Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
Opening Remarks
given by
Jean-Guy Fleury
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
November 6, 2003
(Check against delivery)
Introduction
Mr. Chair, Committee Members,
thank you for inviting us here today to discuss our Departmental Performance
Report. I would like to introduce Marilyn Stuart-Major, Executive
Director of the IRB,
and Krista Daley, General Counsel. Both will assist me in answering any
questions you may have.
My appearance today is particularly timely; on November 27th
I will have been Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board for
one year. I would, therefore, like to take the opportunity to highlight
new developments at the IRB
since March 31st,
2003, to share my assessment of this past year, and my future direction
for this great institution.
Role of the IRB
The IRB
is an independent, quasi-judicial body that reports to Parliament through
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The IRB
consists of three tribunals:
- The Refugee Protection Division;
- The Immigration Appeal Division, and;
- The Immigration Division.
Each division is a separate tribunal with its own statutory mandate.
Our mission is to make well-reasoned decisions on immigration and refugee
matters — efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.
In essence, the IRB,
on behalf of Parliament and Canadians, delivers justice and fairness.
We contribute to the fulfilment of Canada’s international obligations
and to the security of Canadians and the integrity of Canada’s immigration
and refugee system.
On a very human level, IRB
decision-makers have the difficult task of deciding the fate of the people
who appear before them. Their decisions have a significant impact on the
lives and the security of these individuals. Given this, the IRB
is committed to providing a responsive and efficient means of delivering
justice and protection for individuals to ensure that those who come before
it are treated fairly, and in accordance with the principles of natural
justice.
Immigration Division (ID)
The Immigration Division conducts admissibility hearings
on people alleged to be inadmissible to or removable from Canada, and
holds detention reviews for those detained for immigration reasons. Based
on current trends, the Division’s 29 decision-makers expect to hold 2,000
admissibility hearings and 11,400 detention reviews this year.
New Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) provisions
have affected the ID's work in admissibility hearing and detention review
proceedings. For instance, decision-makers are required to take into account
factors such as national security and the safety of persons in determining
whether to disclose security-sensitive information to the subject of the
proceeding. The ID considers the admissibility of persons alleged to have
engaged in transnational crimes, including people smuggling, trafficking
in persons and money laundering.
Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)
The Immigration Appeal Division hears four types of
appeals, including appeals by
- Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose applications to sponsor
close family members to Canada have been refused;
- Permanent residents, protected persons and holders of permanent resident
visas, who have been ordered removed from Canada;
- Permanent residents determined outside of Canada by an officer of
CIC not to have fulfilled their residency obligation; and
- The Minister who may appeal a decision made by the Immigration Division
at an admissibility hearing.
Based on current trends, the IAD's
29 decision-makers are expected to finalize about 4,800 appeals this year.
The IAD
faces a record level of intake in 2003-04 – it is on pace to receive over
6,000 appeals, which would be 20% more than last year, and 40% more than
2001-02.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has had an impact
on sponsorship appeals at the Immigration Appeal Division. There have
been changes to the regulations that define who may be sponsored as a
member of the family class, for example, the family class has been expanded
by adding common-law or conjugal partners.
Also, there is a new type of appeal – the residency obligation appeal
that may be made by permanent residents who are found by a CIC officer
overseas to have violated the residency obligation in the new Act.
Refugee Protection Division (RPD)
Our largest tribunal, the Refugee Protection Division
decides refugee claims made in Canada. The 190 RPD decision-makers are
expected to finalize a record high of approximately 44,000 to 46,000 refugee
claims this year.
The scope of the RPD's work broadened significantly with the implementation
of the new Act. This is because IRPA not only requires the RPD to examine
if persons are refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees, but also if persons are in need of protection,
that is, individuals whose removal to their country would subject them
personally to a danger of torture, to a risk to their life, or to a risk
of other cruel and unusual treatment. We also gained an important advantage
in efficiency because IRPA now allows claims to be heard with a single-member
panel, instead of two members.
Issues and Priorities
When I became Chairperson, the IRB
was dealing with a staggering backlog in its Refugee Protection Division,
which peaked at more than 52,000 claims shortly after I arrived. The backlog
was not a result of poor performance, but rather a combination of domestic
and international factors. Since 1999, the number of new refugee claims
received each year has grown significantly. The 45,000 new claims received
in 2001-02 represented the highest volume in the history of the Board,
and almost double the number received four years earlier. Further, IRB's
funding base was set in the 1990’s when the number of refugee claimants
was consistently in the 25,000-27,000 range per year.
The Board introduced measures aimed at reducing the backlog. But despite
efficiency gains, the backlog kept growing and processing times increased.
Heavy workload pressures at our other two tribunals meant there was limited
flexibility to reallocate resources internally.
When I started as Chairperson, the Refugee Protection Division backlog
was clearly a serious concern for the Government, for Canadians and for
our stakeholders. It was clear to me that we needed to identify what we
could do as a tribunal to improve. This remains my top priority for the
Board today.
Characteristics of an Administrative Tribunal
A tribunal is a dynamic entity – many people say that the IRB
is all about how many decisions the Board makes. That is true – but what
is equally true is “how” we make these decisions. In this sense, the IRB
is equally about the administration of justice in Canada. Tribunals exist
to deliver a simpler, quicker version of justice than courts. Tribunals,
like the Board, are also to be independent from government in their decision-making,
but fully accountable to government for their performance, as evidenced
by the tabling of our Departmental Performance Report and by
my appearance before the Committee today.
The IRB
vision statement is that each of our three tribunals will excel in everything
they do, and will deal simply, quickly and fairly with everyone. Through
innovation, they will be leading edge administrative tribunals and creative
partners in building the future of the Canadian immigration and refugee
system.
While significant improvements had been made over the years at the Board,
we were not fully realising our vision statement and we needed new initiatives
to increase our capacity to finalize more refugee claims without sacrificing
fairness. This is a constant debate. I felt we had to take further advantage
of the innate flexibilities of a tribunal. We had to become a more dynamic
tribunal, able to respond rapidly to evolving challenges and realities.
Chairperson’s Action Plans
Shortly after becoming Chairperson, I decided that each of our three
tribunals needed to develop Action Plans to eliminate duplication and
improve both the efficiency and the quality of decision-making. In my
remarks today, I will focus on the Refugee Protection Division Action
Plan, which began with a complete review of our operations to determine
how we could simplify and standardize how we work.
The result of this exercise, the Action Plan, is more than simply a series
of initiatives. Rather, it represents a long-term transformation of the
way we do business, a re-commitment to our original mission and vision
statement. It is not limited to process - it includes a human dimension.
Having said this, the Action Plan is comprised of more than a dozen specific
initiatives that are characterized by three themes, which are:
- Standardizing and simplifying processes;
- Providing greater institutional guidance for decision-makers; and
- Improving the efficiency of hearings
Various initiatives of the Action Plan have been implemented over the
past six months. We have already seen exciting results: the new initiatives
combined with temporary funding were key elements to our success in increasing
the number of cases finalized by approximately 30% in the last year.
I am proud of what we have accomplished in a limited period of time.
The challenge will be to sustain that level.
We are currently projecting that the backlog will be reduced from more
than 52,000 claims to approximately 41,000 by the end of 2003-04. We are
talking about 11,000 fewer individuals waiting for a decision, Mr. Chairman.
This is significant progress!
Equilibrium and Resource Needs
When my predecessor last appeared before this Committee, you asked what
level of resources the Board needed to eliminate the backlog. I would
like to take a moment now to explain our current fiscal situation.
The IRB
received temporary funding in 2002-03 and 2003-04. That funding, of some
$16M per year, will
end as of April 1st,
2004.
We are presently in discussion with the Treasury Board Secretariat, as
we must maintain this funding over the next three years to be able to
continue to eliminate our backlog and address corporate infrastructure
shortfalls. Our business case demonstrates that the expedient reduction
of the backlog will result in significant savings to Canadian taxpayers
and provide justice to those who appear before us. Simply stated, the
backlog will have been eliminated and our processing time will finally
reach the 6-month goal.
Without the continuation of necessary funding, we are projecting that
the backlog will steadily increase by about 4,000 claims per year and,
although not within our purview, social costs will also increase.
The modest resources allocated to the IRB
have been put to good use and we are now beginning to see results. The
backlog is dropping steadily every month as a result of efficiency gains
stemming from the Action Plan and temporary funding. The reality is that
we now have the capacity to tackle the increased workload and without
continued funding our momentum will be lost.
Conclusion
To conclude, the contribution of the IRB
is essential to the integrity and security of the immigration and refugee
process in Canada. Our mission is about one thing: rendering decisions
simply, quickly and fairly.
I will ensure that this remains our focus so that the IRB
delivers an effective system of tribunal justice, one that serves those
that appear before us, and Canadians.
I appreciate this opportunity to address you today. My colleagues and
I welcome any questions you may have.
Thank you.
|