Evidence of meeting #106 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was decision-makers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
What is the formal process for that, then? You say that this is not something you would ignore, so then what is the formal process? So far I haven't heard a formal process.
12:30 p.m.
Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
I'll give you a concrete example. I'm going down on Thursday. The immigration appeal division is conducting a national training session focusing on cases that have been returned from the Federal Court, on which the Federal Court has been particularly critical of the immigration appeal division, whether in relation to things like the particular use of language in IAD decisions or to questions the court perceives as showing a lack of cultural sensitivity. That's a specific example, in which that division is focusing on the response of the Federal Court to the way that division is dealing with particular cases, and it's because the members there are prepared to reflect upon themselves, to look at themselves, and ask themselves whether they're doing the job properly.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
—that doesn't answer my question, I'm afraid. I'll just leave it at that.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Aterman and Mr. Kipling, for coming.
Mr. Aterman, I'm going to pick up from what Ms. Kwan asked initially. I found it troubling that with a lot of the complaints—this is the experience of many complainants—the member quits or is moved or is somewhere else and therefore the complaint is never fully addressed. If you can't now sanction someone to return, do you think that under the new measures you'll be able to do so? If so, how will you be able to get the evidence of a member who leaves when he or she finds out there's a complaint about them?
12:30 p.m.
Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
Right. I know, for example, that the Canadian Judicial Council and, I believe, the Justices of the Peace Review Council take the view that when a judge or justice of the peace leaves their office, the complaint is closed.
The approach that we're proposing is distinct from that. It's not the same as that. There are instances, I think, where as a practical matter it may be actually difficult to get all of the information out, but one approach that we can take in relation to that is to say to the member who has departed, “This complaint has been made against you. We realize you're no longer a member of the board, but you have an opportunity to tell us your side of the story. If you decline that opportunity, we may go ahead and make findings notwithstanding that.” It's not depriving them of an opportunity to put their perspective forward.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
It will be a voluntary thing. You're saying that in the past that opportunity was normally not afforded to the departing member?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
To be frank, we've had very few instances where a member has actually left. There's the one that was the focus of this committee's study. The issue hadn't come up before. Now that it has come up, the approach, I think, that we would take in relation to that is that there's not a problem from a due process perspective if we say to the person, “Even though you're no longer a member, here's your opportunity to tell us. If you decline that opportunity, we may go ahead and make findings anyway.”
I can't say this is going to happen in every instance, because it may turn on the facts of a particular case that we actually are not in a position to do that. There's that problem, but in many instances I think we would be in a position to do that, which is why it's something that I think is in the board's interest in terms of transparency and accountability to pursue.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I think it should be pursued because it won't allow for closure if you don't pursue that.
The second question I have has more to do with support. We heard from the earlier panel, even prior to you speaking, that current board members perhaps don't have adequate support. They're a judge and a court clerk all in one, and they're doing a lot of support stuff. Do you think that is true or do you think current board members need more support staff to make their workload easier and more efficient?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
I think in terms of the way we're allocating resources internally, members would always appreciate more. It's a question of balancing that against the pressures of the organization.
The overriding concern we have right now, particularly in relation to the money we've received in the budget, is to focus on finding available decision-makers. That is job number one for the organization. If we find more decision-makers than we have support staff to support, then we're going to have to make do under those circumstances because at the end of the day, the most important thing for the organization to do is to address the large number of pending claims. It's only decision-makers who can decide cases.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
But if the decision-makers are spending too much time on administrative work that might impede their ability to make decisions—that's what I'm getting at.
You're saying that currently the support staff is not the issue; it's the lack of people who are in the position to make decisions.
12:35 p.m.
Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
That's correct, because it's a highly specialized skill and it's not easy to find people and train them up very quickly in that particular area. From a human resources perspective, that's a far bigger challenge for us than the support end of things is. The support end of things is not what I stay awake at night over. It's more about whether we can find enough people who can decide claims fairly and quickly.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
What would be the biggest impediment to finding people for that position? What's the current challenge you're facing? Why would people who are qualified and who are the types of adjudicators would we need not be applying for it ?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
It's temporary funding. You have to be able to attract people for enough time that they will want to leave whatever it is they're doing to come to the IRB.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
So the length of the tenure that is offered is the primary challenge?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
I think that's the challenge we're facing at the moment with temporary funding, yes.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I'm just curious. Would having part-time positions so people could do their existing career or work wherever they're working and do this on top be a bridge to help alleviate that?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
It would, and we're making use of that. The legacy team, for example, is composed largely of former members who have retired and who are working part-time, and we're beating the bushes to find people of that type. They come with experience. They get up to speed very quickly. We are making increased use of part-time decision-makers, and we're not ruling anything out in terms of where we find people who can do the job.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
If everyone else takes half a minute, it makes it into a minute—just to let you know.
Mr. Maguire.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you again for being here today with us. I just want to note, Mr. Aterman, that back in March you stated that of the 425 cases, there had been 144 decisions since June. There were 21 that were founded complaints; I believe that is what you indicated at that time.
In your view, is the number of complaints in proportion to the number of decisions that we've had or to the 425 number? Does it justify rethinking the complaints process of the IRB, and if so, can you explain that?
12:40 p.m.
Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
My purpose in making that comparison was simply to try to put the number of complaints into perspective against the number of decisions that are issued by the board on a daily basis. It doesn't mean, however, that an individual complaint is not important and shouldn't be given all the due process that's needed.
The problem we have—and I think it's graphically illustrated by the cases that were in the media—is that one or two incidents have the potential to drag down the reputation of the organization and the good work of the many other people who do this, day in and day out, and have no problems. That's the reason for focusing the attention on it, and that's the reason, really, for revamping the process.