Evidence of meeting #98 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 board.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Paul Aterman  Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
Greg Kipling  Director General, Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs Branch, Immigration and Refugee Board

12:30 p.m.

Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board

Paul Aterman

As I indicated before, the vehicle for providing a check on that is the Federal Court.

The issue of whether there is no credible basis to a claim is a legal and factual question. The integrity of the decision-making process can be undermined if the board is saying to individual decision-makers that you're deciding “yes” too much, or you're deciding “no” too much. Then there is a hidden pressure on them, which undermines their decision-making independence.

That's something that the Federal Court is there for. There are aspects of a board member's behaviour that have nothing to do with their independence and where we need to be more accountable. Adjudicative independence is not a licence to be disrespectful in the hearing room. It's not a licence to make insensitive comments. Those are the kinds of things where I think the organization can do better in the complaints process.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I'm afraid that I need to end it there.

I was checking the parties' thoughts about holding another meeting, and there has been an indication from the parties that we would like more time with you.

I want to let members know that they don't need to rush their questioning. They will get a bit more time after the two-week break that we have.

Mr. Tilson, for five minutes.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

The 2018-19 interim estimates flag about $119 million for the IRB.

Could you elaborate on the uses to which this funding will be put?

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I just want to caution the member to make sure that we stay within the scope of the study.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

I don't know, sir. That's why I'm asking whether these monies are being spent on training, the whole slew of things we have talked about.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I'll allow it. We're trying to—

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

We'll let them answer. Give them a chance, Mr. Chairman.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Good.

12:30 p.m.

Director General, Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs Branch, Immigration and Refugee Board

Greg Kipling

In 2017-18 we have.... The budget of the IRB is divided among different program areas. The program areas focus on the decision-making function of the board, and then there's a portion allocated to internal services.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

I don't know what that means.

12:30 p.m.

Director General, Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs Branch, Immigration and Refugee Board

Greg Kipling

I'll try to explain.

The total budget allocated to the IRB in 2017-18 was about $135 million. Of that money, all but $38 million went to support the decision-making function—the refugee determination process, the refugee appeal determination process, the immigration division, and the immigration appeal division. So $38 million of that was for internal services, which would include all manners of support for the decision-making function, such as training, legal support, communications, etc.

In relation to the training, which I know is of interest to the committee, it would come from that budget. We have a unit within the IRB that is responsible for learning and professional development, which is not allocated 100% just to supporting the decision-maker training, but a lot of that unit's work is focused on decision-maker training, along with our legal services unit.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

About a year ago there was a report in the National Post about a wide discrepancy in the rates of release by various board members conducting detention hearings. It was stated that there was no complaints process to address these variances.

I'd like you to comment as to whether you agree with that or don't agree with that. And if so, has this been addressed, and is this a result of training, or are there other factors involved?

12:35 p.m.

Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board

Paul Aterman

The complaints process about member conduct applies to all members of the board. It applies to the members of the immigration division who conduct detention reviews.

The question you're putting is about variances, I believe, between regions in release rates. There are discrepancies in decision-making there. There are a number of factors that go into that. Partly it's the decisions made by individual members, but it's also a function of the way the cases are presented to them in the region. It's a function of the extent to which CBSA opposes or agrees to release. That has an impact on it as well.

I can advise you that one of the concerns the previous chair had was the approach to long-term detention, because the board was—

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

I guess my question, sir, is the fact that there are discrepancies, and if there are discrepancies, it goes back to the issue I referred to in my earlier question, namely confidence in the board. We need to have confidence. If there are wide discrepancies, there won't be confidence. I think you've agreed with that. Therefore my question is, how is this being rectified?

12:35 p.m.

Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board

Paul Aterman

It needs to be addressed through training, training that goes across each region where that particular division is operating, so that we narrow those down. That's an ongoing process.

It comes back to an issue that has been raised before. There's a problem if the board directs outcomes to individual decision-makers. The integrity—

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

I concur with that. I guess my question is that you want to make sure that the decisions being made in Quebec are the same as the decisions being made in Alberta, without referring to those cases. This report won't correct these discrepancies.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I'm afraid I need to cut you off, Mr. Former Chair. Thank you. Good questioning.

Perhaps I could ask one question, and that is with respect to the complaints process. I might have missed this. Am I right in understanding that only direct actors can do a complaint? Can a third party do a complaint?

12:35 p.m.

Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board

Paul Aterman

Anyone can bring forward a complaint.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

So you could do a class complaint comparing judgements. That would be a complaint or is it only a complaint about an individual case?

12:35 p.m.

Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board

Paul Aterman

I think this goes back to a critical point that I'd just like to underscore. The code is about how members conduct themselves, their behaviour in the hearing room. It's not about the merits of individual decisions. Concerns about inconsistencies in outcomes are properly a matter addressed through the judicial review process, as well as internally through processes like training members on issues. Discussion among members about inconsistencies is actually the most effective way to reduce those inconsistencies. That's not the same as malfeasance or bad behaviour in the hearing room, or treating someone without sufficient respect.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you.

Ms. Alleslev.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

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

I would like to leverage a bit more of that conversation around decisions. I recognize that you're talking about the independence of the decision-maker. However, at the same time, earlier in the conversation you talked about how managers review those transcripts to be able to do annual personnel evaluations. Is there a mechanism, not necessarily even around personnel evaluations, but to audit and to get a feel for whether those decisions are with bias or within a certain scope of framework as a second set of eyes, so that the only mechanism of reflecting on inconsistencies among decisions is not the judicial review board?

12:40 p.m.

Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board

Paul Aterman

There are other means to get at some of those issues. There is the individual performance appraisal. It might be helpful for the committee to actually see what those forms look like to see what we're evaluating there. It's important there. When I do an evaluation of a member, I'm looking at how they do their job. I'm not telling them the shouldn't have said yes somewhere and they should have said no somewhere else. I'm looking at whether they're respectful, whether they make the process accessible to people, whether they're efficient, I'm looking at how they participate in things like professional development. I'm not saying to them they were wrong when they said yes to one person or they were wrong when they said no to another person. There's that.

There are instances—and we have an instance going on at the moment—where on a systemic level there's a concern. For example, the immigration division was criticized very heavily in a few judgements, both in the federal court and in superior court on our treatment of long-term detention. In that instance, the former chair decided to do an audit of how we're doing long-term detention decisions. It's being done by a third-party, someone external to the organization. It's an extraordinary measure. We've never done that before. It's a tool that's also available to the organization.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

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

In light of that, then, would you consider it not being only an extraordinary but considering it as a more regular, random audit to ensure the integrity of the decision-making process?

12:40 p.m.

Acting Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board

Paul Aterman

There's one other piece which I should mention to you, which we do on a cyclical basis. We have someone from outside the board conduct a scan of how a division does its work. It's a quality measurement initiative.

For example, we could share this with the committee. We did one recently on the refugee appeal division where we had an external party come in and look at how the process is being run. There were a number of variables that were being assessed there.

Do you want to elaborate on those?