They currently are not able to meet the demand. At my meeting with Mr. Dion in May, the IRB had a backlog of 24,000 cases. Let me just repeat that so committee members can hear this and hear it clearly: there is a backlog of 24,000 cases right now at the IRB. That backlog increases by 1,000 cases per month. Again, let me just repeat that so everyone is clear about the situation the IRB is faced with: the backlog is increasing by 1,000 cases a month.
For various reasons only 50% of the cases are actually heard within the statutory timeframe. IRB is financially stressed. No efficiencies can make up for this. At this very committee I questioned the minister about legacy claims and the need for resources at the IRB. He acknowledged this when stated that “I think the approach should be efficiencies plus resources”. Well, it's clear that the efficiencies are, in fact, being made. What's also clear, unfortunately, is that the minister isn't holding up his end and providing the necessary resources.
To make matters worse, just yesterday the IRB was described as “adequately funded” in response to a question I asked the minister. What prompted this change in opinion? Did the minister misspeak? Was he serious when he said that the IRB was being adequately funded? We had the chair of the IRB say otherwise. They have a backlog of 24,000 cases sitting right now in their docket, and with each passing month another 1,000 cases are added to that. Honestly, in what universe does the minister think this is adequately resourcing the IRB?
You have legacy cases, and people's lives are stuck in limbo for years on end without knowing if they can have permanent residence here or not. I don't know about you, but if I were stuck in that situation and didn't know what my future looked like, each day would seem like a year. These individuals have been stuck in that situation year after year. With this backlog increasing by 1,000 cases a month, we're going to create a brand new category of legacy cases under this government.
Funding hasn't changed. In fact, we know that internal funding has been reallocated, increasing stresses on the system. To echo the serious concerns of the other opposition members of the committee, we need the minister to appear before this committee so that we can ask him these questions. This is a clear and significant change in the way the funding of the IRB is viewed. Members of this committee deserve to know what brought it about. The longer the government fails to acknowledge the issues present in the system, the more the integrity of the system is put at risk in a time of unprecedented global forced displacements and growing anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric. This is something Canada simply cannot afford to allow to happen.
Yet here we are, with this committee refusing to acknowledge the issues in the system and continuing to vote against even debating my motion to have a study on the irregular border crossings. The committee members say I am disrupting the committee and its work. I do not understand why committee members can't even vote on a simple motion.