Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2006

[Debra Simpson]

Absolutely.

Has anyone here been a member of a sponsoring group? Has anyone waited for over three years for a family to arrive?

People get very excited about this program. They respond because they know that someone's in need, and then they wait. Very often, as a sponsorship agreement holder, I am not able to explain to the sponsoring group why this is taking so long. So people move on. It's true. We have seen a decline in interest in the program primarily related to the fact that it has taken so long for people to arrive, and there's no good explanation.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Janet, one of the things you mentioned when we were discussing family reunification was that there are great humanitarian and compassionate reasons for speeding up that process and bringing family members here when someone's been determined to be a refugee. But you also said it was cheaper. I wonder if you could expand on what you meant by that.

[Janet Dench]

Well, the operation of visa offices overseas is very expensive. You have to pay for the Canadian officials who are living overseas, as well as for the operation, locally, of the visa offices. If we do things in Canada, obviously, we don't have those extra expenses. So we imagine that if you could simply transfer the overseas processing of the dependants to Canada, so that the vast bulk of that processing is done here, that should cost less than if it's done in the visa offices.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Is it also cheaper in terms of the demands on Canadian health care and education systems for people who are more quickly reunited with families? Don't the costs of health care and those kinds of things go up when the separation has been longer?

[Janet Dench]

Yes. I don't think we have specific studies to rely upon, but logically, and from what we observe anecdotally, it is very costly when there are these long family separations. Some of that is because family members are living in desperately unhealthy circumstances. We have people--children and spouses--who don't have access to proper health care. They arrive, and their health situation is much worse. If it had been dealt with early on, with the health care in Canada, the problems could have been averted.

You also deal with problems in schooling. Kids who have no schooling, or limited schooling, who arrive after several years, are behind, obviously, and that is going to cost Canadian society.

You also have the cost of the fragility of the family, because it's very difficult for families to come together after a very long separation. In particular, one thing we hear again and again from family members is that there is a lack of trust. When a child is told at the age of eight that no, you can't go be with your parents, or you can't be reunited with your dad, no matter how much we say that it's not the dad's fault, that the dad is doing everything possible to get the Canadian government to bring him or her here, the child feels abandoned by his or her father. And that relationship is difficult.

It is for spouses, too. We have many people who come to our member organizations in tears saying.... In one story I heard of, a man asked the counsellor to phone his wife and explain, because his wife did not believe him when he said he really was doing everything to bring her here.

How do you bring those relationships back together again? Well, families come, and many of them do manage to get on, but there are also stresses, and they take their toll, too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Rico-Martinez.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

The other thing we can mention is having reliable international organizations do the different processing outside Canada. The UNHCR is everywhere in the countries that produce refugees, but we don't trust the UNHCR, in terms of the immigration procedure, to process the applications for refugees. We have to do the work selecting refugees that the UNHCR does in different areas most of the time. We have to do it again and again and again, and that takes time and resources that we don't need to use.

The last quotation I received was that it costs $250,000 for Citizenship and Immigration Canada to create a position overseas to process refugees. That's a very expensive process when you have other resources overseas you can use to help process the applications.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate hearing from the council. I would like to take part in your Montreal event in November. I think that would be very informative, and it would certainly assist us.

Thank you for your presentation identifying some of the areas of significant concern. Obviously we will need to make progress in some of those areas.

Mr. Telegdi raised the issue of the IRB appointments. We've taken some steps in that direction. Of course I might remind Mr. Telegdi that it's a process we've inherited. We've done something about it. Our hope obviously is to significantly cut some of that time for the appointments. On a first-time basis, there have been advertisements placed in various national and regional newspapers. We've received applications, and hopefully we can get those positions filled with competent and qualified people. As you fill those positions, it will certainly impact on what you've indicated.

I appreciate your comments on the issue of how claims are processed through the system. You indicated that a judicial review is perhaps expensive; it is a fairly long process, and a very narrow one. As you indicated, only one in ten go forward, so it leaves a number behind.

A question I'd like to pose to you is how we compare in terms of a refugee claim going through all the processes when you look at the big picture. What percentage don't make it through the system?

Secondly, you mentioned the pre-assessment risk removal. There is a humanitarian and compassionate grounds application, the judicial review, and of course we have the decision made in the first place by the reviewer of facts. Is that whole system something we should be looking at in terms of how the components work when it relates to refugees?

How does the system we have compare to other countries? We obviously have the humanitarian and compassionate grounds application that can be made by someone who is refused. We have the other pre-removal risk assessment process, the judicial review. Do other countries build all of that into the system? How do we compare? Is there improvement we can make in some of those areas?

Then again, I would like to pose a question to Ms. Simpson in terms of the private sponsorship. No doubt there are issues about processing time and cost; that's an obvious one that would need to be dealt with. Is there anything else that could be done relative to those who might potentially be private sponsors? Is there more that can be done to create an interest in this area? It does make some sense to have those who are already interested and are prepared to put some infrastructure and dollars behind that become involved, and to mobilize that public empathy. Perhaps you can address that as well.

[Janet Dench]

I'd like to pick up on the question of appointments to the IRB. We're very worried about the lack of reappointments of existing members. There have been some, but the general rule seems to be that there aren't reappointments.

That is a concern from a couple of points of view. One is that a system is political if people are barred from consideration because they were appointed by the previous government, and that is certainly the perception out there. The impact of that is that you are losing a lot of highly qualified board members, people who would be able to mentor and take the system forward.

If you lose a large number of qualified people and you replace them with new people, the new ones may be excellent but they will take at least six months to properly get up to speed, so there is a lot of wastage, and if they don't have the experienced members to mentor them, it may take them longer. So we're concerned at the Conservative government's apparent position that they are reluctant to reappoint existing qualified and competent members.

In terms of your general point about the refugee system, I think it is fair to say from our perspective that the Canadian refugee system, as Francisco mentioned, has a lot to be said for it, particularly if you look at other countries around the world. Many have extremely complicated systems where you go through various different steps. One of the great benefits of the Canadian system is that we have invested in a very competent first-level decision process. Rather than wasting time making a first decision that has to be overturned most of the time on the appeal, we have a first-level refugee determination that, generally speaking, is good. There will be mistakes, but they're no doubt the minority by far. However, sometimes errors are made, and that's why there needs to be an appeal process in the system.

We're not asking for there to be fundamental rethinking of the system--you mentioned the various parts. We sat down with the department, and we're happy to sit down with anybody to discuss how things might be adjusted here and there, and we have certainly many suggestions that we can make about how the whole thing could be made to work better. But the fundamentals of the system, in our view, are actually very sound.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

One minute, Mr. Rico-Martinez.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

What I want to say is that we have to change the emphasis that we put on some parts of the system. We now have an emphasis on judicial review. If we remove that emphasis and put it in the appeal division, for instance, we can do an exchange, because the appeal division will be on merit and that will be more fair than the judicial review we have right now.

We can change the focus of what we are doing now; we have the instruments in the law.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I hear your point, but we can't change the fact that anyone has a right to a judicial review at any point under the administration of law, so you can't take it away.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

That's why I said the emphasis for us, in terms of the refugee determination system. If you provide a stay of removal at the appeal division and you then go to the judicial review, the number of cases that are going to the judicial review will be fewer. The time people spend on judicial review could be reduced as well and the stay of removal could be discussed in terms of the judicial review because you will have an appeal decision before that happens. If you change the emphasis of the system, that is going to work better than what we have right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We've taken seven and a half minutes, but I detect that Ms. Simpson wishes to make a comment.

[Debra Simpson]

I would like to suggest that MPs work with sponsorship agreement holders and sponsoring communities to understand what the problems are in the system and to increase awareness of the program within their communities. If we could work together, I think we could increase interest in the program again, but it means addressing some of the processing problems too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

That draws our seven-minute rounds to a close. We will now go to five minutes and I'll begin with Mr. Wilson.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to all three of you for coming and giving us your presentations today.

I'm relatively new to this committee, but what seems to be a common theme with all presenters is the increasing backlog that we're witnessing in all aspects of immigration, be it skilled workers, be it families, or be it refugees.

I draw your attention--as I'm sure you are well aware and as you mentioned earlier--to the lack of reappointment or new appointments of members of the IRB. I'm looking at this wondering how this situation could possibly get any worse, yet as the days pass and as this new government stays in office longer, the problems just seem to compound.

It's been nine months now, and they are 34 members short, and as projections have it here, if nothing is done between now and March, it could be up to 64 members, or close to 50% of the board, not being reappointed.

I know some of the Conservatives have had some experience in business and been on boards of directors, and if they'd ever worked in a company where the board of directors wasn't reappointed like this, I think there'd be a shareholder revolt. And I think Canadians are about to revolt on this government, definitely those people like yourselves who are involved in this situation.

I'm trying to get a handle on the problems that are going to be exacerbated because of the lack of these reappointments or lack of appointments. Obviously the backlog is just going to increase and get worse. The inconsistency in how the files are being reviewed has to increase.

As you mentioned earlier, the loss of high-quality, experienced members is going to be a huge detriment. Just like in any organization, the people who have been there over time act as mentors to the new people, but if we go through this system and people aren't reappointed or new people aren't filled, we're going to lose the capacity and the experience that's been built up over time through those members.

And, as has been pointed out previously, the lack of francophone appointments just has to naturally lead to an increase in injustices to that part of our society. We've also heard testimony from the Auditor General, who has recommended that--as you said--a non-political, merit-based appointment process be followed. This is the process that's in place right now and it's the process the department is supposed to be following.

I'm just wondering what your thoughts are as to why this new Conservative minority government is dragging their feet on this appointment. We've had the minister here and we've talked about budgets, and we've increased the budget by close to 40%, so it's not due to a lack of money.

I'm wondering if there is a hidden agenda here on the Conservative side, in that their failure to appoint members to the IRB is actually a devious plan to clog up the system and to deny admittance of refugees. I want to know what your thoughts are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's an awful lot for only a minute and a half left to respond, but go right ahead.

[Janet Dench]

We've been following this for some time, since the IRB came into existence in 1988. Our observation is that there have been problems with the appointments throughout that period, whatever the colour of the government in place, and there are various ways in which the system is politicized.

We have made progress, because there is now a selection process that is independent, that is non-partisan, that interviews and tests potential candidates so at the end of the process you end up with people who are found by the process to be competent. Those candidates are then transferred to the government of the day to make the appointments or to not make the appointments, and to do the reappointments or not.

That process then remains a process that is in the hands of the government, and it is, as we see, subject to various considerations. There is not only the actual rationale that is used by the government to appoint or not to appoint, but there's also the perception that exists.

The perception out there, both among the advocacy community and from what we hear within the Immigration and Refugee Board.... The rumours fly fast and furious and there are many different interpretations that are laid on it, on what is going on. But because the process is political in the way that it is, those perceptions will persist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

For five minutes, Mr. Jaffer.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have to apologize for that previously paid political announcement by the Liberal Party. The partisanship the member shows on this committee never ceases to amaze me. It seems to me--

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

That's the first time I've heard a Conservative apologize--

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You can let me speak now, Mr. Wilson.

I find that this committee generally works quite well together, and I can't understand the particular member, who's been here for not very long, complaining about the system being in disarray. I have been here since 1997, and all I've seen is that wait times continuously improve, in the sense of getting longer. I never understood why that was happening. We tried to look for solutions, even when Mr. Telegdi was the chair, and this committee worked quite well to make those suggestions, yet it seemed that the problem got worse and worse.

I have one particular question that maybe you can answer, Janet. You addressed it. There was something that you said concerning certain visa offices taking upwards of three years, or whatever it might be, to process. You mentioned that there are some out there that take a few months maybe, or a lot less time. I wonder if you have some information as to where those cases are--which offices are taking longer and which offices are not.

I had a concern in opposition that it seemed to me that in certain visa offices we don't have the proper resources attributed to the numbers of applications coming in, and when we switch from certain areas where there have not been as many applications, we're still maintaining the same resources. I don't know if you have that information. You did mention that some were taking less time.

[Janet Dench]

Sure. The information actually is available quite conveniently on the website of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They have processing times by different categories.

If we look at dependants of refugees, the family members of refugees in Canada, we gave you some of the statistics for the very long processing times. If we look for some of the visa posts where things do move along quite quickly, 50% of cases in Kuala Lumpur were done in three months--in fact, 80% of cases were done within three months. In Seoul 50% were done within two months; in Berlin, four months; in Vienna, five months. There are posts where things do, in many cases, work quite well, and of course we would feel a lot differently if that were the case across the board.

It's very difficult for refugees. It's difficult for organizations that are working with refugees to see that some people are arriving in a few months and for other people it's taking a very long time. Certainly in some of the regions, notably Africa, where it's taking a very long time, people also wonder why that is and they make allegations that may be misplaced, but they feel there is a prejudice against African refugees.