Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 24th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

There is a point of order.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I would ask my colleague to use a better tone of language. I'm certainly not negative towards him, and certainly using that kind of language is not appreciated on this side of the House.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Jim. I know you're a big boy. I think you can take this kind of—

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

It's Mr. Karygiannis to you, and to be more precise, Honourable Karygiannis. If you don't understand that, I suggest you read the name.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order!

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Your time is up now, Mr. Karygiannis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have a disagreement between two honourable gentlemen, so we'll move back to Mr. Jaffer.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I wanted to say I wasn't sure whether you had the chance to finish the statement you were giving to Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Again, I want to make sure that no one—I'm not a victim of anything. I'm a professional, and you have to make decisions on your status when things happen. I didn't leave negatively. I'm very proud of what we did. I think the board is going to win by having a new chair, and the government will appoint the chair they want. That's their prerogative, and I bow to that.

I'm a public servant. If I feel that it's time to go, it's time to go. There was no pressure whatsoever by any institution, by anybody, nor reference in my presence to my leaving. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that in terms of the Privy Council Office, the message was quite clear that I should finish my term, and they wanted me to finish.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you for clarifying that.

I want to shift gears a bit, Mr. Fleury.

On a more positive note, I know you've had a wealth of experience, given all your years of service, and I want to wish you the best in your retirement.

You mentioned in your opening statement that prior to leaving you had indicated a plan to the minister for governance structures, so I'm going to ask three general questions, and you can use up the rest of the time.

Can you give us a brief outline of some of the structures you presented to the minister? I don't know if you can speak about them or not, but some of the key changes you suggested. To your knowledge, were those suggestions well received? Have any of them been implemented since you suggested them?

Finally, you have already addressed it, but why did you feel it was necessary for new leadership to carry out some of them?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

First of all, it was advice to the minister, so under my oath when I was a chair, I cannot share the advice I gave to the minister.

What were the issues? I can talk about what the issues were. The issue was governance from the point of view of two things. One, with the arrival of the Accountability Act and the new responsibility of deputy heads and heads of agencies, it became clear that you had to make sure that the accountability of the chair is meeting the standard and that the chair is not vulnerable with respect to the management of the board. The way we're divided now, the chair has a position called executive director, and the two vice-presidents weren't accountable at the end of the day. I ended up with the accountability. There is no problem with that, but let's make sure that it's clear to everyone where the accountability lies. You need to clarify accountability with respect to the performance of the board, with respect to ethics, values, and how we render justice.

The second thing in the organization is public servants supporting decision-makers, and you try to clarify the line between both in terms of the management, of the accountabilities, etc. It is most difficult right now. The lines are blurred. We tried a few models and we're working with some: that public servants look into case management, and Governor in Council appointees render decisions and have strategic policy direction on some issues. It's there, but it needs more clarity and it needs more refinement.

Third, there's an overlap on management, and that has to be addressed. There is too much management.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, it's 5:20, so thank you, Mr. Jaffer.

Mr. Telegdi, please.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fleury, congratulations on an exemplary career. You certainly touched off a bit of concern for people across the country involved with dealing with refugees and trying to see fairness happen. I commend you for taking the step that you took.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but you were committed to making sure that the people who were appointed were qualified, that they went through the selection process. You were aware in the past how political interference was part of appointing people to the Immigration and Refugee Board, and you, sir, made a decision that it was not going to happen on your watch. I think you have really achieved something, and I'm saying this for all parties in government, when you took that position.

The issue was that if the minister wanted to set up a committee on appointments, as long as they were true to the selection process, you were comfortable with that, and when there was the mix between the minister's appointments, which are by their nature political, and the selection committee that you put together, that's when you probably said, I've been here long enough, I don't agree, I'm on my way.

Am I generally correct in that?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

If I could express it in my own terms, I respect the fact that the government can decide what they want on appointments and they can decide what they want in terms of selection. I came in and saw that the way to professionalize the institution was to divorce the selection from the appointment. My view is when you mix them up, whether you like it or not, you are politicizing the selection process.

My sense is that for tribunals—not for Governor in Council appointees everywhere, but for tribunals—especially our tribunal and the work we do, it has to be divorced.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much. That's my understanding.

I really appreciate that, and I think you really are an example that people joining the public service can aspire to. In all my years, sir, I haven't heard so many good comments about a person as I have heard about you.

The other question I have is, yes, there is always a lag time, and governments change, but I have been on this committee for a long time and I can't recall our ever having one-third of the membership being vacant. I know that when you started we had a backlog of 52,000 people. You, sir, brought it down to 20,000, and we were looking forward to that number decreasing and having an efficient system. Of course, with these vacancies, the backlog is growing.

Can you, in your time, recall when we had a situation where over one-third of the board was vacant?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I don't know.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

My understanding is that when the Liberals left office we had five vacancies. How many people went through the selection process who were ready for appointments at that time?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to be approximate and stand corrected by maybe the board. The staff from the board could possibly write to you, but I think we had at least 40 or 45 names.

If I may also add to this, I did not anticipate—and I should have, but I didn't, and I accept responsibility for that—that the percentage of my recommendations of reappointments would drop so fast, because 35 names—In a normal year when everything's in place, you don't have more than 15 vacancies that come up for new appointment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You can continue a little bit further on, if you want, Mr. Fleury, but we are at 5:10 now. Or are you finished?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Yes, I'm finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, sir.

Madame Faille or Mr. Gravel.

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

I didn't expect to answer questions; I thought Nina would take the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

If you're not prepared at the moment, we can move on.

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

In fact, I'm going to ask you the following question.

I had understood that there were five Board member openings before the election, that is before January 2006. At that time, some 40 candidates had been proposed to the minister. Is that correct?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Yes.