Public Accounts Committee on June 11th, 2009

[Patricia Hassard]

Yes, I think the secretariat is serving a useful purpose. We don't know what the timing will be, and I think it's usually very wise to prepare.

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

So the PAC is costing $1 million. Are we talking about the same thing? The PAC is equivalent to the secretariat. Is that what you're trying to tell me?

[Patricia Hassard]

No, the Public Appointments Commission is the actual body. There is a—

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

So there is $1 million. Okay. As a public accountant, that's what I want to know.

I have a second question, which is for immigration. We get a lot of people coming to us when they are in limbo about their immigration and refugee stuff, and you've said it is 17 months, but we find people going through five years not knowing what they're in. How are we going to reduce that timeframe? You have a 21% vacancy. What are you doing to prep up, to solve the problem, if they are going to be refugees, accepted refugees, or out?

[Brian Goodman]

First of all, I'm not aware of anyone who is waiting five years, not before the Immigration and Refugee Board. They may be waiting to have their status finally determined. I'm not sure. Are you referring to sponsorship applications?

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

No, no, no.

[Brian Goodman]

Well, I'm not aware of any case before the Immigration and Refugee Board that has taken five years.

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

Fair enough; your answer is acceptable.

I'll give my time to Mr. Kania.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, I have a minute-and-a-half.

Mr. Lynch, I have a yes or no question for you, but you have to give me a minute to get there.

We left off with my speaking with Mr. Roy. My question was this. What exact statutory provisions and body of case law do you rely upon to form the conclusion that the Auditor General is beyond the mandate, in aiding your decision not to respond to the three areas?

Mr. Roy invoked solicitor-client privilege, saying he could not waive that. As he knows as a lawyer, that is the privilege of the client. The client can choose to waive solicitor-client privilege. In this particular case, what I'm asking you is whether you, as a client, will waive solicitor-client privilege so as to answer the question and provide the committee with the information about the exact statutory provisions in the body of case law you relied upon prior to reaching your decision, or whether you will seek to be shielded by solicitor-client privilege so as to avoid the question. So will you waive it, and will you answer the question?

[Kevin Lynch]

Since you had a one-minute question, I'll take a minute to say yes or no. I think Mr. Roy set out that this is an issue of how you interpret a mandate, including, as Mr. Walsh indicated, that there are grey areas in the interpretation of mandates. This is a complex area. We looked at it from the point of view of the experience in other cases, and so did the Auditor General. We actually had a dialogue on it and we thought we should be transparent with the committee about that discussion between us. I think that's how we arrived at it, through the experience over a period of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kania.

Mr. Kamp, you have five minutes.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me just begin by thanking you, Mr. Lynch. It's well known that you're heading toward a new chapter in your life, at least, and I do want to thank you for your service to Canada over many years. I wish you well. In fact, thank you all for your service to Canada in your various capacities.

My observation, based on the reports that I see here, is that notwithstanding the comments of my colleague across the way, there have been many positive changes. I think you're responsible for many of them.

With respect to the IRB, Mr. Goodman, the point has been made that these are peoples' lives at stake and so on. I agree with that. But that's also a good reason why we need a very good process for choosing and training those people who are making these decisions. I thank you for your part in making sure we have good people who are making good decisions. We know poor decisions lead into the courts and so on, and all of the extra costs that are involved there.

Your report, Mr. Goodman, says that you're in your 20th year and nearing the 20th anniversary, with almost a million cases. I guess that works out to about 50,000 cases a year. Has that been a normal caseload? How many people would you need, in your estimation, to meet that caseload, if 50,000 is an average?

[Brian Goodman]

First of all, it's important to understand—I think I mentioned the figures for the last three years—that intake is very volatile. It's dependent on world events, migration patterns, all kinds of things. For example, it's dependent on policies from our neighbour to the south, where people have come through the United States. The clampdowns on people without status in the U.S. have an impact on our intake.

What's going on currently? The largest source of claims is in Mexico, and Haiti is second. They account for, I think, 27% in all of our claims, or perhaps even more. It's very difficult to make projections. Who would have known two years ago what is now going on in Sri Lanka and Pakistan?

We believe that we will get 40,000 to 45,000 claims this year. We make projections for the following years, and we believe it will be fairly stable. When you ask how many people we need, it's simply a question of how fast you want to eliminate the backlog. We've presented options to the government, and they're considering them very seriously within the context of different tracks. There's strategic review, legislative reform, other tracks. I'm satisfied that they're considering our proposals very seriously.

But we're talking about quite a dramatic increase unless there are targeted policy changes by the government that would limit intake. Right now there are no such changes, given our two largest source countries. Of course, we have no input--nor should we--on policy decisions of the government. It's for the government and Parliament to determine what the policies should be in relation to immigration and refugee matters. We simply are a specialized tribunal that adjudicates claims and appeals. We deal as best we can with what we have.

I want to say that I'm struck, honestly, when I go out to the regions, by how many times I hear from legal counsel how impressed they are with the quality of the recent appointments. I hear it all the time. Yes, it's a very demanding process. But it has produced excellent members. The quality of members from the time that I began at the board in 2001, I can tell you, has improved very dramatically.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That, colleagues, concludes the first and final round of questioning.

I'm now going to ask Mr. Flageole, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Goodman if they have any final comments, and then I just have a brief comment to make after.

Mr. Flageole, do you have any final closing remarks you want to make to the committee?

[Richard Flageole]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I was quite pleased to see that the issue of the difference of views on the mandate has been discussed and further work will be done, because this is important for us. I think it is key to make sure we maintain our ability to serve parliamentarians on this one.

I mentioned before that we raised two very key issues in the report, which is the timeliness of appointments and how the people are treated. We used words in the report such that people should be treated in a more respectful manner. This is key. I'm pleased to see that the officials of the Privy Council Office outlined a number of initiatives that are on the way. Some have been already implemented to do that.

But those are not new problems. We were here twelve years ago with the same thing, and I really hope that somebody will make sure we won't be back here again five years from now with the same message.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Flageole.

Mr. Lynch, do you have any closing comments?

[Kevin Lynch]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We appreciate the chance to have the discussion today. As a background to my comments, we have given again the response to recommendations 1 through 4. In terms of the six areas of recommendations by the Auditor General, I spoke to the vacancy issue, we spoke to the orientation and training issue, where we both agree substantial progress has been made. In the Auditor General's report, she, in effect, notes that progress has been made on the transparency and increased rigour in the processes, and we appreciate that.

The Auditor General has raised the issue of communication, both about process and about results. We agree with the need to act on that. And the guidance to ministers' offices is, as they set out, six months before expiry of a full-time appointment, three months before expiry of a part-time appointment, and also a process for communication in the event of appointments.

On those issues, I very much agree, and I hope we've put in place the kind of process that will lead to a remedy of the issues raised by the Auditor General.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Goodman, do you have any closing remarks you want to make to the committee?

[Brian Goodman]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I guess the first thing I would say is that we were very pleased with both the process that was undertaken by the Auditor General and her officials and the outcome. It required a lot of work on our part. We're not a department, and there was an incredible amount of information requested. But I believe you'll agree with me on the findings in terms of the board having a sound process that's resulting in recommendations to the minister and in recommendations for reappointment in a timely manner, and that we have excellent training and so on. We were very pleased with that, as we were with the Auditor General's recommendation. It certainly helps to have an Auditor General's recommendation to deal with the backlog.

I must say that I do agree, from the perspective of the chair of the IRB, that there have been improvements since the audit began, improvements in the process for processing recommendations from me to the minister, and many of them have been implemented by PCO. So we're seeing much better communication between PCO and us and much better communication with the candidates who are being considered for appointment between PCO and the candidate. We're hearing that from the candidate. I find out as soon as the appointment is made that an appointment has been made, so I can call the candidate, the appointee, and welcome them.

I would say there has been quite a dramatic improvement from the time that I served as deputy chairperson and then as interim chairperson. So I'm very pleased to see that, and I'm very pleased that the government is seriously considering our problem, because it is not just about numbers, and all of you have recognized that; it's about people. Whether it's a sponsorship application, a removal appeal, or a refugee application, there are real people who are waiting for answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Goodman.

I want to thank, on behalf of the members of the committee, all of the witnesses for appearing today. The committee will be writing a report in due course.

Before we adjourn, I just want to make a brief statement. Mr. Kamp alluded to this in his question. As Mr. Kamp indicated, the Clerk of the Privy Council, after a very distinguished and successful career, is retiring at the end of June. I suspect, and I assume Mr. Lynch hopes, this is probably his last appearance—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

—or the last of his many appearances, before a parliamentary committee. I'd be remiss, colleagues, if I didn't take this opportunity to acknowledge and pay tribute and thank Mr. Lynch for his tremendous service to the public, the public service, and public policy.

Perhaps some of you aren't aware that he joined the public service in 1976. He's had successive roles. He spent five years as the Deputy Minister of Industry. He spent four years as the Deputy Minister of Finance. And when the present Prime Minister was elected, he chose Mr. Lynch to be the Clerk of the Privy Council. That's the position he has held over the last three years.

I've watched his career, and I've actually known Mr. Lynch from before I was even elected. He's been involved in transformative issues, such as the research and science agenda of the government, straightening out the country's finances, and the Canada Pension Plan. As Clerk of the Privy Council he's been involved with the Afghan conflict. As he's indicated, he's led the whole renewal of the public service over the past three and a half years. Again, it's a tremendous credit. He really exemplifies the role of a non-partisan, competent public servant, which, in my opinion, gives the country of Canada a comparative advantage. We're fortunate to have that.

So I suspect, Mr. Lynch, that your career is not over. You will resurface somewhere else, and we'll certainly be watching with interest.

But again, in closing, on behalf of every member of Parliament, I want to thank you for your tremendous contribution, and we wish you all the best in the future.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I have just one small point, Mr. Chair, just before we break. There's no doubt that we all welcome our counsel, Mr. Walsh, here at each and every opportunity. Certainly, he's a tremendous asset to this committee. The only recommendation I would make is that it would be nice to know when Mr. Walsh is coming here, so we can all adequately utilize his talents and his expertise to the best of our ability.

I know that I—and I don't know who else—wasn't aware that Mr. Walsh was coming. It would be nice if we were notified.