Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 24th, 2007

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

That question makes me think. I had made a certain contribution, and I had completed the mandate assigned to me. I had finished. I was also nine months short of completing my five-year term.

As I stated in the letter I sent to the minister, I was in the public service for 42 years. I had occupied quite complex, quite important positions of command. I really wanted to spend more time with my family, and I didn't think that I would be able to restore the Board's weight and positioning. I came to the conclusion that it might be preferable, for the Board itself, that we have a new chairperson.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

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

May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

By the way, you have three minutes.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to ask a question about Mr. Ellis, who was a member of the panel. He recently received a medal for his contribution to administrative justice. Mr. Ellis no doubt submitted a letter to you at the time of his departure and surely told you about certain matters that were troubling him. What did you do about his recommendations? Is the minister aware? Are some of Mr. Ellis' recommendations relevant? Did Mr. Harrison take them into account? I'm trying to understand how a person who has received so many medals and a number of administrative justice awards can resign without anyone considering the reasons why he resigned.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I appointed Mr. Ellis. In the Canadian legal community, Mr. Ellis has a good reputation—you are correct—and he always makes good speeches and has good arguments. I believe that no one is more qualified than he is in the area of tribunals. I had a lot of respect for him. I asked him to join our tribunal when we lost a member for health reasons. He did so willingly. His contribution was outstanding. I don't remember the number of panels in which he took part, but I am sure that it was at least three. I called on him as a personal advisor regarding the operation of a tribunal. Perhaps you will recall that a contract was awarded to do a study on asylum hearings conducted by videoconference. Mr. Ellis had that contract. That shows that he is an extremely conscientious person who felt that his work on renewals was not moving forward. There was also the recruitment issue, but, if you read the resignation letter that he sent to the minister of the time, you'll see that his major concern was that his recommendations concerning renewals had not been followed.

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

That was a problem for him.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

It's a lack of confidence or—we don't know.

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

We don't know. That's why. He seemed to have concerns about the loss of knowledge within the IRB. He thought that loss would have a major impact on the administrative tribunal.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Furthermore—

Mr. Chair, may I continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, you have a little time left.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Furthermore, since he did the study on the asylum hearings conducted by videoconference, Mr. Ellis came to know our Board and the complex nature of the work and issues facing the decision-maker. In addition, Mr. Ellis believed that care had to be taken to ensure there was no politicization with regard to Board renewals. I'll give you an example. Mr. Ellis was chair of the tribunal in Toronto and he decided on renewals; he was not someone who came from the political side. That moreover was one of my recommendations to the last panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Who do we have next?

Mr. Siksay, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Fleury, on the subject of Mr. Ellis's experience with the advisory panel and the selection and appointment process, I believe he made it very clear that he thought the process had become very politicized, both with the previous Liberal government and with the current Conservative government.

I believe in his letter to you of June 2006, on the problem around appointments and reappointments, he said: Of course, the problem has been exacerbated by the fact that the new government's policy of non-renewal of Liberal government appointments comes on top of the Liberals' own unaccountable failure to appoint the bulk of the candidates who came through this merit-based system successfully in the past and were recommended for appointment.

Mr. Fleury, do you agree with Mr. Ellis's assessment of the experience in that statement?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I can't speak for Mr. Ellis. I think you've read what he said in the letter.

I think the big disappointment that occurred was the fact that—and I think I said it before—when we established those nine competencies that we were going to use for recruitment purposes, we also asked that every member who was in place be tested against those nine competencies. And I think what he was getting at in his letter--that's my opinion—was that—You re-evaluated all your staff, the present staff you have, against those nine competencies. Some didn't meet them, and I recommended that they not be reappointed. Some were missing just one factor, and we trained them and got them back to up speed.

So I guess what he was saying is that the ones I recommended for reappointment, regardless of the government in placeWhere in my first two years of the mandate I think 95% of my recommendations were accepted, that was not the case then.

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

Mr. Ellis goes on to talk about the loss of experience and skills through the lack of reappointments, which you've already addressed. He also talks about the public relations calamity that the situation is causing for the IRB.

Do you agree with his assessment that this constitutes a public relations calamity for the board?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

No. If you look at the outside press we had four years ago vis-à-vis our board and our competencies and what we have today, there's better reporting and a better acceptance of that.

As I said, we lost 300 years of experience that year. What he was trying to get at, I suppose, is that the average experience of the people you had in place was about 5.6 years. If it's all new recruitment, you'll end up with 2.7 years of experience. I think that's what he was getting at.

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

Mr. Fleury, he also talks about institutional morale at the board. How has this situation affected the morale of the folks who do this important work for Canadians?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Morale is a big word. In a sense, you can have morale problems that are not directly related to the appointment process. I think morale issues are far greater than that.

It affected members when they saw some of their colleagues not knowing their status, whether they were going to be reappointed or not, right up until the last day. Some even went home, without pay, with no indication that they would be reappointed. When they saw that treatment—and it happened with both governments—their own value was this: we're going all out, we believe in the work we do, we don't try to let that affect us, but am I the next person who will be treated like that?

I think Mr. Harrison, in his report, talks about due notice. And in provincial jurisdictions, most tribunals have a way of letting people know six months before whether they're going to be renewed or not. I know that in transition years some of that becomes difficult, and it's an orientation. As I said, it happened with all transitions, regardless of governments.

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

How long does the normal transition period go on for? You've seen transitions, Mr. Fleury. This has been about 18 months now. Is this a normal transition or is this an extraordinary transition?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

It's a tough transition.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Fleury.

Mr. Jaffer.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fleury. It's good to see you again, especially as a private citizen, so to speak, sharing your experience with us. I think it's always useful, and I appreciate your taking the time.

I just wanted to give you a final chance—because I don't know whether you finished your statement with regard to Mr. Karygiannis and helping to shoot down some of the black helicopters that he keeps trying to bring up. I don't know whether you had a chance to address his final comment. So if you would like to, I'd like to give you a chance—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.