Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Gerry Van Kessel]

Yes, I think timing is critical. But if, for example, you have—and this is strictly my opinion, because I'm not a departmental witness—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

No, no, I understand that. I totally understand that, but—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm afraid that's it.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

That's it? Thank you, Mr. Tilson. You have been kind.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Thi Lac, you're up.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Good evening to you all. I would like to thank you for your presence and presentations.

In the past few weeks, a lot has been said and many witnesses have been heard as part of the current study on this bill. What we have gathered is that the timelines are now too long, compared with the bill's stated objectives. As well, we should never forget that since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, over one-third of the board member positions have been left vacant. That has led to a significant backlog. A lot has been made about the fact that people submit claims even though they are not genuine claimants.

Moreover, by delaying the introduction of legislation to monitor the work of consultants, the government has not helped those claimants who might have filed badly prepared claims because they did not have the information or advice needed to find their way through the system when submitting their claims.

What do you think of the fact that, within eight days, public servants are to provide claimants with advice on how to present their claims? Should the bill not be more specific, so that claimants be referred to legal counsel instead? We know that, in the first days after their arrival, claimants do not understand our system. It is a difficult process, and public servants should remain neutral. They are not necessarily the ones who will give them useful information to prepare their claims. Do you share that opinion?

[Gerry Van Kessel]

Merci.

I'm completely convinced that public servants are neutral when it comes to gathering information. Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. That means we've accepted obligations not to refuse people who meet the definition of the convention. The job of a public servant in this regard is to gather information relevant to that decision. The public servant, in my experience, does not have any personal stake or personal opinion with respect to whether that should be a negative or a positive decision with respect to the information that is to be gathered. So I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that public servants will gather the necessary information so that when it goes to the first-level decision-maker the information is there. And if the first-level decision-maker concludes that the information has been inappropriately collected or reflects a bias of any type, that will be cleared up very quickly.

I say that without any hesitation. Having had experience with adjudicators, having been with the department and so on, I can say they were truly independent beings. When an important decision was to come down and we, as senior executives, would meet, we'd be wondering what in the world would be coming down the line, because we had no idea. And we also knew that it was not our business to interfere.

I have no difficulty with that. And if there are public servants who do that, then the appropriate measures should be taken.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

My time is limited, and so I will ask you two or three questions back-to-back and then let you respond.

Since our goal is to improve the bill, in your view, which part of this legislation is most problematic? What should be improved?

We also heard about the risks of establishing source countries. It has often been said that claimants from source countries would not be able to file appeals. We also heard that the minister could not appeal a favourable decision in the case of a national from a source country. The minister is also being deprived of that right of appeal. I did want to hear you on that.

Would the accelerated processing not also lead to the dismissal of claims by public servants? Indeed, they would also be disadvantaged because they would not have had the information needed to answer all the questions concerning the information obtained during the first meeting with claimants.

Finally, there has been talk about a principle similar to that of the Chief Electoral Officer. With regard to the appointments, could we not recruit candidates from outside the public service, similar to what is done by the Chief Electoral Officer?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The problem is you've asked four questions and given them a minute to answer.

However, you can answer any of those questions, Mr. Van Kessel.

[Gerry Van Kessel]

I'll be very quick.

The most problematic part of the bill, I think, are the assumptions made around timelines, and whether those can really be met, because immigration and refugees are not a static situation. If any of those elements change, then the assumptions change and the timelines change. That, to me, is the most vulnerable part of it.

What I'm saying on the question about safe country of origin is that if we can demonstrate that the status quo has a problem, then the new system will have a problem. But I'm not aware the status quo has a problem. Our approval rate is higher than that of any country, without an appeal.

The expedited process, reject claims for insufficient information.... There is an appeal to the Federal Court. If the Federal Court finds there has been insufficient information, or there's been something askew, something not done right, the Federal Court, in my experience, is not in the least hesitant to point this out in a very forthright manner.

Finally, with respect to appointments, it is my conviction that they are completely independent, based on my experience with adjudicators when they were in the department, not with the IRB. My experience with some of the members of the IRB was that because their appointment was up after a certain period of time, they got very concerned about how their decision-making was seen at the political level. So I think regardless of the system you have, there can be problems, but civil servants, because they have a lifetime guarantee, really can and will be independent.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Dr. Wong.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

I would like to share my time with Rick first, and then take my turn.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

There is one thing that continually comes up at the beginning of our discussions when we are questioning our witnesses, and Ms. Mendes highlighted it very well. It's this whole issue around the eight-day process. This seems to have taken over the first part of every witness presentation. There is an interpretation by every witness who has come to present here that the eight-day process is going to lead to some form of outcome in terms of a decision.

We need to be clear that there are no fully set out regulations concerning what the eight-day process would look like. I'd like it if witnesses would actually give us some suggestions as to what they think should be in that eight-day process, or whether they think it should be a little longer. I know that most witnesses do; they can certainly put that on the table. But to suggest that the eight-day process is some sort of interview resulting in a decision is simply incorrect. For the record, I think we need to get that straightened out, and if it has to be done each time a panel comes to committee, I think it is critical and important.

Ms. Mendes asked about the eight-day process and then the sixty-day process that would follow. I want to quickly clear up that those are not actually in the legislation. Neither of them is in the legislation. They are going to be dealt with under the regulations that will be completed after the legislation is passed.

I will turn it back over to Ms. Wong.

But there definitely is a misinterpretation of what the initial process stands for. I think Mr. Van Kessel did a decent job of describing it. It's the ability to collect information as quickly as possible to the benefit of the applicant. It is not judicial. It is not quasi-judicial. It is not, in any form, some sort of legal representation or presentation that would be defined under legal structure. It is a process to assist, in every way that it can, the individual who is making the application.

[Jordan Pachciarz Cohen]

May I speak to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, you may. Go ahead, sir.

[Jordan Pachciarz Cohen]

I think I can answer both questions, from both members of the committee. My concern with the eight-day process is not that there is a law or that it's going to have an outcome; it's the fact that it's not going to provide accurate information, which could possibly lead to inaccurate credibility determinations at the actual hearing.

Refugee protection officers at the Immigration and Refugee Board are considered neutral, but in all my experiences of going to hearings, representing people, supporting people, the refugee protection officer who supports the IRB board member to make the decision and who asks all the questions is hardly neutral and is very harsh. In Maria Eva's hearing, the person was absolutely not neutral. She was extremely harsh with her around describing the sexual violence she suffered, and she made it very clear she did not believe a word Maria Eva was saying, even though she was providing very credible and consistent testimony.

The question is whether or not--

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Chair, it's my turn now.

I understand what you said, but that is the present system. That is why you wanted to change it. Right now in the new system the IRB hires people as interviewing officers. They won't do the initial collecting of data. That will be impartial. Those people will be well trained so they are understanding. They know what the challenges are. They also have the flexibility to adjourn interviews to a later date in cases where there's evidence of trauma or vulnerability.

So in that case, why should we not have a reformed system that aims to have a decision on a claim as soon as possible in most cases? That's exactly what happens right now, and that's exactly why we need the reform. A chair of the IRB was here presenting to us how he's going to hire those people, how those interviewing officers are going to be impartial, and how he is willing to go beyond the normal government servants and maybe seek experts from outside. That is what the IRB has assured us.

Also regarding the designated safe country with regard to what Mr. Kessel has just said, in countries there are also allowances for special cases. For example, I keep mentioning the U.K. They counted Ghana, for example, as a safe destination country of origin. However, they know that the women there face some persecution of some kind. They allow the women to be considered specifically. So if we allow that, wouldn't that be an area where we can really speed up the process?

Mr. Kessel, that question is for you.

[Gerry Van Kessel]

The question of where you draw the line between efficiency and fairness is indeed very difficult. I think you'll agree that the devil is in the details. So it's the question of what the details tell you about how you deal with the exception. The problem in refugee determination so often is when the exception becomes the rule, it becomes the means whereby what I would call non-genuine claimants stay for a long period of time. So you have to have this balancing act.

Yes, it requires of the government a considerable amount of subtlety to try to identify those categories where you want to pay the attention, because I do not know of a government of the kind that worked in my organization in Geneva and so on that did not take its signatory obligations seriously. But at the same time, it took its obligations to protect its borders seriously. So this constant balancing took place. I think it can be done, but do I think it will end arguments about where that line is? No, and I don't think it should either.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're well over. I'm sorry, Mrs. Wong.

Mr. Bevilacqua.

[The Honourable Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their presentations. As we hear the many witnesses who appear in front of this committee, we're always learning as parliamentarians what the strengths and weaknesses are of this piece of legislation. Of course our ultimate objective is to improve it to essentially better serve refugees who come to our country for very obvious reasons.

We're all aware of the concerns about the timelines or some concerns about designation of safe countries of origin, the H and C bar, humanitarian and compassionate application. These are issues that have been discussed in detail, and they are quite repetitive in nature. The more we hear it, the more we've been able to inculcate it. Now it's time to begin to distill what it is we want to do with this.

But I have a broader question that I think sometimes is missed. Prior to the government's announcement, I personally asked the question of the Minister of Immigration in reference to the backlog that existed, in reference to the inefficiency of the refugee system, and in reference to all the things that I heard across the country vis-à-vis refugees and the system. I decided on that particular day that the status quo was simply not an option.

First of all, I want to hear from you. Is the status quo still an option for you? Secondly, as you're all aware, we are faced with a fairly large deficit, an increasing national debt, and at the same time we have an investment of approximately $540 million of new resources to be allocated in the reform package. Should that be left on the table or not, for those who advocate not investing or not moving ahead with this?

I'd like to know from all of you, where are you on this? Do you think we should work towards improving this bill? Should we be scrapping the bill? It's quite important for us to know that kind of thing.

Mr. Van Kessel.

[Gerry Van Kessel]

I'm in favour of improving our current situation. I think the current situation, for a number of reasons, is not one that should be sustained. When it takes so long for people who have refugee protection needs to find that out, that's a bad situation. When it takes so long for people who want to take advantage of the refugee system and they want to put down roots in this country--and I appreciate the positive decision they've made about this country--then it throws into disrepute a system that is intended to show the best of what Canada is. And I think that's really important. So the current system needs to be improved.

When you have the number of people that we have right now in our backlog, it's going to take money to correct that situation. There is just no other way around it. I remember going to Treasury Board once and trying to explain this kind of situation and telling them, pay me now or pay me later, but pay me you will, because this simply costs money. The only question is, how are we going to do it? I don't think the status quo is an option.

I think the spending of money, if it's done properly.... For example, if you combine really effective methods to stop people who just want a better life and who use the refugee determination system to get that, that money is effective. And if the numbers come down, the costs will come down. Sometimes it can be an upfront cost. Now, I don't want to raise hopes too much on that one, because the immigration world is one that confounds almost everyone continuously. So I think the money has to be spent.

If you start removing people in numbers, the message starts to get through that it's not worth it, that if you want to go somewhere and make some money to start building a better life, then don't do it here, do it elsewhere, try elsewhere.

Those are the kinds of things you have to keep in mind. The worst thing you can do--and this is the irony--the fairer you are, the greater is the exposure that you have to people who just want that better life. That's where you have to make some really tough decisions.

So I say no to the status quo. In the short run it's not an option. We need changes.

As for how well the current system will work, I haven't studied it in sufficient detail to give as thoughtful an answer as you might like. But in this business I hesitate to be too positive, because the demand by people for a better life almost always overcomes the efforts of government to manage it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

That concludes our time with the witnesses.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Maybe he could have a couple of minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Did you have something to say, Mr. Cohen?

[Jordan Pachciarz Cohen]

Can I answer his question?