Citizenship and Immigration committee  It goes back to being under-resourced. As I mentioned, we used to have different positions that no longer exist at the board, that provided an extra layer of support to our decision-makers. Those positions were eliminated in 2012 with the new legislation. As a result, as I mentioned, our decision-makers are spending too much time doing administrative work that could be done by registry support staff.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  It absolutely does, and not just at the IRB, but also across the public sector. We've seen a decline in the mental health of employees as a result of being constantly asked to do more with less. Being underfunded at the IRB for years has affected the entire board. The amount of stress and the amount of pressure to produce is no doubt affecting people's health.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  No. I think you'd have to ask the employer that question.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  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.

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

Citizenship and Immigration committee  We're concerned about our diminishing right to represent, because we don't know what that outside process looks like. We've heard some suggestions here, but without maybe having a clearer idea of what that process would look like, we're raising our red flags right now.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's part of it, but it's also the fact that it would be outside of the board. Why would we be taking away the employer's right to manage? The chairperson of the IRB, arguably more than anyone else, has a vested interest in his decision-makers respecting values and ethics. I don't understand why we would take that right to manage outside the board.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'd have to think about that as well. To my knowledge we have two founded complaints a year, on average. A lot is unclear to me as to why we're paying so much attention to this.