I just want to talk about the appointments at the first level.
On October 20 of last year, the Public Service Commission did an audit. They found that more than half of the Immigration and Refugee Board's appointments were made based not on merit or the guiding values of fairness, transparency, access, and representativeness. Approximately 61% of appointments--or 33 out of 54 appointments--were not made based on merit. More than half of the appointments were made based on partisan considerations, and preferential treatment was given. This was in the audit done by the Public Service Commission.
I am quite worried. I asked the chair of the board, and he said it's not that they weren't based on merit; it was just that they couldn't show the merit. So maybe the hiring was done without a clear process or there wasn't any specific process. I don't know how people were hired.
Now, that is a huge problem, because these are the ones who are appointed by the chair of the board.
Coming back to your first point, Mr. Showler, and then perhaps I'll ask Mr. Waldman, what do you think should be done and what is the clear recommendation that we must have so that the people with merit are the ones who are hired, and they're hired based on competence rather than for partisan purposes?
It's not necessarily based on being a Conservative or a Liberal, though it seems that had been the track record for a few years, but I'm not necessarily casting stones at one party or another. The system seems to be a problem.