Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 20th, 2018

[Paul Aterman]

In the performance appraisal process—to speak specifically to the points that you've raised—there are elements of it where a manager will do a random audit of a member's hearings. For example, in the immigration appeal division, when you do a performance appraisal, the member's manager is expected to take a minimum of three hearings, selected at random, and listen to them.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Do they do that for all of the people under their responsibility each year?

[Paul Aterman]

Yes.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

So they review every person, at least three random cases of theirs, to get a sense.

[Paul Aterman]

Yes, they have the option of observing the hearings, but more typically what they will do is listen to the recordings. They will also take a random selection of the member's recent—

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Does that manager's manager double-check to make sure that the manager has, in fact, conducted that level of review?

[Paul Aterman]

Yes.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay.

Then, to the complaints process, once someone has been found to have erred in judgment—and here I go back to the comments that my colleague Mr. Tilson was making—how do we ensure that it goes into annual, recurrent-type training?

In airworthiness we look at accident investigations or incidents, and all pilots, as an example, are briefed annually on the incidents—not specifically on who or what aircraft were involved, as it's sanitized—and given feedback on incidents that have arisen.

Is there a similar type of opportunity to bring that kind of complaints outcome process to all of the people involved in the decision-making?

[Paul Aterman]

We haven't done that at the board. I think that's the kind of thing we could certainly look at.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

I have two areas I'd like to cover. One is the short-term appointments. Given that a large number of board members still need to be appointed, why are these short-term appointments?

In light of the fact that you have a huge backlog with a large number of claims being made, for my second question I'd like to go back to the issue of summons. In fact, in 2016 the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board made a decision entitled Kalonji v. Deputy Head (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada) regarding grievous termination.

In that case, the decision was that a summons can be issued. My question for you is why the IRB is not using this as an avenue to follow through on complaints. I think it is very important for outstanding complaints to be completed and not to be abandoned in the middle because the person involved has disappeared or has left.

[Paul Aterman]

In relation to the first question on why there are short-term appointments, it's because the funding is limited for two years.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

So it's an issue of funding again.

[Paul Aterman]

Yes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay, on my next question, then, on the issue around summons—

[Paul Aterman]

I'm not familiar with the case. The board has the power to issue summonses with respect to its own hearing process, but not, as far as I know, with respect to any labour relations matters.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Well, the IRB is under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board because the IRB and its employees, among whom are board members, are subject to this federal sanction. If the IRB is subject to this federal sanction, then you have the authority to summon. Maybe you can clarify that and send the answer to us. I'd be very interested to see whether or not the IRB has exhausted all its avenues to ensure that these cases are properly investigated and concluded, and not abandoned as they are right now.

[Paul Aterman]

Okay.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Also, when the board decides that these cases are closed because the person has left, as in the case of Cassano, the former board member, why is the complainant offered the choice of continuing with their hearing based on the findings of the board member who has left? Why are they even given that choice?

If you want to ensure that the applicant has a fair hearing, given that there's an outstanding complaint for that case and given the findings of that case and the work that has been done for that case, why would you even consider continuing with a new board member?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Be very quick.

[Paul Aterman]

Those deal with cases, as I understand it, that the member was seized with at the time she left the board's employment. The particular claimant and the particular claimant's counsel may not want to have a new hearing start in front of a different member. They may have been satisfied with the way that hearing proceeded. These are not necessarily cases where there was a complaint made about that member, so they're given the option. They can choose which one they prefer, and the board will respect their choice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Aterman. I'm afraid we need to end there because we have another panel coming in. Thank you very much for this time with us.

I'm just going to ask that we move quite quickly now to our next witnesses. Thank you.

If we could have Ms. McClymont and Ms. Thorne, come now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We're going to call the meeting back to order. First of all, I want to thank both Ms. Thorne and Ms. McClymont for joining us today. I understand Ms. McClymont has opening remarks and then you will both be available for answering questions.

Take it away.

[Donnalyn McClymont, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel Secretariat, Privy Council Office]

Great. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the government's approach to Governor in Council appointments, the roles and responsibilities of various decision-makers in the appointments process, and how this approach applies to the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB.

Governor in Council appointees, or GICs, play an important role in Canada's democracy by serving on commissions, boards, crown corporations, agencies and tribunals across the country. Their responsibilities are diverse, ranging from adjudicative decision-making to providing advice and recommendations to the management of large, diversified corporations.

On February 25, 2016, the government announced a new approach to Governor in Council appointments, which is based on open, transparent and merit-based selection processes to support ministers in making appointment recommendations.

A key objective is to appoint high-quality candidates who reflect Canada's diversity. The most significant shift in how the government manages selection processes is that part-time positions are part of the open, transparent, and merit-based approach.

Communication with the public about GIC opportunities is a central element in the government's approach to appointments. Notices of opportunities are advertised online on our GIC website—Canada.ca—and interested candidates are invited to submit their applications online. Opportunities are also advertised on the website of the organization filling the position and listed in the Canada Gazette.

To ensure that those interested are made aware of opportunities, outreach may include engaging an executive search firm, typically for leadership positions, or developing a comprehensive outreach strategy. Efforts may also involve targeted outreach to communities of interest, such as professional associations and stakeholders.

Since the new approach was announced, there have been close to 22,000 applications through the online portal for appointment opportunities in close to 200 federal organizations.

Another central element of the appointment process is merit. The selection process is rigorous, with established selection criteria that are publicly advertised. These qualifications and criteria reflect the organization's mandate and take into account the mandate of the minister and government priorities. Candidates are evaluated by the selection committee against these publicly available selection criteria.

The government has also committed to making appointments that achieve gender parity and are reflective of Canada's diversity. The Prime Minister has asked each minister, in their mandate letter, to do their part to fulfill the government's commitment to transparent, merit-based appointments and to help ensure gender parity and that indigenous peoples and minority groups are better reflected in positions of leadership.

To support this objective, when candidates submit their applications online, they are asked to provide demographic information. This includes self-identification regarding their membership in an employment equity group, such as women, indigenous peoples, visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and as members of ethnic/cultural groups or the LGBTQ2 community, as well as their second official language proficiency.

To date, over 650 appointments have been made following an open selection process. Of those incumbents, over 50% have self-identified as women, 12% as visible minorities, 9% as indigenous, and 4% as persons with a disability.

The roles and responsibilities of decision-makers in the appointments process are outlined in “Open and Accountable Government”, the guide provided to ministers from the Prime Minister to assist them in fulfilling their full range of ministerial responsibilities. Ministers, supported by their officials, are responsible for managing appointment recommendations within their portfolios.

We at the senior personnel secretariat within PCO, where I am the assistant secretary, provide advice and support to the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council on Governor in Council appointments. This includes establishing policies and services that promote high-quality GIC appointments; facilitate the recruitment and retention of senior personnel; plan for future public service leadership needs; and, ensure the leadership development of senior public servants, such as deputy ministers and heads of federal agencies.

Our role in the GIC appointments process also includes: working with departments and organizations to support them in planning for managing the vacancies in their organizations; providing policy advice to ministers and departments related to GIC positions; fixing the terms and conditions of employment for most GIC appointments; performing due diligence prior to appointments; tracking statistics related to appointees; and, providing advice and guidance to the GIC on the management of appointees throughout the duration of their appointment.

Throughout the selection and appointment processes, the Privy Council Office works closely with our partners. We provide guidance, information, and tools to departments and organizations, and have provided information sessions to staff involved in the appointments process. Our secretariat also works in collaboration with the Canada School of Public Service to provide mandatory orientation and training for heads of administrative tribunals.

Currently, PCO manages or participates in all selection processes to ensure there is a consistent application of the principles behind the new approach. For each selection process, a selection committee is established, comprising representatives of key decision-makers in filling the appointments. The committees generally include representatives from PCO, the Prime Minister's Office, the minister's office, and in some cases the organization, as well as the department. The selection committee reviews all applications to ensure that they meet the established criteria. It then selects a short list of candidates for further assessment through a written test, as is the case for administrative tribunals like the IRB, followed by interviews. Candidates considered by the selection committee to be highly qualified for appointment also undergo formal reference checks to further assess their personal suitability. The committee presents formal advice to the responsible minister on the most qualified candidates, which the minister then uses to formalize his or her recommendations to the GIC.

As public office holders, GIC appointees must uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in our institutions are conserved and enhanced. Through the notice of opportunity, all candidates are made aware of their obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act and the ethical and the political activity guidelines for public office holders. As a pre-condition of employment, appointees must attest their compliance. These requirements, as well as general information regarding the approach to GIC appointments, are available on the website. Making this information readily available helps to ensure that applicants have a clear sense of the steps involved in the process, as well as their legislative obligations as GIC appointees.

Since the implementation of the new approach, over 70 appointments have been made to the refugee appeal division and the immigration appeal division of the IRB following a competitive selection process. The immigration division and the refugee protection division, as our colleagues explained, are staffed by public servants, and they are therefore not GIC appointees.

As terms have expired, GIC incumbents have had to reapply for appointment under the new process. Candidates who have successfully gone through a selection process may be considered by the minister at any point in a two-year period. Candidates who are unsuccessful cannot reapply for two years.

Representation of employment equity groups at the IRB is, for the most part, quite positive. Women represent close to 60% of GIC incumbents, and visible minorities make up about 20% of GIC incumbents at the IRB.

In closing, the approach announced in February 2016 has provided Canadians with an opportunity to be considered to serve in our democratic institutions that are fundamental to the decisions and programs that directly affect individual Canadians. The new approach has also contributed to increasing the diversity of the GIC community.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on the GIC appointment process.