Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 28th, 2009

[Simon Coakeley]

It would be growing, because one of the significant components of our backlog is the large increase in the number of refugee claimants over the last couple of years. In the fiscal year that just finished, we took in 36,000 refugee claimants. We project that our refugee claims next year will be 45,000. So the backlog would be growing, in any event.

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

Mr. St-Cyr says that our process is flawed and not working properly. Could you please clarify that?

[Simon Coakeley]

Maybe I could just address the process generally. Once an IRB person has been appointed by the minister, they are given an extensive training program. This includes a process of in-class training. It includes sitting with other board members in three-member panels. They're assigned a legal advisor, a mentor, and a coach. For the first six months at least, they have a very heavy degree of support to them. After the six-month period, when they first start hearing their cases on their own, they will have a tribunal officer in the room to help present the case and help manage the case flow process. After the six-month period, they still have constant access to legal advice any time they need assistance. That's sort of right there physically present in each of our three regional offices.

In terms of the hearing process, if an individual claimant feels he or she did not get the hearing they were entitled to, they can apply to the Federal Court to seek leave to judicial review. Judicial review is not automatic; the Federal Court has to grant leave first. If leave is granted, then the court will hear the case. While I agree it's only one indication of success, we are very pleased that in overall terms only 2% of the cases the board hears are returned by the Federal Court to the board for a re-hearing.

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

Mr. Chair, the rest of my time I'll share with Mr. Calandra.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Thank you, Ms. Grewal.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I have just a couple of quick follow-up questions. You said that only 42% of lapsing IRB members were reappointed. Am I correct? Am I correct that these are individuals who were appointed under the old system, Mr. Coakeley?

[Simon Coakeley]

The current system, with the selection advisory board, was put in place in July of 2007. It replaced the previous process that had two different advisory boards. I'm not sure when that process was put in place.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

So many of these individuals who weren't reappointed, in essence, were appointed under the old system.

Just really briefly, give me a couple of examples of what would make somebody unqualified to serve on the board.

[Simon Coakeley]

In terms of the interview process, for example, if somebody.... One of the competencies—

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Let me change that to unqualified to be reappointed.

[Simon Coakeley]

Well, if they were—

[Sheila Fraser]

Can I just clarify? The 42% refers to members whose term ended and were recommended by the Immigration and Refugee Board....

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

And were not renewed.

[Sheila Fraser]

And were not renewed. There may have been people who were not recommended for appointment as well, but these were people who were recommended, who had evaluations done and were recommended by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I appreciate that.

What would make people unqualified?

[Simon Coakeley]

Examples are if the chair felt there had been performance issues or if the individual, for example, had been consistently late in rendering decisions. I'm not speaking about a specific example, but if the chair had complaints from counsel who appeared before board members about their behaviour in a hearing room, that I'm sure would be one of the factors the chair would take into account in rendering his decisions. Any allegations would be taken into account, and particularly if there were any proven allegations of breaches of our code of conduct, that would definitely be something that would be taken into account.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Weren't some of the changes we have made put in place so that we could move from a system where political partisans or unqualified individuals were appointed to the board—for instance, people like Liberal partisans like Khaled Mouammar? Don't some of the changes we have made, Mr. Coakeley, move us in a direction away from political partisans being appointed and toward a board that is more reflective of society at large and more professional, as opposed to political?

[Simon Coakeley]

Because I've only been with the board since September 2008 and this process kicked in a few years before that, I can't respond to that.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Can your official perhaps comment?

[Simon Coakeley]

She's also been with the board about the same amount of time as I have, unfortunately. Ms. Fraser may have an opinion on that.

I can't speak to what the rationale for the process was. I can say, though, that anyone who goes through the process now is qualified for appointment to the board. They go through a rigorous selection process, and anyone whose name is referred to the minister for appointment is well qualified for appointment.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Thank you very much, Mr. Calandra.

We have two final questioners, Ms. Mendes and, very briefly, Mr. St-Cyr.

Ms. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I just want to re-emphasize what I asked Mr. Coakeley earlier and make sure it's understood. There were 42% of the board members who were recommended for renewal. So that means they had passed all the chair's qualifications and I presume the criteria. Are we agreed on this, that the chair agreed with these recommendations?

[Simon Coakeley]

That's correct according to the information I have, and again, I wasn't at the board in the period of time that was covered by the Auditor General's report. However, my understanding is that during the period covered by the Auditor General's report, which was January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2008, 89 members were recommended for reappointment and 37 of them, or 42%, were actually reappointed.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

So there were 58% who were not taken into account, who were refused.

Ms. Fraser has a—