Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Madam Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to thank you for appearing before the committee and for having presented the same figures as your predecessor, Mr. Fleury, who appeared previously as the chairman. Mr. Fleury cared about the Refugee Appeal Division being set up, but he felt that it was a political decision.

Despite everything, the legislators passed the bill here, in Parliament. The sections of the law are in place. I know that the tribunal is independent and that Citizenship and Immigration Canada is in control as far as the implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division is concerned.

It was the Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Malcolm Brown I believe, who said earlier that there would be 40,000 additional refugee cases in the backlog and that that would have repercussions on the Refugee Appeal Division.

Do you know where these refugees would come from?

[Paul Aterman]

If I remember correctly, that number was linked to the absence of transitional provisions in the act. So I assumed that the calculation is linked to that.

Regardless of what numbers might be, I would like to stress the significance from the board's perspective, just purely from an operational perspective. I don't want to comment on the merits of any policy choice.

It's very difficult for an organization that is involved in adjudication to start its existence with a backlog. Often it's very difficult to stop one from developing, but it would be a considerable challenge if the RAD were to start with a backlog.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I understand. I was working at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration when the commission was set up. I also read the Auditor General's 1998 reports and learned of the terrible situation there.

Unfortunately, over time, the successive federal governments did not necessarily increase the commission's budget sufficiently to enable you to do your job properly.

I must say, however, that I am happy with your Media Centre as regards procedures brought into force at the IRB. Mr. Fleury mentioned that processing time at the IRB had been reduced to nine months, I believe.

[Paul Aterman]

More than nine months. We were aiming for a six-month period. We ended up with an 11-month period. Now, that is starting to increase.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

To go up, yes. That is worrisome. At any rate, I hope that there will be a sufficient number of commission members to help you make decisions in order to reduce the number of cases in the backlog.

I do not really have any questions for you, because we are running short of time. I think that in the past you have had ample opportunity to provide evidence on the Refugee Appeal Division. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, I'll go to Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have some comments, and I want to thank the witnesses for their presentation.

Chair, I'm going to reject the allegations that the parliamentary secretary was making earlier, when he was beginning his filibuster, that somehow other members of this committee aren't interested in doing their appropriate job, or aren't doing a good job in terms of dealing with this issue and with this piece of legislation. I want to reject that categorically.

If the government, whether Liberal or Conservative, had done its job, and if the Conservatives had remained consistent with the position they took in the last Parliament in support of the RAD, if the government, whether Liberal or Conservative, had respected both the will of Parliament and the law that was passed, we wouldn't be here today discussing a bill to implement existing legislation. Those of us who have been advocating for a fair and just refugee process in Canada wouldn't have this frustration, and we wouldn't have to resort to this kind of legislation.

It is ridiculous, as Monsieur Gravel pointed out, that we should have to have a bill to implement existing legislation. That could have been dealt with easily along the way and long before now, with very positive results for the system.

I'm going to say to the representatives from the IRB that no one in this room wants to overwhelm the IRB. If anything, we want to be advocates for an effective IRB, and we have done that in our work in terms of our concern about the backlog and the lack of appointments. We will continue that work. It's not our intention to frustrate the excellent work of the IRB on very important and life-and-death questions for many people, but we are extremely frustrated with the refusal of the government to implement the provisions of IRPA.

The reality remains that if the government were concerned about creating backlogs, they could implement the RAD today. They could take those steps. They could announce their commitment to it. They could announce a timeline, and I'm sure all of us would be willing to consider that kind of timeline and that kind of process if there were a firm and hard commitment to doing that. They have chosen not to do that, and that's why we're in this position today.

The government could have short-circuited Bill C-280 the day before it was passed in the House. They could have short-circuited it--I'm sure--the day after it was passed in the House. If they wanted to take into consideration that a strong majority of the members of the current Parliament supported this legislation because they believe the RAD is an important piece of our refugee determination process, they had the ability to respond to that action by Parliament, and they chose not to. So that's twice that the government has chosen not to do that.

Though I understand the frustrations that implementation might cause and the stresses it might cause, it is within the government's ability to deal with that at any time.

I have one question. You say that it might take 12 months to establish the RAD. When I ask for a deadline, I usually put some extra time in it. If pressed, could it be shorter, or is that a minimum timeline?

[Paul Aterman]

In the board's view, that is a minimum timeline. Staffing takes a long time. As I indicated, we have rules that we have to get passed. There are the logistical issues around setting up the organization. Essentially, we have to look at all of the work that was done in the past in light of the fact that five years have now passed. We've had five years of decisions from the Federal Court, so there are policy questions that we have to look at. The board has changed in the way it's functioning. If a decision is made to implement it, the board will need adequate time to do that.

I'd like to come back to the question that Mr. Wilson raised, just to clarify my response, because I am particularly inept at mathematics. I've had it clarified for me that the budget of the board is $115 million, not $150 million as I might have misspoken. Consequently, the cost associated with the RAD would be about 7% of that, not 2%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Just to make a point in reference to what Mr. Bill Siksay has said, it would not be my view, given everything I've seen and how the committee has worked, that it would be reasonable to hear witnesses and shorten the time to hear them on relevant legislation and what the amendments might be and then go to a clause-by-clause, without having any time to reflect as to any amendments. I wouldn't agree with him there. It's certainly not something I would consider appropriate.

Having said that, there are some legitimate concerns that you and others have raised about transitional provisions and implementation. The bill, as it now stands, doesn't deal with the transitional provision as to when it'll become effective--whether back to 2002 or otherwise--which might inadvertently create an immediate backlog.

Is that what you were referring to as a significant issue?

[Paul Aterman]

There are two potential ones. One of them relates to transition, and the other one relates to an effective date. If one leaves aside the question of the persons whose claims were heard prior to the existence of the refugee appeal division, the board still needs, as I've tried to indicate, about a year from the date the legislation is passed going forward to the date it starts to do the work. That is a separate issue from the question of any transitional rights that might accrue from, I don't know, 2002 or some point onward.

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

What I'm hearing from you is that if something like Bill C-280 were implemented, you would like to see, first, a provision that would ensure that we're not starting with a backlog from what may have happened before its proclamation. And you would like to see some provision giving some lead time to be sure you're up to speed with personal resources, people, training, equipment, and so on. In your mind, you would need about a year.

[Paul Aterman]

Yes, ultimately all those choices are policy choices. All I want to do is highlight for you that they have practical implications, and the practical implications can be problematic if the organization starts its existence with a backlog.

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

So if they're not addressed, this is what could happen. But even if they were addressed, from what I hear from you, just adding another layer of appeal to the existing system would add additional amounts of time. I'm not sure if you said five or six months or something like that. Am I correct?

[Paul Aterman]

Again, the question of whether to introduce an appeal is fundamentally a policy choice. What I can tell you is how long the current process takes at the RPD. Right now we're averaging around 12 months, and what we anticipate is that the appeal process would take an additional five months, on average.

There is just one other thing.The board is looking to reduce the average processing time at the first level.

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

I have some--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

He only has two and a half minutes.

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

I'm going to pass off to Mr. Devolin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, I can give a question to each person if they want, because we have a couple of minutes to go, and then we'll move on to Mr. Gallagher. So do members want to have a fast question?

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I'm just using his time.

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

I'll use up my time, but I'm giving him my time so he can actually--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I told him he had about a minute left.

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

I thought you said two minutes to two and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Go ahead, Mr. Devolin.