[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, April 23, 1997
.1541 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan, Lib.)): All right, the meeting is now called to order. The committee resumes its consideration of its order of reference dated Thursday, February 20, 1997, relating to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998. I call vote 15 under the Immigration and Refugee Board. As witnesses from the Immigration and Refugee Board today we have Nurjehan Mawani, Evelyn Levine, and Philip Palmer.
Is one person going to be making a presentation or are you all going to make presentations?
Ms Nurjehan Mawani (Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board): Mr. Chairman, I am going to commence. I will deal with questions from the members and my colleagues will assist with further information.
The Chairman: You're the chairperson, so I'm passing it over to you. Go ahead.
Ms Mawani: Thank you very much. With your permission, I would like to take a very few minutes of your time to make a short introduction.
[Translation]
At our last meeting, I submitted to you a list of our most recent achievements, including measures we have taken with respect to the refugee status determination process, organization renewal and increasing our productivity.
I am pleased to be able to inform you today but all those plans are bearing fruit.
[English]
We met last on June 18, 1996. We have continued since then to innovate, to design, and to refine efficiency and productivity enhancements. These have enabled us to meet our objectives. Today I would like to give you a very quick overview of our recent accomplishments, a list of our commitments, how we intend to meet those commitments, and other initiatives that may be of interest to you.
I would like to begin by dealing with the recent interest in one of our refugee division decisions involving a 12-year-old child from the United Kingdom. I simply want to reinforce what we have already said. First, it's a very unusual case. Second, the decision did not create a precedent, despite media claims to that effect. Third, it is not binding. Fourth, it is one decision among close to 22,000 we made last year. And fifth, safeguards are built into the system. The minister or refugee claimants can exercise their right to seek a judicial review of board decisions.
.1545
So it's with great pleasure that I will now summarize the board's recent accomplishments. We are presently finalizing more refugee claims than are being referred to us, our most significant productivity improvement. In 1996 the refugee division's output increased by over 25% from the previous year. In the same year, the output of our immigration appeal division increased by 33%, and it is also now processing more appeals than it receives. The number of refugee claims finalized per member rose from 115 in 1995 to 165 in 1996 and to just over 200 so far in 1997.
For the appeal division, the number of appeals filed per member for the same period rose from 135 to 190. Our adjudication division, which has been part of the board since 1993, has a record of keeping its caseload current in all regions with only a minimal inventory.
We are proud of our gains, Mr. Chairman. Our accomplishments are all the more noteworthy because we achieved them with less than a full complement of members for the large part of 1995. Our gains in large part result from single-member hearings, which we can only have by consent until the legislation goes through, and aggressive case management practices. If members have any questions on these case management initiatives or anything else, of course I will be pleased to answer them.
Several initiatives have enabled us to continue to improve the quality of our decision-making and the quality of service to the public. These include: training for members; various tools, legal and technical, for members, including hands-on training; three sets of guidelines; a commentary on undocumented and improperly documented claimants; advances in case management; specialized teams; pre-hearing conferences; realignment for delivery in the regions and our organizational renewal.
We also participated last fall in Treasury Board's pilot project on performance reporting, and we have tabled, as you know, the report on plans and priorities.
The immigration appeal division and the convention division have established goals to uphold our corporate priority for the next fiscal year. In the appeal division we expect to finalize 15% to 20% more appeals in 1997-98, and we commit to processing an average appeal in less than nine months from the time a record is received. In our refugee division we expect to finalize 10,000 more claims in 1997-98 and also to finalize claims within six to eight months of referral from CIC by the end of 1998.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are our commitments.
Our most recent indicators forecast a lower number of referrals to the board. We are expecting 22,000 new claims for this year and 10% fewer appeals for the appeal division. If there is interest on the part of the committee, I will be happy to answer questions on why the projected reduction.
We have said in our various documents we are fully prepared to meet our targets. We are dependent on several external factors to fully optimize our performance. It's predicated on single-member hearings, a full complement of members, and the retention of experienced members. The first of these three conditions is of course dependent on Bill C-49 receiving royal assent. On the latter two situations, i.e. the complement of members and a critical mass of expertise, I am pleased to say that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has responded in terms of both new appointments and the reappointment of experienced members.
Our commitments may seem lofty to some of you. Let me explain why we believe in our capacity to achieve them and how we will do so. Our 1997 key indicators show we are building with success on our past performance. We believe that 1996 productivity gains are a result of quality-driven work. We have made further inroads into our processing time. We believe we'll be able to accomplish this because we view quality as an essential ingredient to success. One measure of the quality of our decision-making is that the Federal Court of Canada set aside less than 1% of our refugee division's decisions, less than 1% of our appeal division's decisions, and only 0.05% of the decisions of our adjudication division.
.1550
On our capacity to be cost-effective, I would like to point out that in the 1992-93 fiscal year we finalized over 28,000 decisions with a budget of $90 million; in 1996-97 we finalized over 40,000 decisions with a budget of $70 million.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier, Lib.): If we keep cutting, will we get more output?
Ms Mawani: We're getting more efficient, but we need a minimum.
[Translation]
Over the past two years, our Montreal regional office has received an unexpected number of claims, and this considerable increase imposed major challenges on its ability to process such applications within reasonable time limits, and also to manage its human and financial resources.
We project that in 1997 the net number of claims received by the Montreal office will return to normal, that is 35 to 40% of the number of Canada as a whole.
[English]
These accomplishments and some I would like to describe I think build a solid foundation for carrying out our 1997-98 commitments.
A couple of significant initiatives, quite aside from case management strategies, include our ``Commentary on Undocumented or Improperly Documented Persons''. It acknowledges that this class of refugee claimants presents procedural and processing challenges and it deals with issues that include credibility and the burden of proof.
We have entered into an administrative framework agreement with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It is a strategic approach to portfolio management and is the first one of its kind to be entered into by a tribunal with the department within the same portfolio. The idea behind it is to make the most effective use of resources that are managed separately but within the same portfolio.
[Translation]
A number of other initiatives also enhanced our productivity and the quality of our work, including the increased use of new technology such as video-conference hearings, OLIVER and Internet site, improved STAR technology, electronic records and discussions with the de Department of Citizenship and Immigration to increase our electronic exchange of information.
[English]
To conclude, I invite you to read in detail our report on plans and priorities - our estimates - for further information on the extent of our commitments and the means by which we will fulfil them. It has probably been evident during my presentation that the IRB is at the crossroads. It's time for us now to reap the results of these undertakings. As I've illustrated, this is already our reality.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
I'm sorry about the interruption. It's a 30-minute bell and the bell started four minutes ago. We can continue for a little while and stop at 15 minutes. Is that all right?
Mr. Nunez, we'll give you 10 minutes and then we'll dismiss for the vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, B.Q.): Thank you, Ms Mawani, for your presentation. I find that you are always optimistic, a little too optimistic. You always present the major achievements of the IRB, and of the government.
I would have liked to be given a more objective report. What are the difficulties encountered by the IRB? Why does the IRB have so many delays. What are the major challenges facing it? On the eve of the 21st century, the Bloc Québécois believes that the IRB is playing an essential role in the refugee status determination process. We have never called into question this organization which is so important to Canada.
.1555
However, we cannot ignore the staggering delays in the processing of claims by the IRB: 32,000 files in abeyance, that is far too many. Over half of those files are in Montreal. These delays cause enormous problems for the claimants, who are separated from their families and don't know what the IRB will decide. This is a very serious problem for the Quebec government, for Quebec which is part of the federal system and also for the other provinces which have to incur enormous expenses in order to help the individuals concerned. I am not questioning what the provinces do, but this is a federal responsibility. Why do the provinces have to assume so much responsibility?
You just said that productivity is increasing at the IRB. How do you explain that there are 32,000 files in abeyance today and that over half are in Montreal.
[English]
Ms Mawani: Thank you very much.
Yes, I'm optimistic about our ability to make the inroads I have just talked about. None of us likes long processing times, because naturally they affect, as you said, the refugee claimants and the rest of the system. Sometimes it's out of our hands, because we may get a situation where there's a sudden influx of claimants that was unexpected. As you know, that did happen to us. While our projections for our caseload were for 22,000 and 23,000, nevertheless in 1995 our numbers went up quite substantially.
If the large influx comes to one particular region, as happened in Montreal...traditionally, as you know, Mr. Nunez, our figures for Montreal are about 37% of the national caseload. However, it went up to over 45%; almost to 52%. Really, that is a factor beyond our control.
What is important for us is to have responded to that. I would submit that we have responded to it and we have dealt with those cases. We had to respond, though, not on a first-come, first-serve basis...but to deal with the very large number of claims that suddenly arrived and that would have had the effect of making our processing time later.
The good news is that in spite of this increase of our caseload in Montreal to almost 52%, our delay in processing time is still at the national average. It did not go up. That means we were doing something right in Montreal.
I would submit that we were dealing with a situation where we did not have our full complement of members, which we are getting to now. Our statistics show we have reached equilibrium in the last quarter of 1996, and more importantly, in the first quarter of 1997 we have actually started to complete more cases than we are receiving. We are eating into that inventory.
So yes, I agree with you we have an inventory that is too high. We have taken every single step to ensure it starts to get reduced. That's part of the commitment we are making to this committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: Do you consider that the fact that the government also often proceeds in a partisan way when appointing IRB members is a factor in explaining such delays? You laugh, but I would mention the name of Ms Folco, who was a liberal candidate in the riding of Laval-West and was appointed to the IRB. She will run again for the Liberal Party in the next election.
There is a technical committee reviewing such nominations, but that has not improved the system. If Board members were appointed exclusively on the basis of their competence, qualifications and experience, I think that they could deal with applications more quickly. I believe that the fact that the government may appoint one Board member for a two-year period, whereas another may be appointed for one, three or four years, also has an impact on their work. They have to spend time preparing so as to be reappointed. They live in fear and with constant instability. Do you believe that the fact that there are so many partisan appointments has an impact on the system of processing claims?
.1600
[English]
Ms Mawani: Mr. Nunez, as you're aware, the appointments are made by the government from the recommendations that have been submitted by the independent advisory committee on appointments.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: And you are on this committee?
Ms Mawani: I am, sir. I would confirm that this government has made no appointment that was not recommended by this committee. I would also confirm that not a single member has been reappointed whose name was not recommended by the committee.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: How do you explain that so many Liberals have been appointed?
Ms Mawani: Mr. Nunez, the committee looks at the quality of the experiences and the qualifications of the candidate.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: In the Bloc Québécois there are also many qualified people, and no member of this....
Ms Mawani: The committee's role is to review the candidates' CVs, deal with their reference checks and their interviews, and subsequently make recommendations to the minister. That is as far as the role of the committee is concerned.
On your comment that there are varying terms for members, the mandates vary over periods of two, three, four, five years, and yes, sir, I agree it can cause instability. However, in recent times we have found we are getting some longer-term mandates, and it is of great assistance to the board.
However, I myself have recommended to the government that we should have some variance in the mandates, because it gives us flexibility. Our caseload is not stable. We need some flexibility, but we also need a critical mass of expertise. I'm therefore pleased to report to this committee that in fact in the last year particularly the minister has responded to these concerns. I think it has positioned us very well to deliver our mandate in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: Last year, the Estimates indicated that the time needed by the Appeal Division to process a case, from receipt of the file to the handing down of the final decision, was7.5 months. Today, it takes 10 to 11 months. What are the particular difficulties you know about at the Appeal Division? Is it the case that Board members don't want to be appointed to that Division? Is it too complicated? Why are there so many problems in that particular division?
[English]
Mr. Mawani: Mr. Nunez, I'm not sure about the figures. For the last two years we have had, in my view, far too lengthy delays in our ability to be able to process the appeals. There are several reasons for this. One is that in 1995 we received a much higher number of appeals than we traditionally do. These are sponsorship appeals and deportation appeals. Secondly, we were operating with a much reduced member complement.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: Could you submit a document?
The Chairman: Your time's up, Mr. Nunez. We will adjourn and reconvene right after -
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Why don't you let me ask my question; well, not one question, but let me speak for five minutes.
The Chairman: Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Good afternoon. I'm interested in your approach to the solving of problems. The approach I see to the solving of increased appeals is to throw more people at them. How about reducing the number of appeals? Has anybody thought of that?
Ms Mawani: Mr. Wappel, we have to deal with the appeals that are filed with us. The question of reducing the actual number of appeals filed with us, frankly, is a matter of the legislative rights of individuals. So that's really -
Mr. Tom Wappel: Have you made any recommendations to the minister in that regard?
Ms Mawani: It's a matter I'm sure the legislative review committee the minister has appointed will be looking at.
.1605
Mr. Tom Wappel: Let's hope so, because it seems to me throwing more people and more money at an ever-increasing problem is no way to solve it.
What happened in the CRDD? Every year we get promises things will get better. Now we see that we have 32,000 cases at the end of this year, 10,000 more than there should have been, if I read this right. What happened to the number of cases being constantly reduced?
Every time you come back here - I don't mean you, with the greatest respect. Every time somebody comes back here, things always look worse. You always need more people; you always need more money. What is the reason for that?
Ms Mawani: With the greatest respect, we have not come back asking for more money in a long time. In fact, if you look at our documents, you'll see that our budget has been decreasing very substantially.
Mr. Tom Wappel: But you're complaining that because of a lack of resources, a lack of person-years, or however you phrase it these days, you can't keep up with the workload. That's the same thing. I don't care how you couch it, it's the same thing: we're getting behind because we don't have enough resources.
Ms Mawani: There is more than one factor involved. Yes, we do need a certain minimum number of members, but that also has been going down. The reason we have been able to deal with that is because our per-member productivity has gone up, and it has been going up very substantially, as I said in my remarks. I think that is quite a major achievement.
With regard to our ability to deal with the caseload in the refugee division, when we came before this committee before, sir, we said we had some problems. A lot of those do go back two or three years to when the caseload suddenly went up, and we had to have enough resources to be able to deal with that, not financial resources but people resources. We have them now, and we are seeing a difference.
But it's not just that. We have introduced a tremendous number of efficiency measures, such as the case management initiatives. What you find, sir, is that when you start introducing new initiatives, the results are not immediate. This is a large organization, and it deals with decisions that affect people's lives. So when changes are made, it takes a minimum, I would submit, of 18 months to two years before we begin to reap the results.
Mr. Tom Wappel: I'd like to ask one last question, Mr. Chair.
How many appeals to the IAD are successful as a percentage of appeals per year?
Ms Mawani: I don't have the figure right here with me, but I think it's less than 40%. I can double-check that for you.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Let's assume it is 40%. That means four out of 10 decisions are viewed by the IAD as incorrect.
Ms Mawani: Yes.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Don't you consider that to be a problem?
Ms Mawani: I don't think one can make a general statement, because it's on a case-by-case basis. It really depends on that. Subsequently, there is a provision that if people are not satisfied with the decision, they can seek a review of the decision.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Before the members disperse, I'd like to remind you there will be a meeting tomorrow at3:30 p.m. I would like to know right now which of you will be here tomorrow.
Mr. Tom Wappel: I will not be there.
The Chairman: Colleen?
Ms Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Do you mean for the meeting tomorrow?
The Chairman: Yes, tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. I have to know definitely. We have a person coming in from Winnipeg, and if we don't have a quorum, we cannot proceed with the meeting. So we would have to phone that person and tell him to cancel his flight.
Are you coming here tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.?
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: I don't know, but I have one observation.
The Chairman: No, I'm sorry, we have to go. You have nine minutes to get to the House.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: No, it's not a question. I would only like to ask if you could give us a written presentation, because we didn't have enough time to interact.
The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.