Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning and thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce myself to the committee and provide you with information on the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada's governor in council selection process.
My name is Simon Coakeley. In September 2008, I was appointed to the position of executive director at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. As executive director of the IRB, I am its chief operating officer and responsible for the performance of the board's adjudicative support and corporate services.
I'd like to start by giving you a little bit more background on the way in which the GIC selection process is managed within the IRB.
As Ms. Fraser has indicated, the basis of our selection process is the selection advisory board, or SAB. This board was created in July of 2007. The board consists of nine members: the chair of the IRB; four persons--jointly appointed by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the chair--from outside the IRB; and four other persons--appointed by the IRB chair--from within. At the moment, three of the four persons appointed by the chair are senior GIC people within the IRB, and one is a senior public servant.
All members of the SAB are required to affirm their impartiality in all aspects of the selection process. Under this process, the chair is accountable for the identification of qualified candidates. The chair then recommends these candidates to the minister for consideration for appointment.
The selection process is transparent and merit-based, ensuring that only qualified candidates are considered for appointment. The IRB has established the behavioural competencies for governor in council members to ensure that they have the necessary skills, abilities and personal suitability to fulfill their tasks. These competencies are the basis for the evaluation of candidates for appointment to the IRB, as well as for the ongoing evaluation of member performance.
These competencies are: oral and written communication, conceptual thinking, decision-making, information seeking, judgment and analytical thinking, organizational skills, results orientation, self-control and cultural competence. All these competencies can be found on the IRB's website.
All applicants undergo a preliminary screening that evaluates basic requirements, such as education and experience, against the criteria published on our website. The SAB then meets with and reviews the applications of all candidates screened in. Based on the objective criteria established, a consensus is reached on the suitability of candidates for further consideration. Candidates are advised in writing of their status at that point.
The written test that Ms. Fraser spoke about is then administered to candidates screened in by the SAB. The test evaluates four competencies: conceptual thinking, judgment and analytical thinking, decision-making and written communication.
As Ms. Fraser mentioned, the written test is marked on a pass/fail basis and candidates must demonstrate that they meet each competency. If candidates do not meet all competencies, they fail the test. Once again, candidates are advised in writing whether or not they have been successful.
Successful candidates are invited to a behavioural event interview by a panel consisting of the IRB chairperson or a designate, normally a SAB member, of one of the external SAB members appointed jointly by the chair of the Board and the minister, and of one IRB senior manager, such as myself. In addition, there is one external human resources consultant who is an active member of the interview panel.
The interview panel conducts a behavioural event interview and will assess candidates based on six competencies: oral communication, information seeking, self-control, organizational skills, results orientation and cultural competence. Once again, candidates must demonstrate that they have passed all competencies. The decision is based on a consensus of the panel, not a vote. All members of the interview panel have received appropriate training in conducting behavioural event interviews.
As I mentioned, since my arrival at the IRB, I and a number of my public service colleagues have received formal training on the behavioural event interview technique, which is used to assess the candidates against their competencies. And I have participated, as have a number of my other senior public servant colleagues, in the interview process.
Based on the results of the interview and based on the results of the validation checks of the behavioural competencies, the IRB chair communicates, in writing, the names of the qualified candidates to the minister. The minister then recommends appointments to the Governor in Council from among the pool of qualified candidates. In doing so, he takes into consideration such factors as IRB operational requirements, the three locations of our operations, gender, diversity, and linguistic requirements.
When a member's appointment is due to expire, the chair provides the minister with a recommendation on whether or not the member should be reappointed. The chair bases his recommendation on the member's performance. The minister then makes a recommendation on the reappointment to the Governor in Council, after taking note of the IRB chair's recommendations.
As Ms. Fraser commented in her recent report, she recognizes that the IRB consistently follows established procedures to solicit and assess new candidates for appointment to the IRB. During the period covered by Ms. Fraser's review, new candidates were regularly recommended to the minister, and recommendations for reappointments were consistently made six months in advance of the expiry date of the incumbents' terms.
Among her recommendations, the report called on the government and the IRB to work together to determine an appropriate complement of members or other strategy to deal with the response of unprocessed refugee claims and unresolved immigration appeals on a timely basis.
While all three of the IRB's divisions have faced increases in their workload over the last few years, the RPD faces the most significant challenges. As of March 2009, the backlog in the RPD stood at 58,000 cases. Average processing time in the RPD currently stands at 17.7 months; in the IAD, it is 11.4 months. We recognize that these times are too long. The shortfall in the complement of members has been a significant concern to the IRB well before the release of the Auditor General's status report. As of today, the number of vacancies stands at 26 members. The IRB welcomes the recommendation of the Auditor General that, in the future, the IRB be staffed in a timely manner with the required number of decision-makers who have the knowledge, skills and experience to carry out the board's mandate.
The IRB is pleased that the Auditor General has recognized the processes for soliciting, assessing, and recommending qualified candidates to the minister as being sound and that the report acknowledges that the IRB selection process for recommending reappointments to the minister was done in a timely manner. We continue to work cooperatively with the minister and the government to determine the appropriate complement of IRB members to meet workload.
In closing, I would simply note that new members are being appointed to the IRB. In fact, as recently as last week, four new members were appointed to the board, one in Vancouver and three in Toronto.
Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
