As part of our process we would examine, read over, all applications and résumés of those who had passed a certain low threshold, and that would consist, I suppose, over the three years our committee existed, of probably about five hundred to six hundred applications.
We also would examine the test that was written by each of the applicants, which was a test designed and administered by the staff of the Immigration and Refugee Board. We would deliberate over these, and then, based partly on the needs of the Refugee Board, we would decide on how many people to pass forward to the next stage. Approximately 25% of applicants would go on to an interview.
The reason I'm here representing the panel is to a great extent, I assume, because we resigned en masse in February of this year. And I wanted to very quickly go over with you why we resigned.
Our disquiet with the system started back in the summer of 2006. Actually, I guess, it went back even further than that, because we were concerned about the fact that there was a very low level of appointment of people to the IRB by, at that point, the Liberal minister, Mr. Volpe. It was clear that we were not giving him names that he wanted to see and appoint. That was our first disquiet.
When the Conservatives were elected, we were encouraged by comments that there was going to be an open and transparent system of appointments in all panels, and we thought that perhaps we would start to see some appointments, which we new the IRB desperately needed. However, this did not materialize under Minister Solberg, and in fact what we began to see during the summer of 2006 was that not only were there not appointments being made, but people who were being recommended for reappointment were not being appointed. And it would appear that it was simply because they had been appointed during the time the Liberals were in government.
We then learned that all the people we had passed on for approval prior to the 2005 election were not going to be considered for appointment, no matter what their qualifications were. Since we were a non-partisan committee, and people's political affiliation had absolutely nothing to do with our decision to pass them on for interview and appointment, we were quite concerned that politics was coming to play a part in what was happening with our work.
Finally, we began, in the fall of 2006, to hear rumblings that the government was unhappy with the selection process, that they felt that we were a panel made up of people who would get members who would say yes to refugees, which is, I would submit, nonsense. And we heard that there was going to be a review of the selection process done.
We went with Mr. Harrison and his group, and with all due respect, we sort of felt that the fix was in. We knew what was coming down. In fact, long before the report was released and we knew what the report contained, we had predicted exactly what it was going to say. We had already decided that if it indeed said what we thought it was going to say, we would be resigning, because we did not want any part of a system that allowed partisanship to be part of the selection process. We had not made our decision public, because the report had not yet been made public, but our hand was somewhat forced by the fact that Mr. Fleury tendered his resignation in early February 2007.
From what we knew of what was coming in the report, because by that time we had been shown the report, in confidence—we weren't allowed to speak of it publicly, but we knew what was coming—we decided that we would tender our resignation shortly after Mr. Fleury's.
I appreciate the time, and I know you have to go do your vote. I would, once you return—
