Evidence of meeting #19 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Not to my knowledge, no, but it could have been. I can only speak for the four years I've been with the board.
October 17th, 2006 / 9:35 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
When Mr. Morin was addressing Madame Faille's question, he talked about the particular circumstances of immigration decisions. I suspect that with a refugee case there could be more urgency, and it could be more problematic in the sense that someone could have been removed as the result of a negative decision at the refugee board, and this person may not be in Canada and may not be waiting for a further review—that kind of thing.
In that sort of circumstance, what are the options open to someone who may have been part of a faulty process through no fault of their own?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Senior General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
It's hard to speculate on the particulars, even hypothetically, because every case could be very different from the other cases. Once a person has been removed, there are other avenues by which a person may return to Canada.
Also, when there is a negative decision, there are a lot of people who do not get removed, even though they have had a “no”, because they are either involved in other immigration processes or the system is going through the proper steps with respect to that person's case. So it's hard to really suppose what a person would do, had they been removed from Canada. It really would be dependent on the particular circumstances of that person in the situation. I'd hesitate to speculate in the abstract.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Yes. It is a worry, though, because we know that people who are making refugee claims are doing so because they fear for their lives in their country of origin. If that person has been removed because of a faulty process or where there was a corrupt process and then has no access to our protection any longer, who knows what's happened to them when they've gone back to their country of origin?
9:40 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
It's very serious. And not only serious--one case is too many.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
You mentioned that there are two facets to a complaints process: one that's a sort of internal process whereby people within the IRB can complain, and then there's a more public process. You said you get about twenty to thirty complaints a year.
Can you break it down in terms of the number of public complaints and the more internal complaints?
9:40 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Yes. I may have misled you. I'll clarify.
There are not two complaint processes. There's just the one. It's a protocol, and we've just circulated the protocol. What I was talking about is that the protocol talks about an informal stage. You may not need to build the big story, and it may be that just an interview will do it. So there's an informal stage; that's what I meant. Then, if it's very serious, I have the discretion to bring someone in from outside to give me recommendations, as we're doing in the case of Mr. Ellis.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Mr. Fleury, for your outline of the process and the structure. Certainly we would like to ensure that the integrity of the system remains in place, and it's most unfortunate that the recent incident happened. It's certainly troubling, and we absolutely feel that it is a serious matter and needs serious action. I appreciate the fact that you've taken immediate steps and will be taking further steps to rectify those cases where there may have been involvement of the same individual.
Having said that, and in reference specifically to the Ellis case and the process you now have involving competency-based appointments, was that particular individual someone who had gone through a process similar to the type you now have? And perhaps you could outline what the process then was when the appointment was made and, if in fact there was a re-appointment, the re-appointment.
9:40 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
In the case of the present merit of 2004 that I described, the person had been with the board before then, and he was renewed before 2004. He was renewed prior to my arrival. In fairness, though, you should know that with this new process with the nine competencies, I also asked that every member be re-evaluated against those nine competencies, which is not a very popular thing to do.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
You're talking about the existing members, specifically the members--
9:40 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
All the existing members were re-evaluated against the same nine competencies that we use when we recruit, and he was in there.
9:40 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
He was in the second exercise.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Who made the appointment of the individual in question?
9:40 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
He would have been a Governor in Council appointee in 2000.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
It was in 2000. That would have been under the previous Liberal government?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Okay. In the first appointment, the person would not have gone through the merit-based process and in the second he would have. Is that what you're saying?
9:40 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Yes. Again, I am going to make the distinction. There has been a recruitment process involving the nine competencies since 2004. All the members were evaluated against those nine competencies. They were re-tested.
So he would have been re-tested in the second, but not using the same test used when he entered.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The first time he was appointed, what was the process then? How was it different?
9:40 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Can someone give me the date?
He would have been appointed under the advisory committee to the minister, which was the system we--the government--put in place in 1995-96. I say “we” because I was executive director of the same institution at that time.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
What was the process then? How were the names chosen?
9:45 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
There was the ministerial advisory committee, and a test was administered. The first chair of this advisory committee was Mr. Fairweather. The second chair was Mr. Poulin. Every member on the ministerial advisory committee was appointed by the minister--it wasn't ours--at that time, and they also conducted the interview. The chair was not part of the interview. The chair was involved only at the end of the process when all the interviews were reviewed.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
What are the strengths in the system you have had since 2004 that weren't there in the previous system, or what were the weaknesses of the previous system?
