Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to discuss our chapter on the Governor in Council appointment process.
As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Anne Marie Smith, who is the principal who was responsible for this audit.
Our audit examined the process used to make Governor in Council, or GIC, appointments to crown corporations, small federal entities, and the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Overall, there was unsatisfactory progress since our previous audits, with some issues having first been raised as long ago as 1997. Our audit found that there are still long delays in making GIC appointments in these organizations, and that there is a lack of communication about appointments and re-appointments and a need for sustained attention paid to the staggering of appointments.
We found some improvement in the areas of transparency in selection processes for chairs and chief executive officers of crown corporations and heads of small agencies through the creation of a website to publicize vacancies, and in training and orientation of appointees.
The audit found timeliness of appointments to be a problem, with large numbers of positions in crown corporations remaining vacant or occupied by appointees with expired terms for a lengthy period. For example, as of September 20, 2008, 16% of appointees' terms had expired an average of 373 days earlier, and 7% of positions were vacant. In small entities, there was an average gap of 91 days between the end of appointees' terms and their re-appointment, and average periods of vacancy of 296 days for 13 agency heads.
Another matter of concern was with communication with candidates, appointees, and the organizations to which they are appointed. Nearly half of the chairs and CEOs of crown corporations whom we interviewed commented on the lack of communication, with a third using the terms “black hole” or “black box” to describe the appointment process as they awaited information on outcomes. In small entities and the IRB, notification of appointment and reappointment decisions was also not done in a timely fashion.
We noted many instances in which individuals were not notified of reappointments until after their terms had expired. We also noted that the organizations themselves had difficulty in obtaining information on appointments. In three cases, directors learned at a board meeting that they had been replaced days earlier.
The Immigration and Refugee Board is a case study of the seriousness of issues that can develop as a result of insufficient attention being paid to appointments. High vacancy rates and high turnover of board members have significantly contributed to increased delays in rendering decisions and to a large backlog of unprocessed cases. The result is uncertainty for claimants and significant costs to social programs. As of September 20, 2008, there were about 10,000 unresolved appeals and more than 50,000 unprocessed refugee claims. At that time, the board had a 23% vacancy rate and a high rate of turnover.
We are aware that the refugee case inventory has grown since we completed our audit. The IRB 2009-10 report on plans and priorities indicates that the refugee protection division expects to begin the fiscal year with a pending inventory of approximately 65,000 cases and to receive an additional 50,000 new refugee claims this year. Depending on the number of decision-makers available and their level of experience, the board expects to have the capacity to finalize up to 25,000 refugee claims in 2009-10. Therefore, the pending inventory could be over 90,000 by the end of this fiscal year.
This is very serious. Action needs to be taken, and the committee may wish to ask the board about what steps they will take to address this situation.
The government's response to our recommendations in the report gives little assurance or definite undertakings as to how it intends to address the concerns that we raised. Your committee may wish to explore this further with representatives from the Privy Council Office, including whether the government has developed any action plans, timelines or other strategies to address the issues raised in the chapter.
Finally, you will note in our report that officials of the Privy Council Office express their view that aspects of our audit went beyond the Auditor General's mandate and encroached on the exercise of discretion by ministers and the governor in council. As we indicated in our letter to the chair, we are satisfied that the findings in the report fall entirely within our mandate.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions.
Thank you.