Public Accounts Committee on May 28th, 2019

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As our witnesses very well know, in 2012 fundamental changes were made to the asylum system. These changes included new legislated timelines that forced a hearing to be scheduled within 30 days or 60 days. However, these rules did not apply to claims that were submitted prior to 2012. As a result, this created a backlog of 32,000 people, the so-called legacy backlog, some of whom have been waiting for a hearing for seven to eight years through no fault of their own. It's my understanding that a special task force was set up in 2012 to help clear this backlog. Can one of our witnesses update us on the progress of the work of that task force?

[Richard Wex]

I'm pleased to report the result of the work of the task force that was established within the Immigration and Refugee Board. Those 32,000 claims were holdover claims from the system's reforms in 2012. All new claims after the system reforms were subject to those 60-day time periods that you refer to—or slightly different timelines, depending on the country of origin—but there were 32,000 claims that were part of the new system but were not subject to the 60 days. What happened is they were not prioritized in our schedule, and those 32,000 claims, therefore, were a backlog that needed to be dealt with.

I'm very pleased to report that as of today, there are fewer than 100 of those claims. The backlog has been substantively eliminated. The 32,000 was eventually down to 5,500 in 2017, and we dedicated a task force to work on that. As of now, there are fewer than 100 principal claims, which are now being dealt with by the refugee protection division. The backlog is effectively eliminated.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you.

In this year's budget there was an even greater investment, with $208 million going to IRB over the next two fiscal years. How will this money be used? How many new staff will be hired with this money that's being committed? How do you see these resources helping to address the current number of claims in the system?

[Richard Wex]

Mr. Chair, as the member pointed out, budget 2019 follows investments in budget 2018 with $208 million. This will allow the IRB, over the next 24 months, to staff an additional 450 people, in addition to the 250 from budget 2018. Those monies are being allocated to hire additional decision-makers. Refugee protection decision-makers will grow from 120 to 300. Refugee appeal division Governor in Council appointees will grow from 70 to 103 this year, and close to 120 next year.

There are also, as Ms. MacDonald pointed out, investments associated with IT to allow us to achieve the objectives we've been discussing. Of course, there is important money set aside for space, accommodations and various enablers to help us grow as an organization.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Are we still scheduling hearings within the 60-day time period?

[Richard Wex]

No, we are no longer scheduling within the 60-day time period as a matter of course. We have found that we've been able to find increased efficiencies and improved productivity with a more balanced scheduling practice that allows us to move forward with assigning files to members who have expertise in certain countries, for example. That produces significant economies of scale.

It's the same for files that have been in the system a little longer, older files, almost on a first in, first out basis for natural justice reasons. Claimants are able to get their disclosure and their evidence ready, so we have a better hearing, and security screening and other public safety and security issues are better able to be addressed as well. The 60 days provided some challenges for the board to manage.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

It sounds as if we have been working to improve and invest in the system, and you've mentioned increased productivity at IRB. Do you have any specific numbers that can speak to how that productivity can be measured in a quantitative way?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Chen.

Go ahead, Mr. Wex.

[Richard Wex]

We've looked at the entire decision-making continuum, as Ms. MacDonald pointed out, from re-engineering the front end intake all the way to recourse. We've introduced a number of productivity and efficiency measures. It's difficult to quantify, of course, but the task force alone, which wasn't a task force to process less complex claims, finalized some 5,000 decisions out of 35,000 since January. You can see some significant additional efficiencies that were not there prior to these new, innovative approaches.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wex.

We'll now move to Mr. Arseneault, please.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your answers and for being here, ladies and gentlemen.

I don't have the experience of Mr. Christopherson or Ms. Mendès in the issues that concern us today, but I can tell you that, during my first term, whenever I had to talk about immigration or refugees in my riding, long-time speakers told us that they felt that these agencies were becoming labyrinths without a way out at the whim of governments in power, whether it is the current government or the previous one.

People say that previous governments hadn't invested or had made cuts. The current government has invested heavily in the budget over the past two years, but I am convinced that money isn't a cure-all and that it alone isn't enough to solve all the problems.

From the outset, we have heard representatives from the Office of the Auditor General tell us that the majority of delays are caused not by a lack of funds, but by administrative problems: computer systems that are deficient and inconsistent among the three organizations, underuse of digitized information in favour of old handwritten paperwork, duplication of work among organizations, and so on. All this can be summed up in one word: bureaucracy—in its most pejorative sense—or red tape.

Ms. MacDonald and Mr. Wex, I would like to ask you the following question. Before the Office of the Auditor General even called you and came to your offices to investigate, had you discussed together the concrete problem you were facing, namely, an excessive number of asylum requests, to see how to solve your problems or this red tape in your respective organizations?

You can start, Ms. MacDonald.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Ms. MacDonald.

[Lori MacDonald]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Arseneault.

We have been working extremely hard over the past number of years, and certainly in the past two to three years as the pressures have been mounting on the system, to take a look at ourselves inwardly in terms of what those pressures are, why they are there, if we are contributing to them and how to resolve them.

One of the reasons we advanced an independent review was that we wanted a set of outside eyes to take a look at us and to tell us how to address some of these issues. We were very cognizant that there were issues in the system.

That report was a platform for us. The OAG's report helped in terms of some of the issues that were identified in our independent review. It reinforced that to us.

Along that continuum, though, a number of initiatives were already started to try to address some of these issues that we have been facing.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I'll ask you the same question again, Mr. Wex. Before the Office of the Auditor General even knocked on your door to conduct its investigation, did your organization realize that it had problems dating back almost to the last century? Have you tried to solve these problems with a response team?

[Richard Wex]

I can tell you—and I would echo the thoughts and comments of Ms. MacDonald—that the folks here at this table are absolutely seized of this issue and have been since they have been in their positions. Although the Auditor General's report has been extremely helpful to us, I can't say that there were a lot of surprises—

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I'm sorry for interrupting you, Mr. Wex. I know—and I understand—that the report of the Office of the Auditor General has been useful to you. However, it seems to me that your organizations should have realized the problems raised in the report well before that and should have addressed them.

[Richard Wex]

That's right, and I am trying to say that. Although the Auditor General's reports were helpful, we already were seized of this.

As an example, the Auditor General has recommended that we pursue finalizing and reviewing less complex claims—expedited claims. That, in fact, is something we initiated before the audit. It so happens that the audit recommended that we do it, and I'm glad that the OAG has made recommendations that complement our efforts. Of course they have also identified some issues that we weren't fully seized of.

Yes, we were seized of these issues. We have been working together in the context of the Asylum System Management Board. There are significant issues here that have been exacerbated over the past two years. Collectively, we are working hard to address those issues.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Wex.

I have 20 seconds left, and I have a question for you, Mr. Ricard.

There were one million refugees in Germany in 2015. Last year, there were 100,000 in France, 200,000 in Germany and one million in the small country of Colombia. Those refugees came from Venezuela. I like to compare ourselves because often, “when we compare ourselves to others, we don't look so bad”.

Do you have any comparative studies showing how these countries have managed to welcome all these asylum seekers, whether they are refugees or, sometimes, illegal immigrants?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

Go ahead, Mr. Ricard.

[Sylvain Ricard]

We haven't done a comparative analysis. We have simply tried to paint a picture to guide the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

What about Ms. MacDonald? Obviously, Mr. Arseneault's question is a very good question. Other countries deal with this, or do they? What are the best practices? Are we adopting them? Are you looking at other countries' best practices?

[Lori MacDonald]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

I would say that one of the other things we're seized with is looking at what's happening around the world. We're participating in a number of forums, both domestically and internationally. In fact, in June of this year, we're hosting the Metropolis, which is a pretty significant international conference. You bring together people from around the world who are talking about these very issues with respect to how they're managing the migration movement, how they're dealing with the influx of refugees, what their systems are, what they're working on and how we can learn from them.

Many other countries learn lessons from Canada because of the nature of our system and our many years of welcoming immigrants and refugees to our country. They look at us for lessons learned. At the same time, we're looking at the impacts in other countries. We were just recently in Germany and looking at some of their lessons learned to see if there are things that we could adopt here. Are there things we're replicating that we shouldn't be? Also, what's the learned advice out there with respect to how we can improve our system?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Are we back again on the same....?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You asked for some extra time, right?