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.
9:25 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Well, you're assuming there wouldn't be any appointments.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Yes, if the last six months are any indication of the next six months.
9:25 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Well, I'm hopeful there will be appointments--
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Yes.
I guess it could reach 40% of vacancies from year to fiscal year.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Good morning.
I'd like to start by welcoming Mr. Fleury. It's a pleasure to have you here with us. I believe this is the third time I have questioned you on the IRB. I have some pointed questions for you, including the recent decision regarding Commissioner Bourbonnais. Criminal charges have been laid, I believe. A system and network of collaborators was brought to light.
In the committee's interest could you tell us what effect these events have had on the IRB, including any changes that have been made? You could also indicate to us through which method a refugee claimant and his counsel may lodge a complaint against a commissioner, whether this complaints procedure is public and whether it is made available on the site. Is there a committee which considers this type of complaint? How does the system work?
Also, perhaps you could tell us how many cases have been reviewed pursuant to this decision, how you communicated with lawyers and refugee claimants who may have suffered wrongs as well as who reviewed these files.
9:25 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
You have many questions. If I forget some, we'll have to get back to them later.
With respect to Mr. Bourbonnais, the case is before the courts. It is a serious case. If we look back to when the RCMP initiated its investigation, Mr. Bourbonnais was dismissed, he was essentially sent home. All of his cases were examined, in other words almost 900 cases. Who did that? Lawyers from the Montreal office, my office. We also looked into security procedures, or the way in which files were circulated within the office, to make sure that all confidentiality procedures related to these cases were implemented.
We were of the view that the RCMP files were those that had to be looked into in great detail. The trial did not take place but when this case was completed, RCMP officials told us which were the 22 or 23 cases they had looked into. Once again, we completely reviewed the files in order to determine whether some facts had to be looked into in greater detail. We are indeed given the discretion to reopen files in some situations, when the problem is very serious or the facts are very obvious, for instance. Once again, we were satisfied.
At the end of the day, we are a tribunal and in order to reopen cases, the lawyers involved or the department must make a request. The departmental staff also did their homework: they looked at everything, but did not make any requests regarding the reopening of files.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Were the lawyers all notified that they could appeal Mr. Bourbonnais' decisions?
9:30 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
No, I don't think we got to that point. Actually, it was a matter of public record. Lawyers knew their own files. It would have been practically impossible not to have been aware of the situation.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
You did not publish the procedure, you did not inform the public of it.
9:30 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
No. To my knowledge, we did not proactively send a letter to each and every lawyer.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
First off, I'd like to know whether, when you reviewed the cases, it was an in-depth review or did you simply check to see whether there had been a miscarriage of justice. The commissioner was criticized for having changed the substance of some decisions and disregarded information within the files.
What does a comprehensive review mean to you? Did you limit yourselves to what is mandated under judicial reviews, or did you do an in-depth review of the files so as to carry out a type of hearing on paper in a way?
October 17th, 2006 / 9:30 a.m.
Timothy Morin Acting Senior General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
First of all, these were immigration appeal files. Mr. Bourbonnais was a board member on the Immigration Appeal Division, so these were not refugee claims that he was sitting on.
There were just under approximately 900 files that Mr. Bourbonnais sat on at the board. The review was undertaken to see whether or not, on the record—and by the way, IAD hearings are in public and the files are accessible to the public—the evidence that was presented would reasonably support a decision that was made.
You must also understand that with immigration appeals, a likely outcome of a positive for an immigration appeal in some cases could be a stay of a removal order if those cases were removal order appeals. A stay is reviewed in three or five years, depending on the order made at the end of that appeal. Some of these files would have had a further review of a stay if it was a removal order appeal; therefore, other members might have taken on the case, and minister's counsel would have also participated. So other events would have taken place after that initial decision on that type of a case.
The other kinds of cases are sponsorship appeals, and those are situations in which it could be that a Canadian sponsor has sponsored a family member from overseas. In that situation, again the files would have been looked at to see if the evidence on the record would have properly supported that decision.
9:30 a.m.
An honourable member
All of them.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
So there were 900 decisions, some favourable and some not.
9:30 a.m.
An honourable member
Yes.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Do you want to follow up on your last question? Is it a long one?
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Do the commissioners whose term is not renewed get hired elsewhere within the IRB? Do you call on them to provide training? Do you consider the way in which they were first appointed?
9:30 a.m.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Some commissioners work on contract and help us out with training, especially these days, given our needs.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Perhaps you could send us a description of the type of training these individuals provide. Thank you.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you for being here, Mr. Fleury, Mr. Morin.
It wasn't under the best of circumstances that we asked you to come back, given what had happened in the Ellis case. I know that we were all shocked to hear the allegations against Mr. Ellis. It was appreciated that you took action as soon as you heard about the allegations. We are all deeply troubled now that charges have been laid in that case. We appreciate that you can't address it specifically, given the circumstances. But it is something that shakes our confidence in the system, especially when we have over the years raised concerns about the fairness of the process, in which there is only one person making the decisions. When such allegations are made explicit, it only causes us to want to revisit our concerns about the hearing process and the one-person boards.
We know that Mr. Ellis has been suspended while these charges are dealt with in the courts. Are there other board members on suspension?