![]() |
|||||
![]() ![]() |
Français | Contact Us | Help | Search | Canada Site |
![]() |
Home | What's New | Site Map | Forms | Decisions |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() Standing Committee on Citizenship and ImmigrationSpeaking Notesgiven by Jean-Guy Fleury Ottawa, Ontario (Check Against Delivery) IntroductionMr. Chair, Committee Members, thank you for inviting us here today. I would like to introduce Marilyn Stuart-Major, Executive Director of the IRB, and Tim Morin, Acting General Counsel. Both will assist me in answering any questions you may have. It has been some time since my last appearance before this Committee, and I am very pleased to be back before you. As we have many new committee members with us today, I will first take the opportunity to provide you with a brief overview of the work of the Board. As you have been provided with briefing materials that give a more detailed review of the IRB and our three Divisions, I will not get into too much detail on this. I will provide you with an overview of recent developments at the Board, including both accomplishments and challenges, and provide you with my vision for the future of the IRB. Role of the IRBI would like to begin today by briefly touching upon the role of the IRB – what we are, what we do. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides the IRB jurisdiction to hear and decide cases on immigration and refugee matters. The Act sets out the core principles and the concepts that govern our work. As such, the IRB is an independent tribunal that reports to Parliament through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The IRB consists of three divisions:
Our mission is to make well-reasoned decisions on immigration and refugee matters — efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law. As I am sure you know very well, we make decisions that have a huge impact on the lives, security and freedom of those who appear before us. In essence, the IRB, on behalf of Parliament and Canadians, delivers justice and fairness. The fact that we are a tribunal and not a court allows us greater flexibility in how we manage the cases and appeals that come before us. This is really the beauty of administrative tribunals – independent, yet flexible, arms-length, yet fully accountable. Immigration Division (ID)The Immigration Division, our smallest 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. Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)The Immigration Appeal Division hears four types of appeals, including appeals by
Refugee Protection Division (RPD)Our largest division, the Refugee Protection Division determines whether people who appear before it are "Convention refugees" or other "persons in need of protection." Role of the IRB within the Immigration PortfolioNow that I have explained what we do, I would like to take a moment to also explain what we do not do. We are not an enforcement body; we do not remove failed claimants or persons found to be inadmissible to Canada, that responsibility lies with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). CBSA, working through Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), is also responsible for performing security screenings of all refugee claimants prior to their refugee hearings at the Board. We do not develop Government policies that may result in legislation on immigration and refugee matters, including who has access to our refugee determination process, that job rests with CIC. Nor does the IRB select refugees from abroad; again, this responsibility rests with CIC. You have already heard from representatives of CIC and CBSA and you know that we operate as part of a continuum in the refugee and immigration processes. In the context of refugee determination, CIC refers claims to the IRB, we apply the law and decide the cases, our decisions are then subject to judicial review by the Federal Court. Other avenues of redress are open to failed refugee claimants, including Pre-Removal Risk Assessment at CIC. Finally, CBSA is responsible for removing failed refugee claimants. The IRB ensures that Canada meets its international obligations and, as a tribunal, we deliver justice quickly and fairly to those who come before any of our three divisions. Changing EnvironmentThe IRB carries out its mandate within a complex and ever-changing environment. We do not control the number of cases referred to us in any given year. Both international and domestic factors affect the number of refugee protection claims made in Canada. The same is true for shifts in international migration patterns, which can affect the number of people seeking admission to Canada. In recent years, we have seen a downward trend in the number of refugee claimants, both in Canada and worldwide. At the same time, we have seen an increase in the number of immigration appeal cases, especially sponsorship appeals. As a tribunal, we must be prepared to respond quickly to these fluctuations. Transformation AgendaOver the last few years the goal at the IRB has been to become a more dynamic and responsive tribunal. We have pursued a course of transformation and innovation to allow us to respond in a more effective way to fluctuations in the number and kind of cases we receive. As many of you will remember, a few short years ago we had a significant backlog at the Refugee Protection Division – there is nothing like a crisis to generate innovative thinking. As an administrative tribunal, we are in a unique position within the immigration and refugee protection portfolio. Tribunals exist to deliver a simpler, quicker version of justice than courts. As I mentioned before, tribunals, like the IRB, are also to be independent from government in their decision-making, but fully accountable to Parliament for their performance. While we are subject to the constraints of the law, as a tribunal we have the ability and the responsibility to be inventive and creative in how we act on our mandate. This is what we have done over the past three years, while never losing sight of the ultimate objectives of fairness and justice. Efficiency and creativity need not and cannot come at the expense of fairness. RPD Action PlanThe first part of our agenda for change was the introduction of the Chairperson’s Action Plan in 2003. This involved a series of measures to address a dramatic increase in the number of refugee claims referred at the time, and an ensuing backlog of claims awaiting a decision that peaked at 52,000 in March 2003. Here are some examples of how we addressed the backlog: we standardized and simplified the case management process; we changed how we conduct hearings to be more focused and proactive in our questioning; we created tools to guide decision-makers, including three sets of Guidelines and two jurisprudential guides; and we introduced a fast-track process to give priority to simple refugee claims. We began to standardize the evidentiary basis for refugee claims through national documentation packages. We currently have 18 packages for the major source countries, and we will have covered every major source country by the end of this year. We support discussion groups enabling decision-makers to discuss human rights conditions in various countries, which has contributed greatly to increased consistency in decision-making in the last three years. The result has been greater consistency in decision-making and in the management of claims. In the years following the implementation of the Action Plan, our output reached unprecedented levels. In addition, we dramatically reduced the backlog from a peak of 52,000 three years ago, to approximately 20,000 today. In fact, this is our equilibrium point, but I want to see our levels stabilized at this point for at least another year before I declare the backlog officially eliminated. Of course, other factors have contributed to this decline as well, not the least of which was the concurrent drop in refugee claims. Of course there is more to do. Along with former IRB Chairpersons, I have told this Committee in the past that that we will reach 6-month average processing times at the Refugee Protection Division – they are currently 11 months, an improvement from the 14+ months at the height of the backlog, but more work needs to be done. I remain committed to the six-month goal. We will make greater use of persuasive decisions, further refine the process for the streamlining and fast-tracking of claims, and draft new Chairperson’s Guidelines. As you can see, innovation is not static. IAD InnovationAs I mentioned just a few moments ago, our changing environment includes an increase in recent years in the number of immigration appeal cases, particularly refusals of sponsorship requests. We launched an Innovation Initiative in the Immigration Appeal Division to address workload pressures, to better meet the needs of our clients and to make a long-term investment in the IAD, whose work is so critical to the overall immigration portfolio. In short, we need to ensure that we have a more responsive appeal mechanism for, amongst other things, family reunification cases. We have released a preliminary Report on the Innovation Initiative on our website. It represents our vision for the future of the Division and charts a course for the IAD as a less formal, more flexible tribunal. The Report is currently being further developed as our consultations with CIC and CBSA continue and we determine what can reasonably be done in both the short and longer terms. The Innovation Plan’s recommendations converge around the following themes:
IAD Innovation will bring about cultural change at the IAD – the IAD will become a less formal, more proactive body that better reflects its status as an administrative tribunal. This means more information earlier on from both parties to enable the Division to function more efficiently. Immigration Division Action PlanThe Immigration Division’s Action Plan identified as a priority the development of a comprehensive human resource strategy, as almost 50% of the Division’s decision-makers – who are public servants – will be eligible for retirement in the next few years. The strategy focuses on the renewal of the workforce and a comprehensive training plan to ensure the availability of qualified decision-makers over the long term. IntegrationAlong with all other departments and bodies within Government, we have been asked to do more with less. Over the last three years or so we have responded to a changing environment and changing demands through innovation and creativity. Of course there is always more that can be done. We are currently exploring the concept of greater integration across our three divisions. I think we can integrate common procedural, administrative and adjudicative activities in all IRB divisions to further promote quality, consistency and efficiency measures. OutreachThe IRB must ensure that we continually inform our partners, stakeholders and the public at large of who we are and what we do. We need to let them know why there is a need for innovation and where we intend to take the Board. More generally, I also believe we need to educate the public on the role of the Board and de-bunk long-held myths. Further to this end, the IRB has engaged in an on-going process of outreach. For example, the Board recently briefed MPs and their staff in Ottawa and across Canada on the nature of our work, and on how they should approach the Board if needed. We will continue to offer on-going sessions to MPs as circumstances warrant. We also regularly meet with stakeholders and various community groups around the country. Merit-based Appointment ProcessIn 2004, the IRB implemented fundamental reforms of the appointment and appraisal processes for Governor in Council (GIC) Board members. We have been truly leading edge in the establishment of a merit-based appointment process at the IRB. Under the new process, as the Chief Executive Officer, the Chairperson of the IRB is fully accountable for the selection and the quality of IRB's decision-makers. The Advisory Panel assisting the IRB Chairperson in the selection process is independent and representative of Canadians. The Panel includes membership from the legal community, academia, non-governmental organizations and human resources experts. The new independent, transparent and merit-based selection process ensures that only highly qualified candidates are considered for appointment by the Government. The qualifications of candidates are measured against a new strengthened standard of competence to ensure that skills, abilities and personal suitability are the basis for the appointment. The Government has been appointing from our list of qualified candidates. Full GIC ComplementPerhaps it goes without saying, but ultimately we will not succeed with our innovation agenda without a full complement of decision-makers and without timely appointments and reappointments. While we currently do not have a full complement at the IAD or the RPD, we are hopeful that the present situation will resolve itself in the near future. ConclusionI frankly believe that the IRB has been a leader in innovation. We fully understand that adaptation is now a permanent feature of an accountable public service. We are already there and we are working better as a result. I would finally like to take this opportunity to commend IRB staff and members. It is because of their professionalism and dedication to the IRB that we have come as far as we have today. We look forward to responding to any questions you may have for us today. If any of you would like more detailed briefings on any aspect of the Board’s operations or mandate we would be pleased to make the arrangements and meet with you again. Thank you for your attention. |
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
|