Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 19th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to comment before we move along?

[Joseph Allen]

I have pleaded before the Immigration and Refugee Board, in all sections, since its inception in 1989, Mr. Telegdi, and I can assure you that renewal time was always a period of great reflection for board members—reflection, concern, and uncertainty. I do believe that their perception as being in line with policy was always a preoccupation for them, and maybe the weaker of the members would have a tendency to move in terms of complying with policy, notwithstanding my earlier comments with regard to their only responsibility being to apply the law, be damned with the rest of it.

I would also like to point out that although I believe that true independence rests with an indefinite appointment, I share Mrs. Dench's comment with regard to the burnout factor, particularly in the protection division. It is not an easy job. If some type of permanence were to be afforded board members working under that division, I would suggest that provisions be made for sabbaticals, for rest periods, because it is a difficult job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much.

Madame Faille, please.

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

First, I want to thank you for coming to testify on this question. For a number of years now, the issue of the qualifications of Board members has been raised on a number of occasions. Renewal of the terms of certain members was a particular problem. However, since 2004, a new system has been put in place, which has made it possible to obtain better candidates for member positions.

Last week, I attended the biennial convention of the Canadian Bar Association. Judging from what the Citizenship and Immigration representatives presented, the problem appears to be even more serious. We can expect that 57 of 140 positions will be vacant within a month. If the problem is not solved in the coming months, it will be even more acute.

My question is for the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees and the AQAADI. After speaking with a number of lawyers and jurists, I understand that hearings and interviews not set, required case preparation time and the status of your clients were having an impact on the practice of law. I know that our offices are receiving increasing numbers of files. The people who come to see us are desperate. These are both refugees and ordinary Canadians or permanent residents. They don't understand why they have to wait up to three years to bring in their spouses, family members or children. The case of children is particularly flagrant. One case from Africa has been pending for seven or eight years.

I'd like to hear what you have to say on that. Mr. Telegdi spoke precisely about the appointments issue. The problem, which has been going on for a number of years now, also has an impact on your field.

[Janet Dench]

The impact is definitely great. One lawyer told me this morning that she was constantly receiving calls from the IRB to cancel refugee claimants' hearings. As a result of a shortage of Board members, the IRB has no other choice but to postpone hearings. It's hard for the lawyers, who make every effort to prepare their clients and who must then set that aside, but it's obviously even worse for asylum seekers, who are hoping for an outcome, who are preparing mentally and psychologically for the hearing, then are told that it's postponed.

The issue of family separation is very dramatic. I'm going to tell you about the case of an Iraqi. He says that, every time he speaks by telephone with his wife in Baghdad, she cries and asks him when they can be reunited. His hearing hasn't yet been set; so it could be a long time. There's no answer to give him. I don't have an answer to give him either because, as a result of the shortage of Board members, who knows when he'll have a hearing?

[Joseph Allen]

Ms. Faille, in my day-to-day practice, I meet clients who are in despair because they can't get a hearing. Some people, whom we don't meet every day, fortunately, appear in my office and tell me they're afraid their marriages won't survive. Spouses are questioning their fidelity or love as a result of the long case processing delays.

There's also the other side of the coin. I respectfully submit to you that the morale of Board members is declining as a result of an inability to cope with the workload. This situation is not desirable for people who ultimately have to make decisions on refugee claims.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Any other comments before I move to Mr. Siksay?

Mr. Green, do you have a comment you want to make?

[Stephen Green]

I think it's important to point out how it's affecting Canadians' lives. I'll give you an example: parents. The department has taken the position that if you wish to bring your parents to Canada—and I'm sure many of your constituents have called you on this—it's going to be three to four years, because spouses are a priority; that's a decision that has been made. So imagine you're trying to bring your parents to Canada. It's three to four years, they finally get processed, and they're refused. You try to appeal it, and it's another three years. If it's allowed, it goes back and it takes another year. So it's seven years.

The immigration board cannot even schedule hearings. I go—

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I have a point of order. I know Mr. Green is a competent lawyer, but I don't think the figures he's giving us are the reality. These figures getting into Hansard might be misleading. I'm just wondering if he wants to rephrase and/or even restate the number of years it takes for a parental application, from the time it starts to the time it's finished. In some cases, it's close to six to eight years.

Sir, you're a very competent lawyer, so saying these numbers out loud in this committee is certainly something that's misleading. I'm challenging you, sir, through the chair, if you want to restate your numbers.

[Stephen Green]

My understanding, from my practice and my experience with the majority of places my clients are coming from, is that it's taking three to four years. There may be certain offices that take six to seven years, I don't know. I'm talking from my own personal experience with respect to that, so I stand by that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Green. I have to cut you off there because we're getting into eight minutes.

I want to go to Mr. Siksay.

Just for the record, there was no point of order there but a point of difference between two people. I guess it's been clarified, so now I'll go on to Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Green, did you want to finish your point, or were you finished your point?

[Stephen Green]

I had one other point I'd like to add. I've been at these hearings and been in the waiting rooms with people who are losing their permanent residency because they have criminal convictions. They say not to worry, they can play the system—one year, two years—they won't get to them. So I think it's important from a security standpoint that we appoint people so this process can work.

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

I want to thank all of you for your testimony this morning. I certainly agree that a merit-based, competent-based system of appointments is crucial, and patronage has no place in this system. I certainly agree with you about the terrible effects of the current crisis at the IRB.

The question I want to ask all of you is this. Are you aware of any suggestion that either the advisory panel or the chair of the IRB, Mr. Fleury, acted in a partisan way in how they exercised their responsibilities? Have you folks ever made that criticism of those individuals or that group, or have you heard of those kinds of criticisms of them?

[Joseph Allen]

It's a resounding no on my part.

[Janet Dench]

Absolutely not.

[Joseph Allen]

We applauded the move that was made by Mr. Fleury in creating this.

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

Ms. Dench, you said that in the reappointment process there was a problem around the reappointment of people who might not have been the most competent board members. Was that problem addressed by the work of the advisory panel? Since that system came in, have there been what you would consider questionable reappointments, in terms of competence? Was the system working to address that concern?

[Janet Dench]

The system did not address reappointments at all. That was one of the issues we raised in our letter to the minister, Judy Sgro, in April 2004. In her response she simply said that members would be evaluated by the board, and she would make the decision on their reappointment based on that evaluation. What we have heard since then is that the board presents an evaluation of the person to the minister and the minister makes the decision about whether or not the person is to be reappointed.

When pushed about whether people who have not been given positive evaluations are ever reappointed, there is not a clear denial of any such reappointments happening. For example, I heard of a case where the IRB seemed to have some serious concerns about somebody and managed to make the reappointment a short-term one. But the person was reappointed despite what seemed to be misgivings from the IRB, in terms of the evaluation of that person.

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

So the advisory panel just dealt with new appointments.

[Janet Dench]

That's right.

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

There has been some criticism, stemming from the Harrison report, that people who failed the test that was administered as part of their survey were recommended by the advisory panel. I think that's been used in some quarters as a way of discrediting the work of the advisory panel. I'm just wondering if folks have a response to the concern the Harrison report made about recommending someone for appointment who had failed that aspect of the screening process.

[Janet Dench]

I'd like to comment on that.

My understanding is that the committee was aware that it was bringing in a new screening process. The exam, as the Harrison report points out, was revised as a written test. So the panel members felt that they did not yet know whether this written test was an adequate evaluation of whether or not people had the necessary capacities. I believe they wanted an initial period so some people who didn't pass the test could go through to the later parts of the screening in order to see whether, in other methods of evaluation, they appeared to be stronger than some of the people who maybe had done better on the written exam.

I imagine it would be good to review the whole process and see to what extent the whole selection process, including the written exam, was giving the results required. In other words, what do we see in terms of the people who are appointed? One of my disappointments with the Harrison report—and perhaps that was not part of his mandate—is it doesn't get to the real question, in terms of the people who have been appointed and have gone through that process, as to what extent they are proving to be excellent members.

I'm optimistic that it is an improvement over the previous system; it certainly seems to be a more rigorous selection process. But we continue to have concerns about whether it is enough and whether we need to have a more rigorous screening process. Some of the appointments that have been made have caused great surprise and dismay in the milieu, because they're people whose reputations do not lead people to think they would be good board members.

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

Do others have comments on that issue?

[Joseph Allen]

I concur with Ms. Dench in regard to the weaknesses in the reappointment process. I think much work remains to be done at that level.