Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson, members of committee, I thank you for inviting me to speak before you today.
Allow to me to introduce, as you did, Tim Morin, acting senior general counsel.
My last appearance here was in May of this year. In that presentation I provided an outline of the role of the IRB within the immigration portfolio, the work of our three divisions, and our agenda to meet the challenges of a changing environment. I described the IRB's transformation agenda and the real gains we have seen in recent years as a result of these measures. We have provided copies of my remarks from the meeting for your convenience.
With respect to the role of the IRB and our transformation agenda for the future, all that I said in May still stands. Our innovation agenda developed further over the summer, and we will continue to pursue that agenda in the areas of operations and management practices.
Today I appear before you on different matters. Since my last appearance, a deeply troubling situation has arisen regarding a member in the refugee protection division in Toronto. Last Thursday the RCMP charged an IRB member with breach of trust under the Criminal Code and a violation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
As I am sure you can imagine, this situation has brought much anguish to our organization and to me personally, as chairperson.
I need to state clearly at the outset that the courts have imposed a publication ban on this case, and I therefore must be quite circumspect in my comments to you today. I will not be able to provide any further comments on the case over and above what I tell you now in my opening remarks.
First, let me tell you what I did upon hearing of these allegations. Within hours I took decisive precautionary action to protect the integrity of the IRB's decision-making process. I immediately removed the member from his duties, withdrew the access to IRB premises, and referred the matter to the proper authorities.
My second priority was to launch an internal investigation into the member's conduct. The member has now been charged. However, legally, in our role as employer, the IRB is continuing with this investigation, as we do with any allegation that may arise. Once this investigation is complete, I will take the appropriate action. If required, more additional measures could be imposed, up to the Governor in Council removing the member from office with cause. Obviously at this time I cannot prejudge the outcome of the internal investigation.
I want you to know as well that part of the investigation will be aimed at determining if there are further measures that can add to those already in place to ensure that troubling incidents of this nature do not occur.
In the interests of due diligence, I will initiate an outside independent review of the cases heard by the member in question. Independent expert counsel will be retained to lead this review and to advise me on both the scope of the review and what steps need to be taken to address any injustices should they be found.
I want to state in clear, unequivocal terms that the IRB does not and will not tolerate any abuse of any kind. We are committed to the highest standards of ethics and to the protection of the rights of those who appear before us.
You can imagine how this allegation has affected us at the board, and me personally. We are a proud organization with a strong sense of duty and a history of achievement. Again and again the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has lauded Canada and the IRB for our refugee determination system.
We are entrusted with a vital role within the immigration portfolio. We carry out our mandate fully cognizant of our obligations under the law, of our duties to Parliament and to Canadians, and of the consequences of our decisions. There is no room for unscrupulous behaviour at the IRB.
Regrettably, there will always be those in our society willing to violate the rules and abuse the trust that has been given to them. No number of safeguards or checks will ever be able to entirely protect an organization from individuals of bad faith or character.
We know as well that the actions of individuals can also call into question the integrity of the many people who every day serve the public in a conscientious and honourable way.
It would be unjust to draw conclusions about the board on the basis of these allegations. My comments today are intended to explain why you can continue to have confidence in the integrity of the decision-making process at the IRB. I assure you that the board remains resolute in its pursuit of the highest standard of justice.
Let me now explain the concrete measures that are in place to ensure that values and ethics are embodied in the work of the board. I will provide you with an overview of the IRB's merit-based appointment system. I want to look beyond recent headlines and give you a sense of the IRB's true character and the high standards of ethics by which it functions.
The IRB has at its disposal a number of instruments that guard against ethical transgressions and conflicts of interest. The development of these instruments, the ongoing improvements to our merit-based appointment system, and the transformation agenda the board has pursued in recent years exemplify the evolution of the board from its beginnings in 1989 to the modern, sophisticated, and innovative tribunal we are today.
The IRB has its own members' code of conduct to govern the conduct of members in their professional lives. Members are obliged to adhere to the code and they swear an oath to follow its provisions and regulations.
The code states that the IRB is committed to fostering and maintaining the highest standards of professionalism and behaviour among its members. All public office holders are required to act with honesty and to uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity of government is preserved.
An important companion to the code of conduct is a process that enables members of the public to bring forward complaints about member conduct. In 1995, the board developed a Protocol addressing member conduct issues for dealing with complaints about the conduct of members. The process provides for an examination of all complaints with a view to promoting the highest standards of quality and to respecting the rights of all those concerned, while enhancing the credibility of the institution. As chair, I also have the discretion to take additional action should such an examination warrant it.
In addition to the Member Complaint Protocol, questions of bias and other concerns over the decisions of members can be properly addressed through the federal court judicial review process. All IRB decisions are subject to judicial review.
The board also has a senior officer to whom any IRB member or public servant can bring forward a concern or an allegation of wrongdoing. The senior officer is responsible for ensuring that prompt action is taken in all cases and for initiating investigations when required.
Another area in which we have made great strides is the merit-based appointment process for IRB decision-makers. Two of IRB's three divisions are staffed with Governor-in-council appointed decision-makers, the Refugee Protection Division and the Immigration Appeal Division. When the board was founded in 1989 there was no formal or institutionalized mechanism for becoming a GIC decision-maker, other than being appointed by the Governor- in-council.
In 1995, the government established a ministerial advisory committee to assist in the selection of members. In early 2004, the appointment system evolved further and significant changes were made to the process aimed at eliminating the perception that patronage trumped merit in the selection of IRB decision-makers. The objective was to ensure that only the best qualified candidates were considered. In order to serve the best interests of the government and the IRB, the board was mandated by the government to implement a fully merit-based selection process for GIC appointees.
Under the new process candidates must go through an initial screening, and then write an exam to test competencies. These competency profiles test decision-making skills, judgment and analytical thinking, and other job-related capacities. Candidates are then evaluated by an independent advisory panel whose membership is representative of Canadians highly qualified in their own fields. I am also a member of the advisory panel. The panel reviews the application forms, CVs and test results to determine whether candidates should be considered for an interview.
Those who are recommended for further consideration are interviewed by a selection board, which I chair and which is composed of experts with an in-depth understanding of the IRB and its decision-making process. Structured reference checks are conducted on those who are interviewed.
Throughout this process we are seeking not only to determine who might be skilled as a decision-maker, but whether candidates meet the board's ethical standards. This is similar to the questions relating to personal suitability that are asked of applicants seeking appointment as a judge to the federal court. The interview process also demands that candidates demonstrate a grasp of ethics; the reference checks address this issue as well.
Since 2004, only those highly-qualified candidates who have been accepted by the selection board are presented to the minister for consideration and possible appointment.
The regular performance appraisal is another means by which the board monitors the quality of the work of decision-makers. The IRB was among the first administrative tribunals in Canada to implement a formal performance appraisal process. The process is designed to foster and maintain the highest standards of performance. It does not look at the actual decisions made by the decision-makers, but does consider factors such as productivity, analytical skills, reasons-writing proficiency and presiding skills. It is also important to note that the appraisal process looks at overall compliance with the requirements of the code of conduct.
I should mention as well that members receive training on the code of conduct and conflict of interest issues during our extensive member-training sessions.
I should now turn to the issue of vacancies at the board and the question of appointments and re-appointments. As I said during my May 29th appearance, in the absence of appointments and re-appointments, I cannot fulfil my promises to this committee on processing time and innovative reforms.
A great deal has been reported in the press over recent weeks on the number of vacancies at the board, including more than a couple of inaccuracies. Let me give you the official numbers as of today. This year, the IRB has a complement of 156 members. As of today we have 40 vacancies, which gives us 116 members.
I hope I have conveyed the sense of pride we feel at the IRB. I would not be this straightforward in my presentation to you today if I did not believe, in my heart, in the integrity and character of our institution. The IRB undertakes its responsibility with steadfast determination to excel in all facets of its operation. I believe we have created an environment of ethics and have instilled a sense of responsibility and obligation in all of our employees.
That is why the recent situation is so difficult; it flies in the face of everything we uphold and of our high standards of behaviour and conduct. We work everyday to earn the trust and confidence of Canadians. We are not going to let the current situation deter us from our pursuit of excellence or diminish the pride we feel in how we serve the Canadians who appear before us.
I am honoured to be chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, for I know I am in the company of the most dedicated and conscientious people. We remain responsible and principled servants to the people of Canada.
That is the message I leave with you today.
