Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Fleury.

I'm trying to understand what my Conservative colleagues here don't get about the recruitment process. The recruitment process--as in business, if they've ever run a business--is on a continuous basis. You've got people coming in, people going, you search for new people, review their applications, and you keep the process going. I would assume this is what this department has been doing for the last number of years. Correct?

As well, I draw their attention to the merit-based approach initiated in 2005 under the Liberal government. This process has been ongoing since 2004, and what we have, and what I'm witnessing right here, is a logjam at the minister's level. The process and the department keep moving along and keep providing the government with different potential candidates, and over the last nine months it's created a forty-person vacancy that, as you say, is going to result in an increased backlog in both the appeal board and the refugee board.

Is that correct?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I stand by the numbers. They're based on projections of the number of people I have.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

One other question. How often do you meet with the minister and how often have you met with him over the last nine months?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I don't count, but I've probably met with the minister about eight times.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

He is well aware that the shortage is going to cause a crisis in the system and the backlog will only get worse if he keeps dragging his feet.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that the minister is the chair of an independent tribunal. With the minister, when we talk, the only agenda is about appointments because the functioning of the board is my accountability to this committee, to the minister.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Another quick question. Has the individual who turned in Mr. Ellis had a rehearing?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I can't speak about the individual, because first of all, this person will have fair play and justice. There's no doubt about that. With respect to the future, I can't talk about the specificity, because it is a refugee and it is confidential. But generally with such severe situations, we have the capacity to start over. So I'm giving you how we normally work.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, sir.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fleury, in what I would describe as a clearly transparent but ultimately unsuccessful fashion, government members have attempted to besmirch by association virtually everybody who is a member of your board.

I take it that the majority, probably the vast majority of current members—116 strong or so—were appointed under the Liberal governments starting in 1993?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Yes, if you went from 1993 to 2003, their maximum is ten years.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Yes. So the vast majority of people with whom you work were in fact appointed under Liberal governments?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Yes.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

In your opening statement you took pains to say that you are honoured to be the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, for you know you are in the company of the most dedicated and conscientious people with whom anyone could have the privilege of working. Do you recall saying that?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Yes. I stand by that.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

And do you feel strongly that the people with whom you work, the vast majority of whom were appointed by Liberal governments, are in fact the most dedicated and conscientious people with whom you or anyone could have the privilege of working?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I stand by what I said. I'd also like to point out the reason everyone was reassessed with the nine competencies. I wanted to make sure they met the requirements—not only the new people coming in.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Jaffer next.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fleury, for being here.

I was struck by something I think you said during your response to the parliamentary secretary. It was about eight years ago when you got involved and were upset about the increased politicization of the board and its credibility, I guess—that it was being affected by the view in the public. I wonder if you can expand on that.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

The evidence was in the newspapers. We were always in the newspaper and being criticized. We render 60,000 decisions in three tribunals a year, so we were in the newspapers.

I have a tribunal board that is only public servants, and they never make the headlines. I'm not saying one is more competent than the other—far from it. All I'm saying is there was a feeling that there was a competency issue versus who you knew. My sense was it had to stop, mostly because we're a tribunal of human rights and our independence is very important.

The second thing you have to look at is when it came time to reappoint.... Because I don't have the power to reappoint, which other tribunals have in provincial jurisdictions, people then go back to the political...to get their backing or their support for reappointment.

I think that's not the way to go. People are exercising independent decisions every day on refugee or immigration matters and then feel that for the next appointment they have to go back to the political...for support. I hope that practice will stop.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

What would you suggest should happen in that case?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I think that if ever the legislation is open...it's for the government to decide. I think reappointment should be the purview of the chair. I have no problem that it's the government that appoints when they come in, but once a person has done their mark, they're evaluated. This reappointment process is insecure. I can't plan, and then you have the political overtones.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Your commitment to credibility and to putting those standards in is clear. I don't have any question, and I think you've tried to establish those principles and carry them out. I admire and respect that.

But what I'm still trying to understand is you're talking politicization again—the fact that happened. Was that strictly regarding the reappointments, or, in your opinion, is that happening right from the get-go, even though there is some sort of a testing process, as you and others mentioned? I don't quite understand—

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Again, I don't want to prejudge. I gave you what the system was. With the system we have now, nobody can say it was because they knew someone. They have to meet all the standards. It's a high standard, and I really believe in it. It's very complex, demanding work--as you would appreciate--and I think it has to be the best.