PACC Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Introduction
Background
Observations and Recommendations
Conclusion
Dissenting Opinions of the Ninth Report
THE PROCESSING OF REFUGEE CLAIMS
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has the honour to present its
NINTH REPORT
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts has considered Chapter 25 of the December 1997 Report of the Auditor General of Canada (Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Immigration and Refugee Board --- The Processing of Refugee Claims) and the Committee has agreed to report the following:
The process of determining refugee status is difficult and takes place within the context of complex laws and regulations. A balance must be achieved between compassion for refugee claimants and the fundamental needs of Canadian society; a society committed to providing safe haven for genuine refugees.
The costs associated with the refugee claims processing system are considerable. Fragmentary data indicate that the administrative costs to the federal government of processing claims amounts to approximately $100 million each year. The provinces are responsible for providing a variety of social services to support claimants. In Quebec and Ontario, a partial estimate puts these costs at about $100 million each on an annual basis. Due to changing arrangements, particularly in Ontario , many of the costs related to the support of claimants are borne by municipalities. In summary, the costs are such that widespread benefits could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the processing of claims.
Because determination of refugee status is important and because the associated costs are substantial, the Committee decided to examine Chapter 25 of the Auditor General’s December 1997 Report. Accordingly, on 5 February 1998 the Committee met with Mr. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada), Mr. Richard Flageole (Assistant Auditor General) and Mr. Serge Gaudet (Principal, Audit Operations) from the Office of the Auditor General. Ms. Janice Cochrane (Deputy Minister) and Mr. Marc Lafrenière (Associate Deputy Minister) represented the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Ms. Nurjehan Mawani (Chairperson), Mr. Paul Thibault (Executive Director) and Mr. John Frecker (Deputy Chairperson, Convention Refugee Determination Division) represented the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Owing to the complexity and importance of this issue, a second meeting was held on 17 February 1998. Mr. Denis Desautels, Mr. Richard Flageole, and Mr. Serge Gaudet appeared as witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General. Mr. Greg Fyffe (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development), Mr. Georges Tsai (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services), and Mr. Brian Grant (Acting Director General, Enforcement Branch) appeared on behalf of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Mr. Paul Thibault and Mr. John Frecker represented the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The responsibility for processing refugee claims is divided between the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (the Department) and the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board).
The Department and the Board are independent from one another. The Department decides whether claimants are eligible for access to the refugee determination system. The Convention Refugee Determination Division within the Board is then responsible for determining if the claimant really is a refugee under the terms of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. If the claim is rejected, then the Department is responsible for removing the claimant from Canada. The Department is also responsible for handling other avenues of appeal open to rejected claimants who still wish to remain in Canada.
This structure and its practices were implemented in 1989 in response to a backlog of some 85,000 unprocessed claims. The new arrangements were expected to produce quick, equitable and efficient resolution of claims and the removal of failed claimants.
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee learned that the current structure and practices are not meeting their objectives. The backlog of unprocessed claims is high (close to 37,500 awaiting a decision by the Department or the Board as of 31 March 1997) and processing is lengthy. In 1996-97, it took an average of 13 months to process a claim. Removals of rejected claimants were also problematic: of the approximately 31,200 claimants denied refugee status between 1993-1997, or were not otherwise accepted in Canada, only 22 percent had confirmed their departure. The Auditor General estimates that a claimant can expect to stay in Canada for more than two and a half years. He also estimates that those who have been ordered removed but have not left on average have been in Canada for two and a half years.
The causes of these problems are not confined to any specific area of the claims processing system; they are found at every stage of the process. The Auditor General reports that he found "problems of efficiency and operational effectiveness and a lack of rigour at various stages," and observed "weaknesses that pervade the entire process --- a lack of co-ordination, integration, strategic direction, and overall follow-up." (25.35) As he points out, piecemeal change will not solve the problems uncovered by the audit.
Witnesses from the Department and the Board were quick to acknowledge the audit findings and agreed to implement all of the Auditor General’s recommendations. The Committee was informed that several initiatives are now under way and that more are to come. The Committee is also aware that the Legislative Review Advisory Group (the Advisory Group) tasked by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to advise her on the best future direction for Canadian immigration laws has reported its findings. Many of the Advisory Group’s recommendation deal directly with issues raised in the audit and are now the subject of extensive consultations.
The Auditor General acknowledged the Advisory Group’s contribution. In addition he suggested that there might be other ways to address the concerns he has raised. (1655) The Committee agrees, and presents the following recommendations in the hope that they will contribute to the review and rebuilding effort and that they will lead immediately to efficiencies in the process.
The Department is responsible for determining eligibility for access to the system. The audit reveals several problems at this stage. Rulings are often made in the absence of relevant information. Although genuine refugees often have good cause to be without sufficient documentation, close to 60 percent of claimants lack such documentation. Yet since 1993, over 99 percent of the claims have been judged eligible. If more diligence were exercised at an early stage, strain on the process might be reduced. The Committee therefore recommends:
That the Department of Citizenship and Immigration develop a strategy to make the initial examination of claims more rigorous to ensure that eligibility criteria are met. This strategy must include targets and implementation deadlines.
Of those claiming refugee status in Canada, the majority arrives from a country other than the one in which they claim that they were subject to persecution. In 1989, Parliament gave the Department the authority to deny access to the refugee claims process by claimants arriving from countries known to respect human rights. The audit revealed, however, that this authority has never been used. Ms. Cochrane told the Committee that the government prefers to negotiate responsibility-sharing agreements on a bilateral basis with countries considered to be safe third countries. She indicated that this was a political, rather than an administrative decision. The Committee believes that application of this authority would help relieve pressure on the claims processing system. It therefore recommends:
That the Government of Canada assign priority to negotiation of responsibility sharing agreements with countries considered to be safe third countries.
The results of the audit show clearly that the timely collection and sharing of relevant data presents a challenge to both the Department and the Board. For example, the Auditor General commented that the Department’s information systems "could not compile the information needed to account for the resources used in processing refugee claims." (25.38) Information gathered when claims are initially examined could be more complete and relevant, and could be better shared between the Department and the Board. (25.48 – 25.50) The Department has insufficient information to oversee the granting of permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. (25.129) It also lacks the information it needs to manage removals effectively. (25.138) The Department, according to the Auditor General, "does not know how many persons are ready for removal." (25.138).
During testimony, departmental officials indicated that the Department has a plan in place to deal with the situation. A new case management system is expected to be in place during the first part of 1999. This system is intended to address the shortcomings identified by the audit. Apart from this, Ms. Cochrane acknowledged that the Department’s systems "are old and they don’t allow us [the Department] to capture the kind of information that we need." (1720)
If the Department and the Board are to manage the claims process efficiently, they need access to data that is timely and complete. This information is also needed to support the accountability of the Department and the Board for their activities related to refugee claims processing. The Committee therefore recommends:
That the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Board develop a strategy to put in place the information systems needed to address gaps identified by the Auditor General. This strategy must include an evaluation of costs and expected benefits as well as targets and implementation deadlines.
The Committee also notes that the Department and the Board are now making a greater effort to share the information that they have gathered and to co-ordinate their efforts in general. These are steps in the right direction and the Committee encourages the Department and the Board to pursue them with renewed vigour.
As indicated, information on the activities of the Department and the Board is needed to support accountability. Yet the Auditor General observed that neither the Department nor the Board have provided complete and relevant information on the processing of refugee status claims in their Estimates documents (Performance Reports, Reports on Plans and Priorities). The Committee believes that the quality of this information must be improved and notes that the Department and the Board have agreed to do so. Accordingly, the Committee recommends:
That the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Review Board provide information on their activities related to refugee status determination in their annual Performance Reports. This information must be based on a set of clearly articulated performance measurements and emphasize results rather than process.
The Committee shares the concerns of the Auditor General with regard to the appointment of members to the Board. In order to make decisions that are both fair and timely, Board members must have sufficient experience with the system. The audit shows that in the recent past, terms of appointment have been relatively short and that there has been a high turnover among members. This results in low productivity and helps add to the backlog of unprocessed claims. Additional costs are also incurred as the result of the need to train new members. Ms. Mawani indicated that longer terms are helpful to the Board. (1620) The Committee notes that recently, the terms of appointment have been longer and turnover has been reduced. Because it is important to maintain a workable level of expertise on the Board, the Committee recommends:
That the government increase the length of appointment when it renews the terms of members of the Immigration and Refugee Review Board. In particular, the government should take past performance into consideration when it re-appoints members for longer terms.
Under existing legislation, hearings at the Board can take place with only one member present provided the claimant has consented. According to the Board’s Performance Report for the period ending 31 March 1997, single-member hearings, with consent of the claimant, grew from 9 percent of all hearings in 1995-96 to 21 percent in 1996-97. Elsewhere in the Report, the Board indicates that the increased use of single-member panels contributed to the Board’s productivity gains during 1996-97. The Committee believes that pending any possible legislative change, this avenue offers the potential for added efficiencies and therefore recommends:
That the Board actively explore ways in which to increase the number of hearings that are held with one member present.
The Committee is also concerned that the Board may not have sufficient resources to carry out its mandate. Ms. Mawani testified that with a steady complement of members (currently 169) and a yearly intake of 25,000 claimants, the Board expects that its processing times will be eight months by fiscal year 2000 – 2001. She projected that the pending caseload would be 19,000.
Mr. Thibault indicated that with additional personnel, processing delays would be reduced. (1605) In his Report, the Auditor General indicated that the United States and the Netherlands have substantially increased staff in order to reduce backlogs and abuses of the system. (25.14) The Committee believes there is merit in studying the staffing levels for the Board and recommends:
That the Immigration and Refugee Review Board review its staffing requirements in order to determine the increased efficiencies that would be produced through the appointment of additional members beyond its current complement.
The audit’s finding that the Department has difficulty in carrying out removals is troubling. In his Report, the Auditor General indicated that of the approximately 31,200 claimants ordered removed between 1993 and 1997, only 22 percent confirmed that they had left the country. Furthermore, during testimony he told the Committee that at the end of his audit, the Department was able to confirm the departure of only 4,300 of the 19,900 persons who were to have left Canada.
While improvements in the collection and management of data referred to earlier should assist the removal effort, more needs to be done. Ms. Cochrane told the Committee that the Department has developed a comprehensive removal strategy. However, this strategy is only effective to the extent that it is implemented and decisions within its framework taken promptly. The Committee therefore recommends:
That the Department of Citizenship and Immigration make specific reference to actions taken and the results obtained under its comprehensive removal strategy in its Performance Report for the period ending 31 March 1998, and annually thereafter.
As noted, proposals to reform Canada’s immigration policies, including the processing of refugee claims, are now under close scrutiny. Fundamental change to the way in which claims are processed is likely. Given the complexity of the issue and the challenges facing the Department and the Board, it is vital that the transition between the current system and a new one be carefully and thoughtfully managed. The Committee therefore recommends:
That the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Board together develop a strategic plan to manage the transition period between the current refugee claims processing system and any new system that may be implemented. Such a plan should aim, among other things, to limit any negative effect upon efficiency and effectiveness that such a transition may produce.
Lastly, the Auditor General informed the Committee that no one in the federal government monitors the overall progress of claims. He also indicated that there is no information provided to Parliament on interdepartmental performance in processing refugee claims. These are shortcomings that should be corrected. The Committee therefore recommends:
That the government create a mechanism for monitoring the overall progress of refugee claims and reporting interdepartmental performance in claims processing to Parliament.
While the audit revealed problems with the claims processing system, it is important to note that Canada has gained world-wide recognition for its refugee protection program. The Committee also recognizes the dedication and hard work of those currently operating the system who are committed to its goals and effectiveness. Nevertheless, it is important that shortcomings be addressed and past successes be improved upon for the future. It is also important that Canadians have confidence in the system and that the system treats claimants fairly and with compassion.
The Committee is confident that with measures taken following consultation on the Advisory Group’s report and with the adoption of the Committee’s recommendations and those of the Auditor General, improvements to the processing of refugee claims will occur and the confidence of Canadians assured.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response to this Report.
Dissenting opinions of the Official Opposition and the Bloc Québécois are appended to this Report.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 15, 18 23, 28 and 30) is tabled.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN WILLIAMS
Chair
Dissenting Opinion of the Official Opposition for the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), the Official Opposition Members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts have the honour to present their Dissenting Opinion as an addendum to:
Ninth Report
It is the opinion of the Official Opposition that the Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is not representative of the opinions and recommendations of the entire Committee, but rather that of the Government members.
INTRODUCTION
"The current system is open to abuse and, in general, does not provide swift protection to those who really need it."i
The purpose of this report is not to delve into partisan debate over the findings of the Auditor General (AG), but rather to use these findings to better expedite those who are in genuine need of Canada’s protection. It is the opinion of the Official Opposition that this objective was adhered to in the broad context of the Committee Report. However, in instances where constructive analysis and criticism were required, the government members seemed more focussed on damage control and public relations.
The Official Opposition also recognizes that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is presently undertaking an in-depth analysis of the Legislative Review Advisory Group’s Report entitled Not Just Numbers. Therefore, this dissenting opinion will focus on the broad-based, systemic problems outlined in the AG Report and leave the technical detail to those studying the legislative review.
RECEIVING CLAIMS
Both the AG and the Committee Report refer to areas of difficulty in receiving refugee claims. The first recommendation, at page 4 of the Committee Report, recommends that the Department "develop a strategy to make the initial examination of claims more rigorous…."
It is the opinion of the Official Opposition that the Government must put an end to the rampant abuse of economic immigrants trying to get into Canada through the refugee system and start accepting more genuine refugees through offices abroad.
Further, we believe that the Government should enforce tighter identification standards on those claimants who fail to produce travel documents.ii This strategy should also stop those people who have come to Canada through safe third countries like the United States from making claims here.iii
The Committee Report notes the importance of Canada’s "world-wide recognition for its refugee protection program." The Government members of the committee defeated a motion to insert the following statement after the aforementioned sentence: "Future emphasis should be focussed on the resettlement of genuine U.N. Convention refugees." The Official Opposition feels that this emphasis would better represent the Auditor General’s observation that:
The current process does not quickly grant Canada’s protection to claimants who genuinely need it. Furthermore, it does not discourage from claiming refugee status those who do not require or deserve Canada’s protection.iv
The Official Opposition implores the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to seek out genuine Convention refugees overseas whose lives are in imminent danger and are without the financial means of finding asylum here in Canada.
PROCESSING OF REFUGEE CLAIMS
The Committee Report recommends increasing the length of Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) members’ terms and reviewing past performance before re-appointments are granted. Although the Official Opposition concurs with this sentiment, we feel that this recommendation does not address the recruitment and selection of members.
The Auditor General stated, "Board members must make complex decisions that could have a major impact on the life, liberty or security of the claimant and on the integrity of the system-an impact that makes their role akin to that of a court judge."v
It is the opinion of the Official Opposition that the recruitment and selection of IRB members is inadequate given the responsibilities inherent to the job. There have been some very competent appointments to the IRB; however, in our opinion, these are the exception rather than standard practice. The majority of the appointments made to the Board are based on political patronage, rather than knowledge or experience. In reference to Board members, the Auditor General stated, "There must never be any doubt about their competence or their independence."vi
The Ministerial advisory committee was created to recommend appointees to the Minister in order to remove any allegations of patronage. The problem that has arisen, as reported by the IRB founder, Mr. Gordon Fairweather, is that non-Liberal recommendations, regardless of credentials, are overlooked in favour of appointing those who also happen to be Liberals.vii
The Auditor General made the following observation on the handling of failed refugee claims:
Citizenship and Immigration Canada is having difficulties in resolving failed refugee claims quickly and efficiently. The review of risk of return
contains ambiguities that raise questions about its merit. We also found a lack of rigour in the assessment of humanitarian grounds for allowing failed claimants to remain. Further, the Department is having serious difficulties carrying out removals.viii
To this end, the Official Opposition proposes that the Government involve all law enforcement agencies to clean up our deportation mess. As is stated in the majority report, the Auditor General revealed that, of 19,900 removal orders since 1993, only 22% (4,300) of the departures could be confirmed.ix
Canadians have lost faith in the immigration system due to the Government’s rampant patronage, perceived incompetence and inability to remove those who have been ordered to leave Canada.
CONCLUSION
The Official Opposition holds a fundamentally different view on the Immigration and Refugee Board than the Government. We would replace the patronage-ridden, unaccountable IRB with well-trained immigration officers accountable to Parliament and Canadians.
While we realize that it is not within the Government’s best-interest to end the patronage-appointment process, we fail to understand why they seem uninterested in promoting better accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency when discussing the reform of the Board.
A case in point is the Government members’ adoption of a motion to remove the word "widespread" from the draft of the Committee report, which had formerly stated, "…the [AG] audit revealed widespread problems with the claims processing system."
This example emphasizes the Government members’ mandate of making reference to the Auditor General’s recommendations while removing any language which might be seen to damage themselves.
Rather than an educated assessment of the Auditor General’s report, the Committee report amounts to a public relations piece for the Board, the Department and the Government as a whole.
The conclusion of the Committee Report makes brief references to "problems" and "shortcomings" before moving on to recognize "the dedication and hard work of those currently operating the system who are committed to its goals and effectiveness."
The Official Opposition is committed to representing grassroots Canadians and to restoring their faith in an immigration system that works for them. For this to occur, the Government must recognize and remedy the widespread problems revealed by the Auditor General in several reports, including Chapter 25 of his December 1997 Report.
__________________
i
Press Release. Office of the Auditor General of Canada. December 1997 – Chapter 25ii Report of the Auditor General of Canada – December 1997, pp. 25-14 – 25-17
iii Ibid., pp. 25-17 – 25-18
iv Ibid., p. 25-34
v Ibid., pp.25-18 – 25-19
vi Ibid., p. 25-19
vii The Ottawa Sunday Sun, February 8, 1998
viii Report of the Auditor General of Canada – December 1997, p. 25-5
ix Ibid., p. 25-29
Dissenting Opinion to the Ninth Report
of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
May 7, 1998
Respectfully submitted by :
|
Odina Desrochers, M.P. |
René Laurin, M.P. |
Despite the lip-service that the Liberal majority report pays to making the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) speedier and more efficient in its processing of refugee claims, the Bloc Québécois considers that the problems cited by the Auditor General will remain unresolved unless and until candidates for the Board are chosen for their qualifications rather than their party loyalty.
In 1993 the Liberal Party criticized the Conservatives’ political appointments to the IRB, but the Jean Chrétien government is doing exactly the same thing.
Here is the commitment the Liberal Party made in 1993 on Cabinet appointments :
« The Conservatives made a practice of choosing political friends when making the thousands of appointments to boards, commissions and agencies… To fill the vacancies that remain, a Liberal government will review the appointment process to ensure that necessary appointments are made on the basis of competence. »
(Red Book, p. 92)
The reality, since the Liberals came to power, has been instructive. They have never stopped making political appointments to the IRB.
The Bloc Québécois has on many occasions called on the Liberal government to introduce an appointment process that would ensure complete impartiality and a selection based on candidates’ competence and professional experience.
The last paragraph at page 8 of the majority report could be very timely, as long as the second paragraph at page 4, which deals with general principles, is made more specific. The Bloc Québécois would like the « targets and deadlines » to be defined, with a clear and detailed timetable : this would enable Parliament to really monitor the proposed changes and ensure that they do in fact improve the IRB’s processing of refugee claims.