Coalition Against the Deportation of Palestinian Refugees

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: As regards the commissioners, I will allude to the situation under my predecessor, who tried to obtain commissioners as quickly as possible. There were two factors that played a role.

First of all, the workload in Toronto and Montreal was roughly the same for years. Toronto now has 68% of the workload. So fairly radical changes were required in Toronto .

Secondly, in reply to the question about the number of decision-makers, before a decision-maker assumes his duties, he undergoes four weeks of full-time training; the training is a type of mentoring. The decision-maker works on a panel. So we can say that the decision-maker is really autonomous after about six or seven months, sometimes more quickly. Given how much time it took to get the go-ahead and the requisite number, we were unable to spend all of the money allocated for the decision-makers.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have another question, Madam Chair, with respect to a particular category of refugees that we often read about in the newspapers, and I am referring to Palestinian refugees. I see in your notes, on page 6, that you list the themes for your action plan—and I would like to commend you on that—including a series of initiatives under the heading “providing greater institutional guidance for decision-makers”.

I would like to know whether you have made a serious effort to enlighten the decision-makers on the true plight of the Palestinian refugees, on their living conditions and the difficulties that they have encountered. I could give you files and names, but I know that you cannot discuss these in public. Therefore, it would serve no purpose for me to list those names here, but I have notes that demonstrate some rather inconsistent decisions, by various board members, in dealing with situations that were identical and people who came from the same camp, for members of the same family, people who had no other ties than the ones that they explained before the board members, and in response to which one of them said yes while the other said no. It makes no sense for those people.

I feel that this is a difficult and complex situation. The board members do not all share the same opinion when it comes to the underlying political issues in these situations; that, one can understand. But I think a little more enlightenment and monitoring are in order. You mentioned guides for Costa Rica and Colombia

Have you prepared any similar information to ensure greater consistency in decisions relating to Palestinian refugees, since they have no country to return to? They would not be going back to Costa Rica or to Colombia , all they have to look forward to is a refugee camp.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: We recognize that consistency in board decisions is a challenge for us, one which we are meeting head-on. You mentioned the guides. I said earlier that there were persuasive decisions to help the decision-makers to become more consistent. Nevertheless, they are independent, their decisions are based on the weight and the interpretation of the evidence that is brought before them.

That being said, if you are asking whether or not we have taken the time to consider whether or not a guide is required in those situations, I would admit that we have not done that yet.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would say, in closing, that I hope it is something you will do because the need is pressing; the public is made aware of the situation on a regular basis. I repeat, for the time being, those people have no country to return to. There are refugee camps in different countries, but it is not their home, it is a refugee camp, and this has been going on for years now.

You should also review how the files are prepared in relation to certain categories of people as opposed to others. I know that, technically and legally, there can sometimes be difficulties in preparing a case, but there must be some means of overcoming that, in order to have a complete picture of the real situation.

I would suggest that you prepare a guide, some notes, to enlighten your board members in this area so that they might have a sense of what is happening to these people. These are not run-of-the-mill cases, they are special.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: May I add something?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): You may, I like granting you permission to ask me questions. Is that all right?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Of course, we do make every attempt to ensure harmonization. We have a geographic network arranged by country and by zone, where people from Toronto , Montreal or anywhere else in the country can discuss situations that they have experienced. We have highly qualified research staff who examine these issues.

I acknowledge your concern about our operations.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): You are not quite half way through your testimony, and I would like to ask you a few questions. The first one involves the refugee appeals section, which is included in the act and has been acknowledged as good legislation by most stakeholders. One of the aspects was the refugee appeals section.

To our great surprise, when the act came into force, the minister announced that this section would be suspended. When we asked why it would be suspended, we were told that the backlog absolutely had to be reduced. To opposition members, reducing backlog by setting aside a fundamental right for any Canadian citizen, that is, the right to appeal—even our worst criminals can appeal—seemed somewhat unbalanced. We also have problems with the fact that only one member hears the applicants. We were told that, once again, it was in order to reduce the backlog.

Following Mr. Charbonneau's questions and comments on the Palestinians, let us imagine—and I have a great deal of imagination—that you have 100 Palestinian claimants. I would guess that if five judges heard Palestinian claimants, you, as the chairperson, would be in a position to know how many were granted refugee status and how many were not. Is it possible for one judge to be much stricter, more demanding or less attentive? After all, we are only human.

Do you have any of that data? If you do not have the information, then why not? I suppose this information is not public. That is my first question.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: To answer your first question on the appeal, as soon as the government decides to act, we are, of course, ready to begin the appeal process. It will probably take one year for recruiting, hiring, setting professional standards, and so on. The basic research has already been done because we were ready to begin the process under the act. Funding is also an issue, and we have begun to prepare estimates. We are working hard on the backlog. As I said, we are doing our best to improve the quality of the decisions.

I would like to ask Ms. Daley to say a few words about our legal strategy and I will try to answer the question about the information we have on the 100 cases that you were asking about.

[English]

Mrs. Krista Daley: With respect to the various initiatives, we essentially have a list of six initiatives that form a part of the action plan and that are being used to deal with some of the consistency issues.

The chairperson's guideline is a new power that came about in 1993, and that was then confirmed in the new legislation. Jurisprudential guides is a brand new power in the new legislation, for the chairperson. Persuasive decision-making is another one. Another is lead cases, an enhanced use of a concept whereby decision-makers who deal with like cases can discuss the legal and policy issues attached to them. And lastly, if need be, we can seek intervention in the Federal Court itself to put forward our views to that court with respect to some of these matters.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: The example of the 100 cases is appropriate. We, of course, examine all of the cases to determine whether or not there are trends or possible issues. Do we understand the entire situation? We do not challenge the decisions made by individuals. However, your question related to the decisions as a whole. We would have to look into it and analyze them.

These matters are indeed discussed. As you said, the chairperson is authorized to issued guidelines. Why would we not do it in this situation? As I said, we will have to take a look at that. It is something that we do from time to time.

I would like to say, with respect to the difference in decisions from one region of the country to another, that in 12 countries, the rate was 30% and higher. So we dropped that number to two. In view of the work that we do to compare notes, etc., we could quite possibly reduce the gap to less than 30%. We can't reduce it by too much. In the end, these are personal decisions. The specific nature and the merit of each case remain. As to trends that we might observe for a particular situation or country, I have no doubt that our results are beginning to improve.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): We had asked the minister to consider having two members for each hearing, while waiting for the appeals section to begin operating. The request was denied.

I wonder if you, as the chairperson, would be in favour of having an appeals section. Canada claims to be, and rightly so, a country which takes great pride in being a constitutional State where the rule of law prevails. So it makes no sense to put the fate of the most vulnerable in our society within the hands of a single person. It is not only a matter of compassion; it just does not make sense.

Yesterday or the day before that, the minister announced a new program to select refugees from outside the country, something that would help make the work of the members a little easier. Do you not think that Palestinians should be selected in the Palestinian refugee camps, either in Lebanon or elsewhere, and that the High Commission should be involved? Everyone around this table as well as the general public agree that the Palestinian situation is an extremely difficult one.

How can we tell people from refugee camps, once they arrive here, that they are not refugees? I cannot explain that to my fellow citizens, no matter who they might be. Try as I might, I simply cannot do it.

So I would like to know if you think this should become standard procedure when dealing with Palestinian refugees. Of course, that would not solve the problem of those who are already here. The fact remains that the conflict is ongoing and the camps are not about to disappear any time soon.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Policy-making is not within my purview as the chairperson of an independent board. It might be better to ask the minister. Moreover, I am myself a decision-maker and I would not want to prejudge any particular situation.

I am sorry, perhaps Ms. Daley might like to add something.

[English]

Mrs. Krista Daley: No, on that point I don't. Both of the issues you raised, both the refugee appeal division and the single member panel versus the two-member panel, plus the issue of selection abroad are really matters that are within the purview of the government.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): The best questions are the ones that the witnesses do not want to answer. They cannot and they do not want to. That is fine.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti.

[English]

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Merci, madame la présidente.

Good morning.

I want to focus on the refugee claimants. There are a lot of numbers. We're talking about percentages, numbers, but for me, in Montreal , this summer I got deportations practically every week of people who have been in this country--

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian ( Brampton Centre, Lib.): Every week is not bad. We get it every day.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

First, judging from the workload we get in our constituency office, I really appreciate the hard work that the members of your organization do. We get many, many cases that we feel are unjust; then we find out that we only know 10% of the facts. We write a letter or make a presentation to the minister, and ask him, “Well, do you know what happened here?” Then we have to say we didn't know that the guy was married to somebody else. He came in to apply, but he has a kid in some other country. He was gone, and then he comes back.

It's very, very complicated and a very difficult job, which is why I'm saying that I really appreciate the hard work you do.

I want to make a comment on two questions raised by my colleagues on the Liberal side. First of all, on the Palestinian issue, I have received many presentations on that issue, too. I understand that one or two people will be deported today, or may have been deported yesterday. This is a very, very serious issue for the Arab community, and especially the Palestinian community. They've been here for a long time, and they feel they're being targeted—if I may use that phrase—or unjustly treated.

As my colleague said, where are they going back to? This person was born in a refugee camp, which in itself makes you a refugee. I've been to those refugee camps, and I've seen the conditions. I'm not saying, “Those poor economic refugees”, but they have a really difficult political situation. If you turn on the news, you see what's happening over there every day. That's my point one.

I would ask you if there is a way we can work together. I know we cannot discuss these issues with the judges, but I hope you're much freer than a judge and that we can communicate. I think we have to address this issue in a very positive, very compassionate way.

The other point that my colleague Massimo made is about waiting for six or seven years. As he said, in six or seven years' time, the young man or young woman may meet somebody, get married, have kids, have a job, buy a house, and have a mortgage. All of a sudden, six or seven years afterwards, he is told, “You know, Joe, you have to go.” In response, the guy says, “Go to where?” In the meantime, six or seven years after the original claim, things have changed and regulations in the department have changed.

My question is, do you judge them by the current regulations, or do you judge them by the regulations that applied at that time? That's my second question.

My third question is about your mentioning that your intake has been lowered by, I don't know, a certain percentage or number of cases. A while ago, we signed a treaty with the Americans giving them a safe third country. Has that aspect of the agreement had any impact on reducing the refugee claims in the country? Was the actual number you mentioned the result of the Safe Third Country Agreement or other factors?

So I have three questions for you. Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: Thank you.

First of all, we apply the law case by case, on its own merits. In terms of new information, or recent information, we have a documentation centre that provides information on country conditions for the people who render a decision. So people can give us information that we factor in, in terms of the documentation.

In terms of the Safe Third Country Agreement, we have had discussions with the department, which is obviously responsible for that agreement. In the cost projection on our future needs that we've shown to you, we have factored that in. We monitor it closely. It's a moving target as to whether it's going to decline that much, or whether we're going to get a rush before the agreement comes into play, with more people coming our way.

So to answer your question, the safe third will definitely have an impact on my operations. We don't know the full impact, but we factor that in when we're in discussions with Treasury Board in terms of our long-term projections.

I think you also had a point of law that Ms. Daley would be able to answer.

Mrs. Krista Daley: Your third point, I believe, was what regulations are we applying and in what time? You talked about the example of a six-year process.

What I can say in terms of our process—which is certainly not the six years; it might be the total number of years a person is in the system—is that on the day of a hearing into a refugee claim, we apply the law that's in place on that day and the country conditions that are in place on that day. So let's say they'd been in the country already for two years. On the day that we actually determine the claim, it's the law on that day, plus the country conditions in that country on that particular day.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: On that point, Madam Chair, if you recall, there was a lawsuit against the government when we changed the regulations for immigration, and the court said you have to go back to when the applications were made. So you're going against that court decision.

Mrs. Krista Daley: No, it's simply in a different context from that decision.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I know it's different, but doesn't it apply to you? It's only fair that when I come to you and make an application on this day, I'll be judged based on this day, not on six years down the road.

Mrs. Krista Daley: The refugee process is simply a different process, because what you're looking for when a person is a refugee is their fear in the future. So let's say a refugee comes into the country on January 1 of a given year, and then we determine the case in September of that year. In September the question we ask ourselves is whether they have a fear in the future if they return to their country. Not do they have a fear in January, when they arrive, but do they have a fear for the future? And that's just the way the refugee definition works, as the court has interpreted it for us.

So it's very logical in the refugee context that it's the future, which is a different context from the regulation issue that you mentioned, if that helps.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Go ahead, Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to come back to something I raised earlier; other colleagues have raised this as well. I have just been given some recent information.

First of all, I would like to deal with the uneven acceptance rate for refugees of Palestinian origin coming from Lebanon . Since Palestine is not recognized as a country per se, you indicate " Lebanon ". There are Palestinians arriving from Lebanon .

Some judges have a zero per cent acceptance rate, while others accept 100 per cent. Some have scores of 14 per cent, 72 per cent, 50 per cent. There is a score for every group of ten between zero and 100, for the same type of case, the same situation. For Palestinians coming from the occupied territories, the rate is between 25 per cent and 100 per cent. For Palestinians in Montreal , according to the lawyers that I have consulted and who have gathered the data, between July 2001 and July 2003, 25 cases were heard, 4 members were involved, and the results ranged from 17 per cent to 100 per cent.

I do not see how this can be explained. These people have been well trained, they have been apprised of the same situations, their life experiences are more or less equivalent, yet the results vary between 17 per cent and 100 per cent. How can you say that justice is being served when the rates vary between 17 per cent and 100 per cent for the same file? It is hard to swallow.

I realize that you have noted my earlier suggestion for a better type of monitoring, but why have you not ever realized that these disparities existed? As a result, there are people being deported today or about to be deported following arrests being made this morning. It is because of decisions made by your members that the minister is in hot water today because those Palestinians may or will be deported, and where will they go? To the Aïn el-Hiloueh camp, in Lebanon , for example.

These people have fled. Where they came from, there is no country, no mechanism, no courts. There is nothing. They have refugee camps. They are already recognized as refugees over there. They come here and we do not know whether or not they are refugees. A board member says yes in 17 per cent of the cases; another one says something else.

What type of system is this? Can you explain it to me so that people will understand that you have in your hands a tool which is a tribunal responsible for justice and fairness? How can you explain that to me?

Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury: I believe that I was very honest with you when I said that I have not analyzed this myself. Was this done before I arrived? I will look into it. If there are any type of analyses available, the only thing that I can do is to make a note of your comments here today.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Fleury, ladies, I am sure you feel that you have had a very busy two hours.

I would like to thank all of the colleagues who were active participants, because our meetings cannot be very interesting if members do not ask questions.

As there is at least a fifty-fifty chance that this committee as presently constituted will not be meeting again, I will act as a real chairperson. I said the chances were fifty-fifty. I am pleased to thank all of those who have helped us in our work. I would like to thank our parliamentary assistants and extend a special thanks to my assistant, Patrick, who seems to be in quite a state. There is also Bill and Ben, of course, who are extremely professional and who help us in every sense of the word, even bringing us cookies when we sit in the afternoon.

I would of course like to take this opportunity to thank you for being here and to wish you and our observers at the back of the room a very Merry Christmas. I must admit that in my 65 years, I have never been so early in wishing people a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Who knows? We might just end up having a year that is only 10 months long.

That is all. The meeting is adjourned.

Coalition Against the Deportation of Palestinian Refugees

2003-2005