Mr. Chair, the selection criteria for these positions were published as part of the recruitment process. It was a very public process. Candidates were assessed against selection criteria to ensure they'd be able to determine appeals professionally and objectively and provide written reasons for their decisions.
Applicants meeting the essential education and experience requirements at the first level of screening were then asked to complete a written assessment, which included a knowledge test and a decision-writing test.
The knowledge test covers many of the criteria. It looks at the candidates' knowledge of the legislation related to the mandate and activities of the new tribunal: administrative law, principles of natural justice, practices followed by the administrative tribunals in Canada, the appeals process, and operation of an administrative tribunal.
In the decision-making part of the test, candidates were given a scenario in which they were asked to prepare a decision, which was to include a statement of the issue, the facts that were in the scenario, an analysis, and a conclusion. This test was scored by the Department of Justice lawyers at HRSDC.
The next step was the interviews, which assessed the other competencies we were looking for, including the ability to work effectively and independently, the ability to think conceptually, effective verbal communications, and personal suitability.
Through the screening process, we had 716 people who applied. Of those, 570 were screened in after meeting the essential criteria, and 490 were left after the knowledge test. There were 254 candidates left after the decision-making test, and 162 candidates were deemed to be eligible for the pool of candidates to be recommended by the minister for appointment. Out of 716 people, the pool was winnowed down to 162 for up to 70 positions.
I think the process was extremely rigorous and it was based on all of the criteria that were published—many levels of knowledge and ability and a capacity to work effectively.