Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for inviting us here today. I would like to introduce Marilyn Stuart-Major, Executive Director of the IRB, and Timothy Morin, Acting General Counsel. Both will assist me in answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Chairman, I will respect the time limit that you have given me.
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.
I'd like to begin today by briefly touching upon the role of the IRB, what we are, and what we do.
The IRB is an independent tribunal that reports to Parliament through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The IRB consists of three divisions: the Refugee Protection Division, the Immigration Appeal Division, and the Immigration Division itself. Our mission is to make well-reasoned decisions on immigration and refugee law 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: they are independent, yet flexible; at arm's length, yet fully accountable.
I would now like to take a moment to 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. That agency itself, through cooperation with CSIS, is also responsible for performing security screenings of all refugee claimants prior to their refugee hearing 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 such a responsibility resides with CIC. We have already heard from representatives of CIC and the agency, and you know that we operate as part of a continuum in the refugee and immigration process.
In the context of refugee determination, CIC refers claims to the IRB. We apply the law and decide the cases. Our decision is then subject to judicial review by the Federal Court. Other avenues of redress, such as the pre-removal risk assessment at CIC, are open to failed refugee claimants. Finally, the agency is responsible for removing failed refugee claimants.
The 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.
Over 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.
Tribunals exist to deliver a simpler, quicker version of justice than courts. While we are subject to the constraints of the law, 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.
The first part of the agenda for change was the introduction of the chairman’s action plan in 2003. At that time, we were faced with a backlog of 52,000 claims in March 2003. The result of our action plan has been a greater consistency in decision-making and in the management of claims.
In the year following the implementation of the action plan, our output reached unprecedented levels. We dramatically reduced the backlog from a peak of 52,000 three years ago to approximately 20,000 today. Of course, other factors have contributed to this decline as well, not the least of which was the concurrent drop in refugee claims.
There is of course more to do. Along with former IRB chairpersons, I have told this committee in the past that we will reach six-month average processing times in the Refugee Protection Division as quickly as possible. They are currently at 11 months, which is an improvement over the 14-plus months at the height of the backlog, but more work needs to be done, and I remain committed to the six-month goal. As a matter of fact, with enough appointments, we predict that this year at least 50% of the cases could be rendered within six months.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, our changing environment includes an increase in recent years of a number of immigration appeal cases, particularly refusal of sponsorship appeals. We launched an innovation initiative in the Immigration Appeal Division to address workload pressures, to better meet the needs of appellants, and to make long-term investments in the IAD, whose work is so critical to the overall immigration portfolio. We learned from the first action plan. We did not make the same mistakes, and we've improved on how to approach innovation. In short, we need to ensure that we have a more representative and responsive appeal mechanism for family reunification.
We have released a preliminary report on the innovation initiative on our website, and we have consulted with our partners, shareholders, and the bar in the period of 90 days. The report represents our vision for the future of the division and charts a course for the IAD as a less formal and more flexible tribunal. The report is currently being further developed as our consultations with the departments and the agency continue, and all partners are determined to find a reasonable solution.
The recommendations of the innovation plan converge around two themes: resolving appeals sooner and more quickly, and resolving appeals through mediation outside the hearing room. IAD innovation will bring about cultural change in 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 effectively.
The Immigration Division's Action Plan identified as a priority the development of a comprehensive human resource strategy — this is the third largest division in the Board — as almost 50 per cent 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.
The 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 ongoing 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 ongoing sessions to MPs as circumstances warrant. We also regularly meet with stakeholders and various community groups around the country.
I believe you have been provided with material on our new member selection process. In 2004, the IRB implemented fundamental reforms of the appointment and appraisal processes for Governor-in-council 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 appointments 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.
Perhaps 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 refugee branch, we are hopeful that the present situation will resolve itself in the near future.
In conclusion, I frankly believe the IRB has been a leader in innovation. We fully understand that adaptation is now a permanent feature in accountable public service. We're already there and we're working to get better results.
I would finally like to take this opportunity to commend the IRB staff and my members. It is because of their professionalism and dedication to their work that we are here today.
We look forward to responding to any questions you may have. If anyone would like a detailed debriefing after the meeting at another date, we will gladly oblige.
We'd love to answer questions.
