Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Coming out of the evaluation process, might a member of the board be assigned a particular course of improvement? Might there be a requirement to do some specific work that arises out of the evaluation process, rather than something you might self-select, or training that arises in the ongoing process of doing the job?

[Michel Jobin]

As far as I'm concerned, I have never been asked to improve any aspect of my competencies. I cannot answer for my colleagues, but I personally have never been asked specifically to improve such and such an aspect of my competency standards.

[François Guilbault, Senior Legal Advisor, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, in answer to your question, we can, for instance, identify competencies that need improvement. We do have a customized training program. In addition to the thematic or ongoing training that we provide to all members on a given basis, there may be certain aspects that we wish to improve, and this is determined further to the member evaluations prepared by the managers. Legal services may be called upon to provide additional training. Professional development services may be asked to provide customized training when we have identified a need for improvement further to a particular evaluation.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Is there re-evaluation at the end of that training process?

[François Guilbault]

The people in charge of the individualized training will follow up: they will tell the manager-members which program was offered, what improvement was noted, and whether they feel there was good follow-up. So there is an ongoing follow-up procedure, both by the professional training section and by the manager-members.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Silvestri Corriveau, you mentioned that one of your areas of specialization was francophone Africa. When was the last time there was a formal training session for IRB members around francophone Africa issues in which you were involved?

[Anna Maria Silvestri Corriveau]

If you are talking about personal training, I never took part in any such program. We have legal briefings, at which we are given training. We can become specialized ourselves by reading various documents, and newspapers from Africa.

Personally, I have been working in the area of francophone African countries for seven years and I know my work. As soon as I open up a newspaper, I automatically go to the articles about the situation in these countries. I have developed a type of reflex regarding news about these countries in all the media. The Board also has a research centre, and of course there is the Internet and the legal centre.

In addition, if we want clarification on an important point, we ask that some research be done, for example on battered women, female genital mutilation in some countries or the force-feeding of young women. We do not have a great deal of information about these problems. We therefore ask that some research be done so that we are right up to date in our information on the various countries and the situations that exist there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

You can have one quick one. You've gone well over.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

In the same way that Monsieur Jobin mentioned Algeria, the research then is mainly your personal research, and there aren't specific training sessions on particular countries or particular regions. Is that correct?

[Anna Maria Silvestri Corriveau]

No, there is personal training available if we ask for it. Personally, I have never really needed it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much.

[François Guilbault]

Just to add to the answer, Mr. Chairman, there are also some training programs on specific themes such as legal matters or a particular country. For example, at the moment, there are a number of asylum claims coming from Mexico. The board has established a third session with a view to promoting the quality of decisions regarding Mexico specifically. All board members are invited to attend, especially those who rule on claims sent in by Mexicans. The session is not mandatory, but that has never been a problem, because all board members are very pleased to attend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Guilbault.

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly welcome the appointees before this committee and appreciate your sharing your thoughts with us. Both of you have some legal background. It seems that is an asset in determination and your basic training. Regarding the questions that you were asked in the qualification or screening process, did you find that your abilities and qualifications were appropriately brought out? Were the questions appropriate to the issue of your qualifications and ability to do the job?

Either Michel Jobin or Anna Maria, go ahead, please.

[Michel Jobin]

In my interview in 1998, there were some simulation exercises. There was an oral interview and a written examination. I assume the members of the panel used a grid to analyze our answers and decided that we were acceptable candidates, because we got the position. That is the only conclusion I can draw.

[Anna Maria Silvestri Corriveau]

I went through the same process. I was invited to take an examination. After that, I met with the individual. We discussed the case. I suppose that this individual was satisfied with what I said and the way in which I analyzed the case I was given.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Jobin, you indicated that you were concerned, or at least you raised the issue of delays, and you gave a variety of reasons why that might be. Information was one of them, and so on. The issues of the humanitarian and compassionate ground applications and pre-removal risk assessments are issues that arise from time to time. Has that caused any delay in terms of how it is handled when it comes before you at all, or not?

[Michel Jobin]

Mr. Chairman, to answer the very specific question that has been asked, I must say that we—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

The witnesses may or may not answer that question, because we're trying to be as flexible as we can. I realize Mr. Komarnicki is wandering a little bit outside of the strict interpretation of the Standing Order, but still the chair is struggling to remain flexible. Again, I'll point out to members that if witnesses feel they don't want to answer that question, that's fine with the chair, and we'll go on to the next question so you'll feel absolutely comfortable in that regard.

Mr. Guilbault.

[François Guilbault]

Humanitarian and compassionate consideration and the pre-removal risk evaluation are not responsibilities of the IRB. They are the exclusive responsibility of the CIC. These factors do not have any impact on delays.

There are two types of delays: the one between the time that the asylum seeker arrives and the time when the claim is filed, and the delay between the time when the claim is filed and when it is heard by the IRB.

Humanitarian and compassionate consideration and pre-removal risk assessment have no impact on the delays, because these matters are raised after the IRB has reviewed the claims.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much.

Does that answer your question, Mr. Komarnicki?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair, I'll take your points in order, and I'll pass my time over to Nina Grewal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You have three and a half or four minutes left, Ms. Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all for being here, for your time and your presentations.

My question goes to Ms. Corriveau. First of all, I would like to say, being a woman, I'm extremely proud that you have been reappointed to your position on the Immigration and Refugee Board. Could you tell us something about your experience as being a woman, hearing applications for asylum? Do you feel your gender provides any advantages or disadvantages to the performance of your job?

I see from your résumé that you were initially appointed to the IRB in September 1988. You have about eight years of experience. You must have a good idea of what competencies this job requires. What ability should a decision-maker bring to the refugee protection division? And what professional training have you received since your initial appointment?

[Anna Maria Silvestri Corriveau]

We've received a great deal of training. We get training once a month, on Thursday at noon. There are also fairly systematic training programs on various countries, particularly when the situation in these countries changes, so that we stay up to date on these countries.

We should emphasize that the training we get at the board is really top-notch. The lawyers who provide the training do an excellent job. So there is follow-up, and training is ongoing. If we need additional training, we need only request it.

To respond to your question about gender, I do not think that we as women can make decisions different from our male colleagues. The only difference may lie in our past experiences and our approach. We are required to administer natural justice, and to do that, we must be objective and impartial. I would say that our approach is influenced by our own personal experience. I see no difference between a decision made by a woman and a decision made by a man. The only thing that may differ sometimes is the approach.