Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 17th, 2016

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I will be quick.

I appreciate your telling us that your department does pay attention to this. I would now like to hear comments from the officials from the other departments. As I understand it, there are different levels and things are done stage by stage. If the problem is not addressed from the start, it creates a domino effect that prevents the problem from being solved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll have to come back to that, Monsieur Godin, because unfortunately we are out of time.

We'll now move to Mr. Chen, please. You have five minutes.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

I want to home in on the Auditor General's report and specifically his examination of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

As is stated in the report under paragraph 3.39 on page 9, the Immigration and Refugee Board changed the appeals process last year to address the backlog of cases. I want to stress how important it is that we have timely processing of these cases. I've met many residents in my own constituency. I met one lady who is trying to have her husband sponsored so he can be with her and the family in Canada. They've waited for over two years from the point of filing the application, it being rejected, and then waiting for an appeal. It's very stressful for families to have to wait that long. It's not good for the children. I empathize with constituents who have spoken to me about cases such as this. It's quite heartbreaking sometimes to hear about the struggles they face without having the family united. This is not unique.

As identified through the report, these cases are part of the 11,000 outstanding immigration appeals. Each of these cases takes 18 months to process on average at this point, which is almost double the time it took—10 months in 2009—as reported in the audit at that point. The point I want to underscore is the importance of having that fair appeals process. As Canadians I believe it's very important for us as a country, not just for the appellants and their families to have that time to appeal, but for all of us to know there's a fair and thorough process.

I'm concerned with respect to the comment under paragraph 3.39. This might be outside the scope of the Auditor General's report, but I'm concerned that this backlog is simply being addressed by changing the appeals process, as noted in the report. I'm wondering if the Auditor General could comment on any further insights that might have been gathered with respect to this issue. I understand there is an appeal process. There are a number of appointees. To me it's not just a matter of ensuring those appointments are filled. If the process were being changed to address a lack of appointees, that to me is concerning. If the number of appointees is insufficient to address the backlog, then perhaps there needs to be a greater number of appointees.

[Michael Ferguson]

Mr. Chair, I'll lead in and then I'll pass to Ms. Clark.

We can comment on the period of time under the audit. As we said in paragraph 3.38 we identified this backlog, and the time to process the backlog had moved from 10 to 18 months. Things weren't getting better at that point, but in paragraph 3.39 we also identified that they did start to make some changes and that started to reduce the backlog a little. I'm not sure what's happened since then.

I'll ask Ms. Clark if she has any other information that can help you understand what was going on at that point, but the Immigration and Refugee Board would probably have to respond to what's happened since then.

[Sharon Clark]

The process at the IRB is different. They do their own recruitment. It doesn't go through PCO. They have a very high number of GIC appointees. That number is lower than it was in 2009 when we did our audit because they changed some of those positions so they're now public servant positions. They go through a different process and not through the GIC process. As part of that transition, the GIC appointees who had started with a given file were asked to complete those files and not have someone new suddenly take on new files. They made the decision to carry a bigger backlog during that period. We talk about it in the report because it's important and it has very real impacts, as was mentioned. We wanted to bring attention to the impact of not filling all those positions in a timely manner and the impact of carrying that backlog. I think we're getting that message across. We did have a lot of meetings with IRB at which they told us they were cognizant of this, and they were taking action.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chen.

We'll move to Monsieur Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will eventually go back to my previous question if I still have some time before the end of the session.

My other question goes to Ms. Sherman.

You mentioned that appointments are delayed or not made at all because of a lack of staff. According to my reading, there are two solitudes responsible for these appointments not being made. There is the political end saying that it will put things to one side and delay the decision; then there’s the internal end. That is where our wonderful government professionals come in. If the internal end does not have the necessary staff, if it’s overloaded and does not have the appropriate tools, it may be tempted to not make any recommendations. That being the case, the message is not passed on; it does not get to the decision-makers so that an appointment process can be started.

I do not know if you understand my question. I want to know whether it is the officials in the trenches or their political masters who have been providing Canadians with less satisfactory services or with slower access to those services?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Sherman.

[Janine Sherman]

Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify in terms of the delays and staff requirements, that when I made my remarks it was about building capacity in terms of the new approach, which has expanded the open, transparent, and merit-based process to a much broader range of appointments. I am not trying to imply that there are not sufficient resources, it's simply that we have been adapting to the implementation of the new policy approach and supplementing the resources that we have in order to deal with a bigger volume. I'd just like to clarify that.

In terms of delays, there are two sides to the appointment process. The Privy Council Office and departments that support ministers do indeed have to do their work and work through selection processes and provide that advice and information to ministers. It is fair to say that the more formal the process is, the longer it will take. Obviously, having an application process and going through the steps that a merit-based approach implies does take some time, but what we are working to do is actually look at the whole range of appointments, do some forward planning and make sure that we are setting up the system so that we can provide that advice and information on a timely basis, which will then enable ministers, in their responsibilities for making recommendations, to do that on a timely basis.

It's a lot of project planning, absolutely. I think both sides, in terms of the public service and the political responsibilities, have to work in sync and have to follow some important timelines. That's what we're trying to do in terms of some of the process improvements that we have spoken about.

I hope that answers your question.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Basically, you are telling me that, now you have new tools at your disposal and a new system to use, the appointment process will be sped up. Is that a correct understanding of what you said?

[Janine Sherman]

I think we have the tools in place through the online application process, through some clarity in terms of how the process will apply to all of the positions, in order to do our work efficiently. I do not think it necessarily will accelerate any single process, but we are working with providing information more broadly to our colleagues and other stakeholders to make sure that we are tracking the vacancies and planning ahead so that we don't end up with long-term vacancies.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Quickly,

Ms. Sherman, why do you say that you will not accelerate the appointment process?

[Janine Sherman]

Mr. Chair, I said it would not accelerate the appointment process because we are taking the merit-based selection process and applying that to a broader base of appointments. In doing that, as we are through this transitional time of implementing the new policy approach, we are learning as we go. We are taking lessons learned and applying them.

The fact is that we are applying the selection process to a much higher volume of appointments. It isn't that it necessarily will accelerate that process, but it will apply rigour, and with the appropriate planning and sort of prioritizing of which appointments need to be made to fill vacancies, we will be able to keep pace with appointments and do them on a timely basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Sherman.

We'll now move to Mr. Arya, please.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Ms. Sherman, in your presentation, on page 2, last line, you said, “To support the Government's objectives around diversity, applicants are asked to provide information on their second language proficiency.”

If you ask me, the moment you ask for second language proficiency, you are cutting out large sections of Canadians, especially new Canadians and ethnic minorities. I can understand the bilingual requirements. I understand that we have to support bilingualism, but when there is no requirement, you also try to ask if applicants know the second language. When that question is asked, trust me, lots and lots of Canadians who are otherwise very highly qualified will not even apply.

There are millions and millions of unilingual Canadians who are qualified. They are not eligible many times because of that requirement. Though eligible, just because you ask whether applicants know the second language, they will not apply. Especially this is more true among the new Canadians and the ethnic minorities. So I think that you're wrong that, in the name of diversity, you are asking for second language requirements. In fact, you are dampening the likelihood of the people with limited language capacity to apply.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Sherman.

[Janine Sherman]

I appreciate that view. That's an important consideration. There are only a few Governor in Council appointments that have a statutory requirement for bilingualism. Those are primarily agents of Parliament. Bilingualism is something that is obviously a preference. It's always good to have bilingual candidates, but it is not.... We do ask for it in the user profile. I do believe that applicants, when they apply for a position, will be looking through the selection criteria that a particular position requires.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

When there is a requirement, I understand. I have no issues there. But even when there is no requirement that the applicants have to be bilingual for the position, the moment you ask if they know the official second language, it dampens....

[Janine Sherman]

Mr. Chair, may I?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Ms. Sherman.

[Janine Sherman]

Thank you.

That is something, and we can certainly monitor that in terms of whether we are getting a high number of applicants for a particular position. It is information. It is not intended. I take your point that this may have an effect on people's willingness to put themselves forward, but it is something that doesn't say they have to be bilingual. It will ask for a level of proficiency.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

I understand.

I can certainly tell you that I know many, many others who, the moment you ask if they know the second language, they say, “Okay, here it goes again,” and they'll not be looked at. That is the thing.

On page 5, last paragraph, you said that the “changes to the appointments process are intended to contribute to the recommendation of high-quality candidates with a goal of better reflecting Canada's diversity.”

How do you measure whether the appointments are leaning towards that?

[Janine Sherman]

That's a very good question. One of the ways we can look at that is certainly the data we are collecting on applicants in terms of who is applying and how they are. It's very early days in the process, in terms of the use of the website and the online applications. The government will be accountable for the appointments it makes and how representative they are as it proceeds through the implementation of this new policy approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, Mr. Arya.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

We are amending the Canada Corporations Act requiring public companies to publicly submit a report identifying their board members and whether their boards are diverse enough.

Do you intend to do that for the GIC appointments?