Evidence of meeting #48 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 board.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Peter Harrison  Senior Associate Deputy Minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Deputy Head, Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada, As an Individual
Nick Summers  Former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Advisory Panel, As an Individual

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Our meeting will come to order. I think we have a quorum, so we can begin.

I should apologize right off the bat. We have confusion here this morning. We don't normally have a vote on Tuesday morning at 11:15 or 11:30, but bells will go some time within the next 15 minutes or so, and we are going to have to move on to our voting and come back and resume.

I want to welcome this morning witnesses Nick Summers, former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, and Mr. Peter Harrison, senior associate deputy minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and deputy head for Indian residential schools. Welcome to both of you.

I think you're familiar with how the committee operates. We'll give it to you to do opening statements, and I believe first we'll go to Mr. Harrison for his opening statement and then to Nick Summers. And we'll go to our committee members then, to interact, ask questions, and what have you.

Mr. Harrison, please.

11:15 a.m.

Peter Harrison Senior Associate Deputy Minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Deputy Head, Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada, As an Individual

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee,

l am pleased to appear before you to answer any questions you may have concerning the report entitled “Governor in Council Appointments Process—Immigration and Refugee Board”. This report was prepared by the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

I would like to begin my comments by providing committee members with some contextual remarks. The Public Appointments Commission Secretariat was created by order in council on April 21, 2006 and I was appointed Executive Director and Deputy Head of the Secretariat on the same day. Orders in council were also published allowing for the appointment of commissioners.

At that point in time, Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, made reference to the Public Appointments Commission by proposing a change to the Salaries Act. The draft bill was later amended in committee to include the mandate of the commission. This mandate includes a provision in clause 227 “to perform any other function specified by the Governor in Council.”

The Secretariat was asked to undertake a review of the appointment process for members of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Following discussions with the Privy Council Office, the Secretariat prepared terms of reference for this review. These were approved by the minister and made public on November 3, 2006. Please see annex 1 of the report.

Immigration and Refugee Board members are appointed by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the minister. The overall selection process was amended considerably in March 2004, as announced by the then-minister—see annex 4 of the report—and the objective of the review we were asked to do was to assess

How effective is this new approach in meeting the objective of merit-based appointments while respecting the prerogative of the GiC, and what if any are the options for updating it?

The Secretariat worked closely with IRB officials in acquiring and reviewing relevant information. Discussions were also held with members of the IRB, IRB leadership, and with members of the chairperson's advisory panel. Secretariat officials also attended hearings of the IRB in order to understand the complex nature of members' tasks. These are reviewed in the section of the report entitled "The Work Context". A third party, Sussex Circle, was engaged to review the exam which is employed as a selection tool by the IRB and to recommend possible changes which could lead to greater efficiencies.

The report contains, Mr. Chairman, nine recommendations dealing with the timeliness of recruitment campaigns; the need for targeted advertising; implementation of the exam pass mark; consideration of merging the advisory panel and chairperson's selection board; ministerial involvement in determining membership of selection boards, as was intended in 2004; maintenance of the practice of providing the Governor in Council several names for each vacancy; keeping candidates for appointment and reappointment apprised of their situation; making initial appointments for three years; and making reappointments for five and two years respectively.

The report was submitted to the minister in early 2007. Since January 21, 2007, I have been appointed by the Governor in Council to other duties.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I trust this provides you with helpful information, and I will try to answer any questions you may have.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you, Mr. Harrison.

We'll have questions after we hear from Mr. Summers.

11:20 a.m.

Nick Summers Former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Advisory Panel, As an Individual

Thank you very much.

Before I start, I want to make one correction. I don't want to appear under false pretenses. I am not a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I am a former member of the advisory panel to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The panel was the panel that Mr. Harrison alluded to as part of the selection process. Our committee was the committee that reviewed applications and test results and determined which candidates for membership on the Immigration and Refugee Board went forward for interviews and further processing.

The advisory panel consisted of between five and six members of the community. We were selected by the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Mr. Fleury.

We consisted of a social worker from Vancouver, a law professor from Calgary, a lawyer from Ottawa, a retired public servant from Ottawa who specialized in human resources, and me, a refugee lawyer from St. John's, Newfoundland. At one point, we also had another member who was a lawyer from Toronto and specialized in administrative tribunal matters. Mr. Fleury was also an ex-officio member of the panel.

As I said, our job was to review the applications that people made for consideration for appointment to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I see a light flashing here. Does it mean you have to leave for your vote?

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

I'm afraid we'll have to leave fairly soon. But I think we can get through your opening statement, and then when we come back, of course, we can go to questions.

11:20 a.m.

Former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Advisory Panel, As an Individual

Nick Summers

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—

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

We have a thirty-minute bell. I'm fairly sure that we have a thirty-minute bell here. Continue. I think we'll probably have to leave here at roughly twenty to twelve.

Is that cutting it too fine? It's too fine? How about another five minutes?

11:25 a.m.

Former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Advisory Panel, As an Individual

Nick Summers

I could stop here.

I'd just like to set out briefly for you—

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

What we'll do is allow Mr. Summers to finish his statement. We will go probably another three or four minutes. Mr. Summers, go ahead.

11:25 a.m.

Former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Advisory Panel, As an Individual

Nick Summers

I want to very briefly set out for you why we felt there was a problem with what the report proposed and the government said it accepted.

First, if it ain't broke don't fix it. The selection process we had in place was working extremely well. We were getting extremely good candidates, and were passing people on for appointment who were very good. The problem wasn't our selection process; the problem was the minister's office not appointing people.

We also could not see any purpose in putting minister's representatives on the selection committee, other than to bring partisanship into the process. Since we came on the committee with the express intent that there would not be partisanship in the selection process, we felt that any attempt to go that way was a contradiction of the terms under which we came on it, and we would not accept that.

We all had some experience with the refugee board and the history of patronage on the refugee board. We did not want to see the board go down that road again, because we knew that it was harmful to refugees and their rights.

I'm going to stop there. I have lots of other things to say. I hope you'll be asking me some questions when you come back.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

The committee should be back here within half an hour, so hopefully we'll be able to make it back by twelve.

The meeting is suspended until then.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi

This meeting is called to order for the purpose of hearing evidence. In the absence of the chair, we'll make some use of the time.

We have heard the witnesses.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi

Yes.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

I wanted to say there's a vote call right now, and the bells require the members to be in the chamber. We should probably keep the television on so we can tell what's left for time.

12:30 p.m.

A voice

That's right.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

It would be totally inappropriate in the middle of a bell summoning members to vote in the chamber for the chair to be replaced with 17 minutes left. I think that's inappropriate, and I would move that it's not a situation wherein a vice-chair should convene a meeting in the absence of a chair who was here in the first place.

I don't know what you're up to, Andrew, but there's 16 minutes before a vote is required and we need to be in the House, and all members should be marshalling towards the House during a bell. I would say it's totally inappropriate for you to assume jurisdiction of any kind, as vice-chair, under those circumstances.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi

Actually, I did it at the suggestion of our clerk, who has checked the rules on it, and since all we are doing is asking questions of the member, I thought it might be useful if we got some people to ask some questions.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Not during the middle—

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi

If we get to redo the meeting, then we will have handled that already.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

But not during the middle of a bell that's ringing and there's 16 minutes left and we should be making our way to the House. I think it's inappropriate to assume that, and I'm not sure if under any other circumstances the clerks would give that kind of advice. It's inappropriate in the middle of a bell. When the bell rings, it's summoning members to go to the House, and they should be going to the House. Any member who is on his way to the House wouldn't be here. And I would certainly want to hear the clerk on the record about that rule, because I think that during a bell summoning members to the House there shouldn't be any business conducted. Prior to the bell, I think that might be appropriate, but not during a bell.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Faille.

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Would it be possible to extend the meeting? Usually, our meetings last until 1:00 p.m. Given the comings and goings we are expecting, would it be possible to extend the meeting at least until question period?

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi

Yes.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

First of all, my point of order is that the vice-chair should not be replacing the chair at this time when the bells are on. I'd like some kind of a ruling from someone to indicate one way or the other, and there may be others who want to speak on it.