Public Accounts Committee on June 11th, 2009

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

If they have been put into place since 2006, this is not reflected in the audit, when the audit was being conducted, so there is some inconsistency in the audit versus what you're saying. What are we supposed to believe? In the AG's report, you believe that the aspects of the audit will be on the Auditor General's mandate.

Do you feel that the GIC process should not face public scrutiny? If it has faced public scrutiny and what the Auditor General is saying is inconsistent with what you're saying, could you help me out? Then I'll go to the Auditor General.

[Kevin Lynch]

The first part of that question asks when we implemented these. When I went through my remarks, I said that the six aspects are all key parts of a best-practice, rigorous appointment process: what the guidelines for ministers are, what the publication is, what the selection and notification criteria are, how you manage vacancies, and those sorts of things. They've been implemented at different times over the last three years, because they've taken different amounts of work to take into effect.

The Office of the Auditor General responded, which I'll come back to in a minute. The audit was done over a period of time. It was done over a period of 33 months and reflects the whole period from January 2006 to September 2008. Through that period of time, and past it, we've been implementing the six changes I mentioned, and others.

A snapshot over an average of 33 months is not going to necessarily capture where we've ended up today. I'll come back to highlight those differences, Mr. Chair.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Can the Assistant Auditor General answer the question, because he talked about the guidelines? Were you able to check those guidelines?

[Richard Flageole]

Some of the changes referred to in the clerk's opening statement are reflected in our report. We talk about the new transparent process. We talk about the improvements in the orientation or whatever. Again, our work was finished in September 2008, so I assume that some of those were either in the process of being implemented or have been implemented since then. I'm just referring, for example, to the third change on page 4. It says that “new guidelines setting out expectations for Ministers to provide notice to appointees”.

To the best of my knowledge, that was not in place at the time of our audit, unless we would have reflected that. But again, it's a moving target.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We're going to move on.

Madame Faille, sept minutes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I will start with a few comments on the audit. What you seem to have found in this report is old news. It outlines the same problems that I have already raised at a meeting of the Committee on Immigration and Citizenship. I have been a member of Parliament for five years.

[Richard Flageole]

Mr. Chairman, the message in our chapter is quite clear. I have been working in the Office of the Auditor General for 32 years. I conducted the audit of the IRB in 1990, 1997, 2001 and 2008. We have produced a number of reports on crown corporations. There are two main points: the importance of timely appointments and the way in which individuals are treated. Those are the issues that have existed for a long time.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

These problems have major impacts. What are the impacts on the judicial system and other immigration processes? The backlog is also causing problems for the provinces in terms of social costs. Can you illustrate the problems associated with such a huge backlog?

[Richard Flageole]

Mr. Chairman, the impact varies depending on whether we are talking about crown corporations or the IRB. The IRB—the chair mentioned this earlier—deals with claims from people who have experienced difficult situations in their home country and are asking for our protection. They are very eager to know the outcome and begin a new life. So there is an impact on individuals.

As our report indicates, the IRB's rejection rate over the past three years has been 55%. Many people have their claim rejected and must leave the country as a result. If it takes two or three years to reach a decision, the refugee claimants have the right during that time, like other Canadians and permanent residents, to use the health care, education and social assistance systems. That creates enormous costs for the various levels of government.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

There is certainly an impact on family reunification when the members are at the Immigration Appeal Division.

[Richard Flageole]

In the case of the Immigration Appeal Division and family reunification cases, we once again have a situation where people are waiting for a decision on something that is very important to them.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Perhaps the IRB representatives can answer that. Does the fact that hearings cannot be scheduled have an impact as well on cases before the Immigration Appeal Division, that is cases that are rejected or excluded or that contain criminal aspects?

[Brian Goodman]

Yes, there is an impact. Obviously that's something we're very concerned about, and that's why we give priority to removal order appeals, particularly of course where the person is at large. So while they're appealing, they've been released pursuant to conditions.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Can you provide the committee with numbers so that we can get an idea of approximately how many files are waiting to be scheduled and what types of files they are, a bit like I have just mentioned? Obviously, I am not very pleased with the IRB results. I know very well that Mr. Goodman was familiar with the problems, which go back to before his appointment.

How do you explain the difficulty you have had in resolving the situation, Mr. Goodman?

[Brian Goodman]

I've already mentioned that it is a difficulty. People are waiting for what I consider to be an unreasonably long period of time, in the case you asked about, to have their appeals determined.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Why are these people having to wait? Are there not enough decision-makers?

[Brian Goodman]

It's two reasons. One is increased intake and the second is an insufficient number of decision-makers. It's both.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

It is both, but if I understand correctly, the shortage of decision-makers is still a major factor, since there is such a steep curve in the wait times.

[Brian Goodman]

Yes, it is.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Can you tell us the date on which the Selection Advisory Board first met and who is on the Board?

[Brian Goodman]

My recollection is that the first meeting was held in either August or September of 2007.

The membership on the board has changed over time. Originally there were two members appointed by the minister and by me. One was Matthew Garfield, who is the former chairperson of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and who is an arbitrator and lawyer who practices employment law and a part-time member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I happen to know him from my time, actually, as chair of the Rent Review Hearings Board in Ontario.

The second member is Knox Henry. Knox, until recently, was a member of the Environmental Appeal Board of Ontario. His term has recently ended, and he's doing consulting work with a law firm on environmental law and other public policy issues. And once again, fortuitously, I happen to know him because he had been a deputy mining and lands commissioner when I was acting mining and lands commissioner.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

How many members does the board have?

[Brian Goodman]

There are currently nine members, including myself: four jointly appointed by me and the minister, four appointed by me, and then me as chairperson.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Has the composition of the board been challenged, since the changes to the way board members are chosen have been brought in?

[Brian Goodman]

This is an entirely new board that meets the decision of the government to accept the report of the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat—the head of that secretariat, Peter Harrison—that the former chairperson's advisory panel and the former selection board be merged into a selection advisory board. So these are all new members who did not formerly serve on either the chairperson's advisory panel or the selection advisory board.