CIMM Committee Report

Dissenting Report from Conservative Party Members on the Committee

The committee’s report attempts to deal with a number of refugee and refugee-related issues.  This dissenting report summarizes some of the key concerns of Conservative members on the committee.

Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) Program

Conservative members of the committee believe that the assisted relative class should not be reinstated without a proper evaluation of the effect this may have on the existing family class program and existing inventories.  Put simply, reinstatement of the assisted relative class should only be considered after a thorough evaluation of its potential impacts on the immigration process and the costs and benefits to the overall program.

The Refugee Appeal Division

On the issue of implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division, a majority vote by all members of the opposition parties defeated a Conservative motion to hear from former Immigration Ministers, Hon. Joe Volpe Hon. Judy Sgro and Hon.Denis Coderre.

Opposition refusals to hear from these former Ministers was most regrettable as these former Ministers would have been able to provide important testimony as to why each refused to implement the Refugee Appeal Division while having had every opportunity to do so as former Ministers of Citizenship and Immigration.

It is worth noting what former Ministers Volpe and Sgro had to say when asked about whether they would implement the Refugee Appeal Division.

On Thursday, March 10, 2005 Mr. Volpe stated:

“I might remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that all failed claimants can make an appeal to the Federal Court, and they are also subject to a pre-removal risk assessment and have applications for H & C in the process.”

On Tuesday, November 1, 2005 he stated:

“It takes too long for decisions to be made and too long for decisions, once they are made, to have an effect. Simply by adding another layer of review or appeal to what we already have will do little to address the shortcoming, in fact, it may make it worse. My decision therefore is not to implement the RAD.”

On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, former Liberal Immigration Minister Judy Sgro said:

“It's important that people who seek protection in our country receive it as quickly as possible. To introduce at this particular time the appeal system that you were referring to would have completely, I think, brought the system to a halt.”

Based on the evidence at hand, implementing the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) at this time would provide very limited benefit at a very high cost.  To put things in context, it is important to note that the RAD would only provide a review on the record similar to a federal court review, without the calling of additional evidence or the provision of new or additional facts.  Outside of the fact that it can substitute its own decision, the difference as to the scope of the appeal is limited.

What is needed is better process, not more process.  To add another layer of appeals and process would simply make an already extremely lengthy refugee determination process even longer. 

Failed refugee claimants can apply for a Federal Court review of their decision.  They can also apply for a pre-removal risk assessment and for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, including consideration of possible risk if returned to their home country.

As things stand, it can take years to conclude the adjudication of a case. To add additional months and even possibly years to the delays is unfair to refugees and their families who expect a timely resolution and decision with respect to their application for refugee status. In the current context, increasing the length of the refugee determination process would potentially do more harm than good.

Therefore, Conservative members of the committee recommend that implementation of the RAD should not be considered at this time.  Resources would be better directed at seeking ways to improve and streamline the existing refugee determination process as a whole.

People who Seek Sanctuary in Churches

People seeking refuge in churches often do so as a means of last resort.  Often they may choose to seek sanctuary after having received negative decisions from the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), the Federal Court or from their Pre-Removal Risk Assessment hearing. 

For the integrity of the system, when all avenues for appeal and review have been exhausted including appeals for permanent resident status based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, individuals should respect our laws and leave voluntarily, without having to force the appropriate authorities to take specific actions to remove these individuals.

IRB Appointments Process and Backlog

On November 3, 2006, the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Honourable Monte Solberg, asked for an independent review of the selection process for making appointments to the IRB.  In January 2007, the executive director of the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat, Peter Harrison, completed a report recommending changes to the way the IRB members are selected.

It is important to note several important findings of the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat Report.  The test used in the selection process represented in their view a reasonable yardstick for screening candidates against a declared member’s competency.  However, the standard actually applied for passing the written test was not high enough for the test to perform its intended function of reducing the initial group of applicants to a pool that merits review by a group of experts. 

The data received by the Secretariat on December 1, 2006, indicated over 20% of the candidates referred to the Minister did not meet the minimum standard of 36 points which in and of itself was not a pass mark.  To put it another way, the Advisory Panel and the Selection Board were using discretion to advance to the next stage some candidates who did not reach the minimum standard.  The recommendation was that a pass mark be set where those who fail be excluded from further consideration.

It is interesting to note that most of the recommendations were acceptable to retiring IRB Chair, Jean Guy Fleury.  The recommendation that he found difficulty with is with the Minister appointing equal members to the advisory panel.

As stated in the Secretariat report, the original intent of the 2004 process was that the Advisory Panel members would be chosen jointly by the Minister and the Chair.  The 2004 press release stated:  “The advisory panel will be independent and representative of Canadians nominated by the IRB Chairperson and the Minister, the panel will…”  It seems over time, the IRB Chair made all the nominations and it seemed he would like to have kept it that way.  The Secretariat recommended that ministerial input take place on the selection of the members to the panel to preserve ministerial prerogative as otherwise the full discretion as to the three names to be presented to the Minister to fill a vacancy would be at the full discretion of the IRB Chair and the panel members he solely appointed.  This would seem to place the whole process in the hands of an unelected member who is not accountable to the electorate.

It seems that both the IRB Chair and the Minister are equally able to appoint persons of specific backgrounds namely someone from the legal community, academia, non-governmental organizations and human resource experts.  In the end, with a six member board, each equally appointed by the IRB Chair and Minister with the IRB Chair presiding, the Chair continues to have significant input while at the same time preserving the Minister’s prerogative at this stage of the selection process.

This is a balanced approach to streamlining the Board that will see both the Chair and the Minister appointing members.

The Safe Third Country Agreement

The Safe Third Country Agreement is part of a package of measures to enhance the management of joint Canada-US borders.  Under the agreement, refugee claimants must seek protection in whichever country they first have an opportunity to do so unless they qualify for an exception.  Although the process differs between countries, refugee claimants continue to have access to a full and fair refugee protection determination process in one country or another. 

Conservative members of the committee believe that the agreement should be maintained but implementation should continue to be reviewed with CIC taking reasonable steps to publicize the exceptions to the agreement.