Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 24th, 2018

[Crystal Warner]

With the PM-06 decision-makers being public sector workers, especially when they're afforded an opportunity to apply for a permanent position, we feel that widens the scope of candidates who would be applying for those positions, whereas with GICs, as I mentioned, it's a political process. Often it involves individuals with more privileged backgrounds. We would really like to see the board become more reflective of the claimants who are coming before it. We feel that the avenue to doing that is a fair and transparent public sector process.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Could you explain the difference between the exams you'd have to do for the IRB and the exams for similar positions in other departments?

[Crystal Warner]

No. I think you'd have to ask the employer that question.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Okay.

The Governor in Council candidates are appointed to the IRB for three years. In your experience, what impact does the length of the term have? I believe it's three years. Can you explain what impact it has on decision-makers' independence, having that length of time?

[Crystal Warner]

Absolutely. I've worked in Vancouver, arguably the most expensive city in Canada. You're going out to try to appoint people who have families, who have mortgages to pay that are astronomical in cities like Vancouver, and you're trying to find someone who is willing to take a chance on a one-, two-, or three-year mandate. There's stress involved—I would see that stress in them—with being renewed, and with constantly talking and being concerned about whether or not they will be reappointed. So we're adding another incredible amount of undue stress on decision-makers who are already dealing with really sensitive and challenging work.

It is an incredibly politicized process. I worked there for a decade, and over the years I would see decision-makers, GICs, come and go, depending on the whims of the government. That didn't offer stability to the process.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

In your opinion, then, what would be some of the essential characteristics for good board members?

[Crystal Warner]

Well, I've heard the committee talk a lot about considerations around whether or not they have legal backgrounds. I would argue that's not a necessary requirement. Familiarity with the legislation and everything else—those things can be learned. We just want candidates who are qualified, candidates who are able to do the work and who will be empathetic toward the claimants who come before them. That doesn't necessarily mean having a legal background.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thanks. You've answered the next question I was going to ask you, about whether or not they require that training. To what extent should these members be familiar with immigration and refugee law upon being appointed to the board?

[Crystal Warner]

I think I would be more concerned with their ability to judge than with that, because I think those things can be learned.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Ms. Jacobs, could I get a comment from you on that as well?

[Prof. Laverne Jacobs]

Sure. First, one reason that GIC and OIC appointees emerged historically was to ensure that there weren't necessarily entrenched views over time. When we have a three- or five-year appointment, there's a chance to bring in perhaps a new perspective—not just of the political parties, because I don't think that's the aim at all, but of the broader public. The way in which norms change over time can be reflected.

I'm concerned about public appointments coming from the public sector simply because of the chance of there being entrenched views that are not refreshed over time, as you would have with the appointments process.

Another thing I would say is that while certainly the substance of law can be learned, I think there are reasons for having members who have a certain amount of expertise. This might also wax and wane, right? For example, right now there's an incredible backlog. It would be useful to have individuals with a high level of expertise brought in. Maybe at other times, when there's less of a backlog, you could have people who are trainable and who are familiar with legislation more generally. I think OIC and GIC appointments preserve that along with the independence, a broader independence, for the individual.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

We've had several witnesses come before us in regard to complaints filed against members for improper conduct during the hearings.

Ms. Warner, I would like to know how much the union has been involved in those, and what support the union has provided its members facing these complaints.

[Crystal Warner]

You can appreciate that I am in a position of trust with my members, so I would not be in a position to comment on any specific situations. I will say that our union always ensures that we are vigorously defending the rights of our members, but I am not in a position to comment on specific situations.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I am not so much asking about a specific situation. I am looking at the type of training. What type of training or help does the union provide its members regarding conduct in their employment under the IRB?

[Crystal Warner]

This goes back to our ongoing discussions with the employer around mentorship and the need for it. We are told by our members that it takes over six months to really feel confident in the hearing room. Being accompanied once or twice and being shadowed once or twice is not enough. There needs to be longer-term mentorship.

Even for the longer-serving employees, getting mentorship from newer employees might address some of the concerns that our other witness is speaking to with regard to the entrenched ideas. What they are telling me is that sometimes they do not have anybody to bounce ideas off of or anybody to ask how to say something appropriately or how to ask a question appropriately. It goes back to the need for ongoing mentorship.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Has your union advocated for that training and those guidelines to be provided to its members?

[Crystal Warner]

Yes.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We will now move on to Ms. Sansoucy. Welcome.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Warner, thank you for your testimony. You said that your members need additional support. I would like to hear your thoughts on two types of training.

Various witnesses have appeared before the committee calling on the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to offer more training on assessing credibility. Various witnesses also talked about the new training on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Just to be clear, I am referring to SOGIE, the English acronym.

For each of these two types of training, please describe what your members currently take. Do they find this training adequate? What improvements would they like to see? Does this training give them the tools they need to assess asylum seekers' credibility?

[Crystal Warner]

I think there is always room for improvement, and that is what I am hearing from our decision-makers. Many of them are telling me, in fact, that they feel they have had adequate training, not only with the new SOGIE guidelines but also on central sexual orientation. In fact, they would argue that they have some of the best training in the world. Again, it goes back to the lack of mentorship and of ongoing support over a period of time to ensure that they're applying their training in an appropriate manner.

You also asked about the additional supports that could be required internally. Before 2012, with the introduction of the PCISA legislation, our decision-makers had tribunal officers who would assist in prepping files for them, assisting with analysis and research. The clerks—and that is where I started at the IRB—would do all the administrative tasks for them.

In today's world, the decision-makers aren't spending enough of their time on decisions and hearings. Instead, they are spending too much time prepping files or trying to figure out an ever-changing computer system to input information. This is work that could be done by registry support staff. I've never understood why this is something that's being lumped onto their already over-taxed schedules.

The IRB actually provides its training internationally. Some of the decision-makers I spoke to this week have travelled to other countries to assist them in their training. I have listened to suggestions from other witnesses, and have already raised and will continue to raise questions to the employer regarding training for retraumatization of asylum seekers or the need for ongoing training on assessing credibility and avoiding bias.

From what I am seeing already, it sounds as though they are receiving the appropriate forms of training. Again, as I said, it goes back to receiving the mentorship, guidance, and supports over time in order to be apply it appropriately in the courtroom.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

If I understand you correctly, what they need is ongoing support in addition to the various types of training offered.

You think mentoring might be a solution as opposed to ad hoc training. I am also thinking about what other witnesses have told us about the additional types of training offered following a complaint or an annual performance review, which were often not enough.

Are you saying that, rather than different types of training, what they really need is ongoing support?

I am trying to understand what exactly that kind of support would look like.

[Crystal Warner]

They do need that ongoing support, and they need it from more experienced decision-makers. I would argue that more experienced decision-makers also need it from some of the newer decision-makers.

I think we also have to consider the stress that our decision-makers are currently working under. We've been under-resourced for years. The targets for their decision-making continue to increase to the point that they're stressed out when they're in th hearing rooms. They don't have enough time to render decisions and they're not given days during which they can sit down and write a decision, so they're being pressured to do hearings in the courtroom and to make decisions during the hearing instead of doing a written decision after. I think all of that is contributing to the current environment, which to me simply goes back to the fact that they're under-resourced.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I am trying to understand. I think it is clear for you because you are referring to it and it has been around for a number of years already. I am really trying to understand what you mean by mentoring. Rather than offering ad hoc training, you think that would give them better tools.

How exactly does it work? Is each decision-maker paired up with someone who can monitor their decisions?

I am finding it difficult to understand how this works in practice for those decision-makers.

[Crystal Warner]

I also find it difficult to understand.

It's a challenge to know what that would look like. I think that would require a lot of extensive consultation with the employees. I know from speaking to them this week that they have a lot of ideas regarding what that would look like, but that's not something I'm in a position to lay out.