Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 24th, 2007

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Fleury.

Two weeks ago, I was at the conference of immigration lawyers in Victoria, where you were warmly applauded by the people of that community. I had the opportunity to meet a number of people who are in contact with Board members. I want to say that we're currently going through a period of crisis. Not only are hearings not taking place, but we don't know when they will be held, and the delays are utterly unacceptable.

Earlier you clarified a point. Here in the committee, last November, I asked Minister Solberg a question concerning his intention to conduct a review of the Board member selection process. I had understood that that was an evaluation desired by the IRB. So I'd like you to give me your opinion on the present process.

I know you've chaired a number of those committees and that you've met a number of candidates. From what people tell me, a number of names have been put forward. However, there may be a problem because those people aren't ranked. So can that pose a problem for the selection process? Is there a timetable for candidate selection?

I'd also like to hear what you have to say about the qualifications of those members because it takes a certain amount of time to be a good member, to get up to speed on cases, the process and all the complexity of the work. So a certain training is required. IRB members tell me that follow-up is necessary to enable the IRB to continue operating and that this is currently a critical time. Perhaps you can tell us what you think about all that.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I'm going to try to provide some clear answers to two of your questions.

First, I'll address the reason why the names are submitted to the minister in alphabetical order, not on the basis of the individual merit of each of the candidates. I believe in the way things are operating now. I believe that the minister must have the necessary flexibility to appoint Board members whom he chooses from a certain number of qualified persons, whether it be for political reasons, regional or other reasons. I think that's normal. What is important for me is that the minister stick to those persons whose names appear on the list. Ministers have always done that. We had even thought about changing that and using the method for appointing judges whereby candidates are submitted as highly qualified or only qualified. I prefer that we don't do that. If I consider that the person meets the basic requirements, I consider it normal that the political person have the flexibility to choose names from the list as that person considers necessary.

Second, you mentioned the question of qualifications. We've definitely noted that the newcomers, those appointed in the past two years, needed less training before being able to work independently. That's one aspect. The second aspect that I observed is the quality of the candidates, of the individuals who, in the past, under the former system, did not believe they could be selected. We're now attracting greater talents, qualified people who can work and become independent decision-makers sooner than in the past.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I also asked you a question concerning the timetable for appointments.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Yes, I forgot to answer that question.

Yes, there was a two-year period in the program, as there was under the regime preceding my arrival. Why two years? Because, to a certain degree, people want to know whether they have a chance of being selected. We also changed the test every two years to ensure that, if people took it again, they wouldn't take the same test. The list was prepared for a two-year period and people had to wait two years before filing a new application.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

All right. Consequently, we'll be short 50 Board members by the end of the month.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I have no idea about that.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

It's approximately that, I believe.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I have no idea about that, because I'm not there.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

How many candidate files were submitted to the minister, from candidates who could be appointed immediately?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

When I left my position—this is an approximate figure—within roughly five persons, the minister had a list of 80 candidates.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you. I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fleury.

Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fleury, for coming today, interrupting your retirement to revisit these issues.

Mr. Fleury, would you agree with the statement that the IRB and the immigration refugee appeal process in Canada is in a state of crisis at the moment?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I have no opinion on that. All I'm saying is that when I left it had been a very difficult year in terms of appointments and reappointments, and I think that's what I testified to the last committee. I gave you the impact of the vacancies and what it meant. Last year, in a very approximate number I had done just to satisfy myself, we lost 300 years of experience in one year.

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

That sounds like a significant number of years for an institution like the IRB. Can you give me any context for that kind of figure?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I'm just giving you a number. It is very tough work. By the time our members who have ten years leave, we feel it. And it's very tough work. I've said that before. It's very demanding, very rewarding, and it takes time—Although people can hear cases and be fair with the people in front of them after six, seven or eight months, you see a difference with people who have three or five years, of course, who know more about the international situation.

But at the last meeting, I tried to give you what I knew was the impact on our board.

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

Yes, I agree that you did try to do that, Mr. Fleury.

Given that the board is losing that kind of experience and given the lack of appointments and reappointments, do you still think the board is able to deliver the due process that you talked about in your opening statement?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Oh, I think so. Yes.

What we're faced with is a new backlog that is developing with the tribunal. That's the unfortunate part. What we were left with—and I'm going to say again, as of March 16—is that the time for decisions to be rendered was climbing and the number of cases that weren't heard because there were not enough appointments was increasing.

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

I have a number of specific questions, then.

There has been some controversy, and I think the Harrison report raised this, that some candidates were put forward for selection who hadn't passed the written test. Can you comment on that?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Yes. I was expecting that question. It has to do with selection of people. All we're trying to do when we select people is to increase our probability of success. So you try to use as many tools as you can, without delaying the process too much.

What happened was that we devised—The design was that you looked at the total candidate. You didn't limit yourself to one tool. You could use a test and say that you need 62%; I think the parole board does that, if I'm not mistaken. There's a mark, and if you don't meet it, you don't go to the next step. The reason we had a panel was to look at the track record of individuals: their international work, community work, their languages, the test. And the application—the application, as you know, is 20 pages, and the onus is on them to show why they would be a good member—also plays a role. So the panel was looking at the total person.

In the early stages, when we developed a new test—we had validated it amongst ourselves, but was still a new test—there were cases, and I think they were reported, where people may not have had the C mark but they were referred to the interview to see if they were worth proceeding with. And we did that.

Gradually the panel felt more comfortable with the test. In the last two panels I think we did have a passing mark, where they would not look at people—I can't remember the mark itself, but it could have been at about 60%. I stand to be corrected.

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

So there was a passing mark at the last couple of panels.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Yes.

There are two things you have to consider. The government—and rightly so—wanted more candidates, more choices. At the rate we were going, if the test were to stop a lot of people, then the question was whether we ran another competition.

You have to look at each case on its own merit. That's why you have a panel of six people from different walks of life coming to a judgment as to whether the person should be given the other level of interview.

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

Mr. Fleury, was political affiliation of the candidate ever a consideration for the panel, for you, in the interviews, in any of the work that was done in the selection process?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

None whatsoever. I have to be careful. What I'm saying is that you have candidates who will not report any affiliation in their CV. We take the CV for granted. It doesn't matter really, as long as they meet the competencies. So it has nothing to do—There were people who actually were members of Parliament. They reported their backgrounds. It didn't change anything. It has to do with the nine competencies and whether you can make it.

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

Mr. Fleury, was there any change in how the appointment process worked with the change in government? I gather that before that there were quite a few people in the selection process who had been submitted to the previous Liberal government and that appointments hadn't been made. We know the situation with the new government is the same. Was there a difference in how the governments approached the recommendations of the selection panel and the appointments?