies all of the traumatic effects of the refugee experience; few things do more to overcome feelings of displacement and insecurity and to facilitate integration than being reunited with close family. Over the years, the protection and reunification of refugee families has been of concern to the international community. For example, the Final Act of the Conference that adopted the 1951 Convention recommended that governments "take the necessary measures for the protection of a refugee's family, especially with a view to . . . [e]nsuring that the unity of the refugee's family is maintained particularly in cases where the head of the family has fulfilled the necessary conditions for admission to a particular country."

Refugee families have been of continuous concern to the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner's Programme, of which Canada is a member. In 1981, for example, the Committee adopted a Conclusion entitled "Family Reunification," which urged states to make every effort to ensure the reunification of separated refugee families with the least possible delay.(2) Relevant to the present requirement for refugees to produce satisfactory documents is the part of the Conclusion stating that the absence of documentary proof of the formal validity of a marriage or of the parentage of the children should not, in itself, be considered an impediment to family reunification.

(2) Conclusion No. 24 (XXXII), 1981, Family Reunification.

All time periods are to some extent arbitrary; in setting a period, however, we believe, in principle, that the shortest one consistent with the goal should be chosen. In the Committee's view, that period should be two years.

A shorter time period would be more consistent with the rules governing another class of individuals eligible for landing within Canada. This is the Deferred Removal Orders Class (DROC), designed to grant relief to individuals who have not been recognized as refugees in Canada, who have cooperated with the authorities, but who have not been removed from Canada within three years of the time they became removable. The reason for introducing that class in November 1994 was, in the government's words:

to regularize the status of certain failed refugee claimants who have been in ``limbo" for several years awaiting removal due to the Department's unwillingness or inability to remove them and whose situation shows no immediate prospect of resolution. In many cases, these individuals have formed an attachment to Canada; consequently removal, at this point, would be both unfair to the individual and would have no deterrent value.(3)

(3) Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, Canada Gazette Part 2, vol. 128, No. 23, p. 3,637.

It seems incongruous to the Committee that this group of non-refugees is able to obtain landing after three years, while the undocumented group of recognized refugees would be required to wait for five years for landing. Thus, a rejected refugee from Somalia, who is without a passport or travel document, may be landed after three years. An accepted Somali refugee, in an identical position regarding lack of identity documents, would have to wait five years. A representative from the Canadian Bar Association pointed out that it would be more rational to advantage the recognized refugees, in comparison with the rejected but unremoved claimants, by reducing the waiting period to two years.

In yet another context the Committee points out that the time period of permanent residence required for Canadian citizenship is three years. A permanent resident may arrive in Canada on January 1, 1997 and be eligible for citizenship on January 1, 2000. If three years is sufficient time to assess whether that person might commit a crime and or pose a risk to Canada, surely five years is excessive for undocumented refugees.

The Committee believes it is also important to realize that an individual who is landed as a member of the class and later proves to be a serious criminal, a security risk, or to have obtained refugee status fraudulently, can be deported. Our witnesses in the legal community have assured us that having permanent resident status provides Convention refugees with no greater protection against deportation on criminal grounds than the absence of that status.

Recommendation

1. The waiting period before which a recognized refugee may become a member of the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class, and therefore eligible for landing, should be two years following recognition as a Convention refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

LANDING OF CHILDREN

The proposed regulations recognize the fact that a child in Canada with a refugee parent unable to be landed for lack of documents should not be required to leave the country merely because, by the time the parent is eligible to apply for landing, the child is over 18. The proposed regulations quite properly allow children in this situation to be landed with their parents. For children who have remained overseas, however, the normal rule would apply; thus, any child over 18 and abroad at the time his or her parent is landed as a member of the UCRCC would be ineligible to be sponsored. In effect, any child abroad over 14 years old at the time his or her parent is recognized as a Convention refugee (applying the proposed five-year rule) would not be sponsorable at a later point. If the Committee's recommendation is accepted, the age would change to 17.

The Committee recognizes that any child in Canada under these circumstances will have become "Canadianized" to a large extent merely because of the passage of time and the adaptability of young people. Children overseas will not have this advantage, however. Once they have become adults, they would face the same challenges of language and employability as any immigrant, without the advantages of having lived in Canada for a considerable time.

Nevertheless, the Committee urges the government to extend to children abroad the same benefit as would be extended to children who have been in Canada with a parent. In view of the fact that refugees are involved, the Committee believes that the principle of family unity and family ties should be applied so as to permit these children to be sponsored, in spite of the normal rules.

Alternatively, as suggested by one witness, the government should consider allowing spouses and dependants abroad to come to Canada as visitors during the waiting period. We have noted earlier one Conclusion adopted by the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Programme. Another states:

In the interest of family reunification and for humanitarian reasons, states should facilitate the admission to their territory of at least the spouse and minor or dependant children of any person to whom temporary refuge or durable asylum as been granted.(4)

(4) Conclusion No. 15 (XXX), 1979, Refugees without an Asylum Country.

In the Canadian case, asylum in the form of refugee status has been granted, yet family reunification is being delayed for years by the operation of the landing rules. Adherence to the Conclusions of the Executive Committee would indicate, however, that the government's insistence on linking permanent residence, rather than refugee status with family reunification should be reviewed. While we recognize the exceptional nature in an immigration context of the proposal to bring close family to Canada during any waiting period, in a refugee context, as the Conclusion suggests, it would be the humanitarian course to take.

Recommendations

2. Children overseas of an individual landed as a member of the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class should be sponsorable as long as they were under 19 years of age at the time the initial application for landing as a Convention refugee was submitted.

3. The government should consider allowing spouses and dependants abroad of recognized Convention refugees to come to Canada on Minister's Permits during the waiting period under the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class.

INTERPRETING THE IMMIGRATION ACT'S REQUIREMENTS

Because the provision of the Immigration Act that requires satisfactory proof of identity is not itself the subject of this Report, we have not dealt with its merits. We note, however, that the problems it has caused are likely to continue. Moreover, a number of witnesses told the Committee that, in their view, the statutory provision is applied inconsistently in various parts of the country, and is applied too rigidly everywhere. One witness described the process of assessing documents as "hit and miss"; the word "arbitrary" was used by several. Examples were provided of officials rejecting proffered identity documents because they misunderstood the circumstances or the history of the country.

The Committee urges the government to develop guidelines as to what documents are acceptable, in order to foster consistency in the application of the section. More important, the guidelines should encourage officers to be flexible in their approach to assessing, in the absence of an acceptable passport or travel document, what constitutes a satisfactory identity document. Such guidelines will not eliminate the problem, of course, but they might go some distance to alleviating the stringency of the statutory provision and the resulting pool of refugees in limbo. Specialized knowledge on the part of immigration officers is also clearly needed in the larger centres; such expertise could be developed by working with interested parties and affected communities. The Committee would be willing to undertake such a study.

Recommendations

4. The government should develop guidelines for immigration officers regarding documents that are satisfactory as identity documents for the purpose of landing in the absence of an acceptable passport or travel document.

5. The government should work with interested parties and affected communities to develop expertise in understanding and assessing documents relevant to proving identity.

SPEEDY PROCESSING

As the Committee discussed earlier, the fact that a refugee meets the waiting period required - whether five years as proposed by the government, or two years as proposed by the Committee - does not mean that he or she would be landed the following day. The government has made a commitment to try to process applications from members of the class within six months, and the Committee supports that goal and urges that the required resources be made available. We see no reason why immigration officials could not begin informally processing these files six months before the person is to enter the class, however. Nor do we see any reason why overseas sponsorships could not informally begin at the same time. While any difficulties that might be encountered in off-shore processing should not impede the landing in Canada, all avenues for speeding the reunification of refugee families should be explored.

Recommendations

6. In order to expedite landing, informal processing of applications by members of the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class should begin six months before a person becomes eligible as a member of the class.

7. Citizenship and Immigration Canada should ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to processing applications by members of the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class so that processing can be concluded as fast as possible, with a target of six months.

8. In order to expedite reunification of Convention refugee families, informal processing of family abroad should begin at the same time as it begins in Canada, unless families are brought forward on Minister's Permits.

CONCLUSION

It will be clear from this Report that the Committee has concerns that the proposed regulations would be unnecessarily stringent and would impose severe hardship on refugees who have already suffered dislocation in their lives. We urge the Minister to consider seriously the recommendations of this Committee before she makes any final decisions on the proposed regulations.



SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The waiting period before which a recognized refugee may become a member of the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class, and therefore eligible for landing, should be two years following recognition as a Convention refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

2. Children overseas of an individual landed as a member of the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class should be sponsorable as long as they were under 19 years of age at the time the initial application for landing as a Convention refugee was submitted.

3. The government should consider allowing spouses and dependants abroad of recognized Convention refugees to come to Canada on Minister's Permits during the waiting period under the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class.

4. The government should develop guidelines for immigration officers regarding documents that are satisfactory as identity documents for the purpose of landing in the absence of an acceptable passport or travel document.

5. The government should work with interested parties and affected communities to develop expertise in understanding and assessing documents relevant to proving identity.

6. In order to expedite landing, informal processing of applications by members of the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class should begin six months before a person becomes eligible as a member of the class.

7. Citizenship and Immigration Canada should ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to processing applications by members of the Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class so that processing can be concluded as fast as possible, with a target of six months.

8. In order to expedite reunification of Convention refugee families, informal processing of family abroad should begin at the same time as it begins in Canada, unless families are brought forward on Minister's Permits.



Request for government response

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response to this report within 150 days.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Issue No. 5, which includes this report) is tabled.

Respectfully submitted,

ELENI BAKOPANOS,
Chair.



PROPOSED REGULATIONS ON THE LANDING OF
UNDOCUMENTED REFUGEES

DISSENTING OPINION OF THE BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS

DECEMBER 11, 1996

_________________

(A) INTRODUCTION

On November 16, 1996, proposed regulations regarding the landing of undocumented refugees were published. These regulations will come into force on December 30, 1996. The public has until December 16 to make representations.

The proposed regulations are extremely stringent. They place major obstacles in the way of refugees who have already been sufficiently traumatized. Furthermore, they deal with only one aspect of the problem of the "Undocumented Convention Refugees in Canada Class" (UCRCC).

But before we set out our position as part of the majority report, we would like to stress that the 30 days allowed for representations by interested parties appears to us as short, especially given that the proposed regulations have not been widely distributed.

The Bloc Québécois would have liked to have seen the coming into force of the regulations to be delayed until the Department of Citizenship and Immigration could review in greater depth all the comments and recommendations submitted by the public. Certainly the problem is in urgent need of a solution. But if the regulations are adopted in haste, some of the difficulties raised may not be taken into consideration, and may in that case get worse.

The Official Opposition, as represented by its Immigration Critic, Osvaldo Nuñez, feels compelled to dissociate itself from some of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in its majority report on the proposed regulations regarding the landing of undocumented Convention refugees.

(B) WAITING PERIOD

The Official Opposition opposes the five-year waiting period for permanent residency required by the proposed regulations. The five years would run from the date the applicant's refugee status was recognized. The majority reports recommends that the waiting period be reduced to two years from the date the applicant's refugee status is recognized.

We recommend that the waiting period be no longer than two years from the date the claim for refugee status is made.

In our opinion, a total of two years in Canada is sufficient for determining whether a person constitutes a threat to public safety, has commited a crime or is likely to commit a crime. As the majority report indicates, existing legislation, including Bill C-44, already makes it possible to expel a permanent resident if he represents a danger to public safety.

In addition, it is unfair to make a recognized refugee wait another two-year period after his application has been accepted. The Immigration and Refugee Board's determination process can often be very long. The refugee has no control over the time it takes the IRB to render a decision, whether it be positive or negative. The majority recommendation requires a waiting period of at least three or even four or five years depending on the time it takes the IRB and, if need be, the Federal Court to process the case. It appears in this case that the refugee is the loser with this regulation.

(C) DESIGNATED COUNTRIES

The Official Opposition also objects to the applicability of the proposed regulations: the only claimants who would be considered to be in the UCRCC would be from either Somalia or Afghanistan. The regulations seem to assume that these are the only countries that cannot provide their nationals with the required documents. But refugees from anywhere in the world may be unable to obtain adequate travel or other documents. Iran, Sri Lanka and Zaire are all countries that were frequently cited as examples. Restricting the application of the regulations to Somalis and Afghanis is unfair, inadequate and discriminatory.

A number of witnesses gave the Committee a variety of valid reasons why refugees from countries other than Somalia and Afghanistan might be unable to obtain satisfactory documentation. Some governments refuse to issue documents in retaliation for a person's having claimed refugee status. In other cases, people may be afraid to approach the embassies of their country of origin for fear of compromising family members still in that country. Other witnesses pointed out that in a civil war, documents are often destroyed. An example of this is the case of the Kurds of northern Iraq, where entire villages have been razed.

We therefore recommend that the undocumented Convention refugees in Canada class be extended to cover all countries and not be limited to refugees from Somalia and Afghanistan only.

We would also like to point out the inconsistency between the UCRCC and the Deferred Removal Orders Class (DROC). A refugee claimant from Zaire, for example, who arrives in Canada without a passport and whose refugee claim is rejected may be landed after three years, while a refugee claimant from the same country in the same situation (i.e. with no travel documents or identification deemed acceptable by immigration officers) whose claim is accepted could not be included in the UCRCC and would remain in legal limbo, unable to become landed and to reunite with his family.

(D) SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS

We deplore the fact that the representatives of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration who appeared before the Committee were unable to respond adequately to the Committee's request for a list of the documents deemed acceptable by immigration officers for purposes of landing. No list has been provided. Apparently, the Department will have to issue guidelines on this matter.

Lastly, we would like to point out that the source of the undocumented refugee problem can be found in the 1993 amendment to section 46.04(8) of the Immigration Act. In our opinion, this amendment should be rewritten, even repealed. If this is not done, the situation of this category of refugee will only get worse.



The Reform Party of Canada

Dissenting opinion presented by
Val Meredith, M.P.

on the
Regulations regarding the Undocumented Convention
Refugees in Canada Class (UCRCC)

These new regulations, published in the Canada Gazette on November 16th, 1996, provide for the granting of permanent resident status to refugees in Canada that would not be granted landing under section 46.04 of the Immigration Act, due to lack of acceptable documentation. In addition to the regulations, a list of eligible countries has been established. At the present time, these new regulations apply specifically to refugees in Canada from Somalia and Afghanistan, which represent approximately 7,500 refugees. There are still several thousands more that have been granted refugee status in Canada who are undocumented and do not have permanent resident status.

The Reform Party has a number of concerns about these new regulations.

How does one come to Canada without documentation?

How did these refugees get to Canada without documents? Departmental officials confirmed there are no direct flights to Canada from either of the two countries listed in the regulations. Furthermore, no one can travel to Canada by air without providing some documentation. As confirmed by refugee advocacy groups and departmental officials, most of the forged documentation used by refugee claimants is either destroyed or returned to a ``courier''. The destruction of documents, or giving them back to a ``courier'' prior to making a refugee claim serves no other purpose than to deceive Canadian authorities.

With the introduction of this new class, the Government will mislead the international community into believing that Canada may allow all refugee claimants to become landed immigrants. Although Canada has an international obligation with regard to genuine refugees, it cannot afford to encourage illegal immigration under the guise of the refugee program.

The Reform Party believes that all refugee claimants must be required to submit all documents used for travel purposes if their claim for refugee status is to be considered.

Setting a precedent

In 1994, the Liberal Government introduced regulations that created the Deferred Removal Order Class (DROC). This temporary measure was to resolve the problem of failed claimants that had not been removed from the country within three years of their determination. However, what this temporary measure did was establish a regulation allowing failed claimants to manipulate the system long enough to be granted the right to remain in Canada. The Reform Party strongly objects to the use of the DROC as a reward for failing to leave the country voluntarily when a refugee claim has been denied. With the introduction of the UCRCC, this Government is again establishing regulations that may eventually reward all undocumented refugees with permanent resident status.

The Department stated during the Standing Committee's deliberations that enormous pressure was put on the Minister by representatives of the refugees in question to convince the Minister that special consideration was needed for the Somali and Afghan communities. Because these regulations create a new class that provides flexibility for the Minister to add more countries to this list, it is conceivable that other groups will pressure for the same. The Minister is setting a dangerous precedent by allowing these regulations to be applied to other countries in the future. The Government must send a clear message to the international community that Canada will not condone the practice of accepting undocumented refugee claimants.

The Reform Party recommends that these regulations be restricted to refugees from Somalia and Afghanistan that arrived in Canada prior to December 30, 1996 with no provision for future consideration.

What is acceptable documentation?

All witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration claimed that many refugees had documents but they were considered unacceptable by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. There would appear to be uncertainty among all parties including the Department of Citizenship and Immigration concerning what is considered to be acceptable documentation. In fact, a request was made to the Department to provide the Standing Committee with the list that is used by Immigration Officers in determining what is acceptable. We were informed that no such list exists and there would appear to be no guidelines in place for Immigration Officer. Therefore, acceptable documentation is subjective rather than objective and has lead to inconsistencies in the decision-making process of permanent resident applications.

The Reform Party recommends that a list of acceptable documents and guidelines be established to ensure consistency amongst Immigration Officers in evaluating applications for permanent resident status.

The Government's commitment

The Reform Party acknowledges that the current problem with respect to the Somali and Afghan refugees in Canada must be brought to a conclusion. By introducing these regulations, the Government has made a commitment to these refugees that they will be granted permanent resident status. The Minister stated: ``The regulations proposed by the Government will enable these Convention refugees to get on with their lives and participate fully in Canadian society''. What she failed to add to this statement was ``in five years or more''.

The Government has indicated that the waiting period of five years is to ensure that these people demonstrate respect for the laws of Canada and for the Government to detect those who may be guilty of crimes against humanity or acts or terrorism. The Government should provide these refugees with an opportunity to integrate into Canadian society as quickly as possible.

The Reform Party recommends that the Federal Government grant conditional permanent resident status without delay. The Government would continue to verify any information that would have been considered during the proposed five-year waiting period. Under the Immigration Act, permanent resident status can be revoked at any time if the refugee has misrepresented their situation. A conditional permanent resident status could make reference to the upholding and obeying the laws of Canada and respecting the norms of Canadian society.

Conclusion

The Reform Party acknowledges the current problem faced by the Somali and Afghan refugees and is prepared to support the granting of permanent resident status to these two groups. We do not approve of the Government's approach to establishing regulations that create a situation in the future, as the DROC program has done, that are not in Canada's best interests. Instead of foreseeing future cases, the Government must introduce tough enforcement measures that will put stronger emphasis on overseas document clearance to ensure that legitimate refugees are identified before arriving in Canada. The Government must ensure that Canada never has to deal with tens of thousands of undocumented refugees again.

;