Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 12th, 2008

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, do you want to inform the witness that she is not required to answer? Is that what you want to tell her?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the witness may, if she wishes, answer the question, but I would question the admissibility of the question because it doesn't relate directly to the appointee's or the nominee's ability to do the job. I'm trying to be as wide-ranging as I possibly can but still protect the integrity of what we're trying to do here.

Does the witness wish to answer that question? It's your choice.

[Dominique Setton-Lemar]

I just don't feel that it's relevant. I don't feel that it relates to my qualifications.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Well, that really makes two of us.

I know I'm going to invoke quite a flurry of points of order here.

Mr. St-Cyr, on a point of order.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I don't have Marleau and Montpetit with me, but you say it has to be shown that the question is related to the job. People who want to immigrate here and settle in Montreal, for example, will have to appear before a board member and will have access to this information. These CVs are public. I think it's appropriate to know why a board member wishes to state that she felt it was necessary to move to Ottawa from Montreal in order to raise and educate her children. People will appear before these members, and the latter will decide on their fate and their lives. I think they're entitled to know why a member saw fit to state in her curriculum vitae that it was necessary to move to Ottawa from Montreal in order to raise and educate her children. That is entirely related to the job, and I would like to hear Ms. Setton-Lemar's answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Komarnicki, on that point of order.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

To respond to that, quite quickly and quite frankly, I'm a lawyer, and my competence to be one has nothing to do with my personal preferences of where I may want to move or where I might want to send my children to school. It's totally irrelevant to my abilities and qualifications to perform the job.

Are you trying to make something out of an issue that is not an issue in terms of competence? If it is a matter of competence, you can ask the question, but that is not. Personal preferences and what I might do or not do in terms of raising my family or where I choose to live is totally out of bounds and should not be asked, and I would ask the chair to maintain his ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I have a point of order. I don't agree with Mr. Komarnicki's interpretation, since we're talking about people who will have to judge whether it is appropriate for an immigrant to settle in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto or in another Canadian city. This sentence is important in this context. I agree with him that any citizen may live wherever he or she wishes. Some people come from Moose Jaw, Vancouver and so on, but a person who wants to judge foreign citizens wishing to immigrate to our country doesn't have to tell them that she preferred to move to Ottawa in order to educate her children. That's the sense of my question, and I simply want to give her the opportunity to explain what she meant. What's written is confusing. She has a chance to explain what she meant. It may not be a problem. We should at least give her the chance to speak; that's why we're here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I still can't make the connection here to a point of relevance as to the appointee's or the nominee's ability to do the job based on where she lives or where she feels she should raise her children or educate her children. So that's my ruling on that.

Again, the witness may answer the question, but she has indicated that she doesn't feel it's relevant. So I have to maintain my ruling on that.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think what comes into question and what the members should address—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It's a grey area, I guess.

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

No, but there is relevance. You are applying for a position to be on the IRB. You might have a situation where you have somebody in front of you who is sympathetic to the Bloc or the PQ, and it's a question if it would not prejudice the person in front of you because of that. It's what those comments lend themselves to. It would be relevant, too, in terms of the decision they would have to make.

If you were to say no, that it would not prejudice you in making a decision, no matter what—

[Dominique Setton-Lemar]

It doesn't prejudice me. I moved in 1983. I don't think it's relevant to today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Your time was up, by the way, when I brought up this point of order. If you feel that—

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

We have an answer, anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, we still have some time, so who are we on now?

Ms. Grewal, five minutes, please.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Daley, could you please tell the committee what experience and what qualifications are considered during the selection process for appointees to the Immigration and Refugee Board? Could you please explain?

[Krista Daley]

Yes. I think I alluded to this before. There are actually nine competencies that are viewed to be very important, and it is what is called a competency-based process as opposed to a knowledge-based process. I will simply read them out for your information. They are conceptual thinking, judgment and analytical thinking, decision-making, written communication, oral communication, information seeking, self control, organizational skills, results orientation, and finally, cultural competence.

Those competencies were developed by actual board members in consultation with some human resource experts, so we know they are the ones that lead you then, in all likelihood, to be a very good member. As indicated, these members have gone through that process.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I see.

Ms. Setton-LeMar, you were an investigator for the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. Mr. Volpentesta, you are the executive director of the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants. Could both of you please comment on how these roles have prepared you to work on the Immigration and Refugee Board?

[Berto Volpentesta]

In my capacity as executive director, I think—in fact I know—I used a number of the examples that I took from my duties: setting up educational events, communicating with members. All of the competencies were displayed in my duties as executive director. I think they were very relevant.

There's an interview process, which is called a targeted behavioural event interview. They actually have you go through picking an example that would describe the particular competency. I think all of them were used from my experience as the executive director.

If I can try to quickly recall, I can go over them again. One major thing, for example, is setting up educational or professional development seminars, and that means a lot of coordination, a lot of organization, making sure things are done at a certain time, making sure everyone knows the process. So it involves all the skills.

[Dominique Setton-Lemar]

In my particular case, I was an investigator, who was in discipline. I was investigating the members in relation to complaints from the consumer of the immigration service, if I can use the term generally

How it led me to this position is that I was doing administrative law. It was the whole area of administrative law: the preparation of the file, the investigation of the different parties and finding the facts, analyzing the rules in relation to fairness or whatever the issue was, writing the report for the manager of complaints and discipline, finding out how it was going to work itself out, and then trying to find solutions or mediations or some way to deal with the issue. Sometimes it was very interesting, because it would wind up in the policy area, or we were able to make recommendations.

I had a very broad view of the practice and what was happening, from the consumer point of view, the practice point of view, and also the application of the rules.

I think it prepared me very, very well.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Are you required to do anything to meet your obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act? If so, have you met these obligations?

[Dominique Setton-Lemar]

They have this 18-page booklet. I'm going through it and filling it out.

There isn't much for me. I'm a lawyer and I report to my bar association as to what I'm doing. I'm no longer employed by CSIC, so there really isn't anything for me to do, other than comply with the requirements. Whatever they ask me to do, I'll do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you. The five minutes are up.

Now we will go to the next five-minute-round speaker, Mr. Karygiannis.