Mr. Nunez: Have there been complaints, yes or no?
Ms. Mawani: Yes.
Mr. Palmer: Yes, it works.
Mr. Nunez: Who files those complaints?
Mr. Palmer: Mostly lawyers. It's mostly lawyers who file those complaints.
Mr. Nunez: And what do you do about them? How do you process those complaints?
Mr. Palmer: There is an internal investigation that is launched as soon as the complaint is received. Then we try to gather the relevant information, and we talk to the coordinating member, with the Board member or even with the lawyer. We take note of testimonies, but it's quite informal. We can also talk to other people who were in the room at the time. Then, we determine whether the complaint is justified.
I must say that quite often, these are complaints of a legal nature. They do not pertain to the behaviour of a Board member, but rather to his rulings or the procedures used during the hearing.
.1715
That is why we seldom have to intervene.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
The Chair: Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to follow up on Mr. Nunez's question about what he calls ``privatization'' and what I would call ``contracting out'' of the documentation, information and research branch. Do you favour saving taxpayers money by contracting that element out if it is to be an efficient means of research that would provide you with the information?
Ms Mawani: As I said in my opening remarks, we are very conscious of the program of fiscal restraint and of getting it right. We are reviewing every single activity on our board - we call it a ``resource redefinition'' exercise - to be able to establish the cost-efficiency of all our programs. As such, we would be willing to look at any proposal with respect to the issue of the documentation, information and research branch.
It is very important to remember that any proposal we would look at would have to address a certain number of areas. The first and very important assessment we have to do is on whether that function being talked about is a core function. In the proposal we received in the past, my determination was that the function sought to be privatized or taken over by an employee was of fundamental importance to the board. It went to the absolute heart of its refugee determination process because of the importance of information - reliable, objective, timely and credible information - that had to be responsive to the needs of the decision-maker in the hearing room and the staff.
Ms Meredith: I'd just like to follow up on that. You mentioned at one other point in your testimony that you make guidelines, that you make rules of operation. Now you're talking about this information as being extremely important to the core fundamental element of decision-making. How is it you can be making all these guidelines and gathering the information? How can you be a quasi-judicial board if you're providing all the information on which you're basing those decisions?
Would it not be better if the information you were using came from outside sources so that there would be no question that the information was biased, that the gathering of that information was biased, that it pertained to any kind of agenda, or that, to use a word being used to criticize the IRB, the culture, the culture of being positive to claimants...? If you were to remove that aspect, don't you feel if all of the information coming in to you came from bodies unrelated to you it would eliminate that concern?
Ms Mawani: First of all, it's very important for all of us to realize that the information housed in our documentation, information and research branch does not come from the IRB. It is information that comes from an enormous number of sources. We have professionals within the branch linked in to various organizations all over the world. We get information from governments and non-governmental organizations from all parts of the world. Often we'll get a request from a government of a country that they have some information about the situation in their country. We don't screen that. We ask them to put it in the documentation centre. It is then available for the members, for the refugee hearing officers and for the counsel to be able to deal with that.
Ms Meredith: My concern is that I understand there are substantial savings to be made on a yearly basis by allowing a university to fulfil that function. We know the minister has announced four centres of excellence that will be doing precisely that: gathering information from a world network to provide information for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
.1720
Why is there reluctance to share in that kind of vision of using our universities and these other centres for gathering information that we can all use?
Ms Mawani: Let me say that there is no reluctance on our part to be engaged in this sort of initiative. What is important - and I'm going to ask the executive director to follow me on this - is that any proposal that is presented to us has, in our view, to meet certain criteria. We will examine any proposal that is presented to us in accordance with those criteria and at the end of the day, on that basis, determine if we are in a position to be able to accede to that question.
Ms Meredith: But those criteria can be given -
The Chair: Ms Meredith, your time is up, but Mr. Fleury wanted to add something.
Mr. Fleury: If I may add to this, there's more than one criterion with respect to alternatives. You're looking at fulfilling federal obligations and interests; providing capacity for flexible, innovative service, which is fine; considering client and stakeholder interest; optimizing service; providing best value for money; managing risk, which is very important - if the decision-makers don't have the information in time, that is very important in terms of throughput time and processing time - and, of course, managing the human resource, which is, if that activity was to leave, how the human resource would be managed, how it would be looked at, and what we would do with workforce adjustment and all of its implications.
So we're not looking at just one criterion. We're looking at the business we're in and what we do and how that relates to that and if we can meet and discharge our responsibilities.
I guess what I was saying when I was answering the first question was that I can't prejudge what a future proposal will look like, but the one we did look at did not meet what we wanted in terms of satisfying that we could discharge our responsibilities. Now, if another one came, we'd have to look at it objectively on its own merits.
Ms Meredith: But if there's money to be saved, can't -
The Chair: I'm sorry.
Mr. Bélanger, we've got five minutes before the bell will ring.
Mr. Bélanger: For any future proposals, whether jointly between employees and an outside organization such as Carleton University or just by employees, how will such an expression of interest be assessed? What process will you use?
Mr. Fleury: If the proposal is one of straight privatization, then we're going to use the criteria vis-à-vis privatization. If the proposal is a pure employee takeover, then we're going to have to deal with the policy on employee takeover.
Mr. Bélanger: So you will set up a panel of three people?
Mr. Fleury: In the one on alternative delivery, to my knowledge there's no requirement for that; but on the one on employee takeover, my understanding of the new policy is that the chair or the person or deputy head making a determination is highly recommended to look at panels.
Mr. Bélanger: My question is to the chair, or the deputy head in this case. Would you set up a three-person panel to look at any future proposals?
Ms Mawani: While it's not mandatory, it's certainly something I would be prepared to consider.
Mr. Bélanger: May I go back to the notion of core function, which, if I understood what you said, is essentially the reason why the proposal that was put to the IRB was not accepted. It was because the function that was suggested that would be run independently of the IRB by Carleton University and some employees was a core function - ``vitale'', as Mr. Fleury said. Is that the reason why it was rejected?
Ms Mawani: First of all, we did make the determination that it was a core function fundamentally.
Mr. Bélanger: You made that determination -
Ms Mawani: Yes.
Mr. Bélanger: - but then you didn't go further.
Ms Mawani: No, no. Once one had made that determination, one would have to be extremely satisfied that any proposal being presented was in conformity with the highest standard that it would be our responsibility to ensure.
Mr. Bélanger: I'm aware of the danger of assuming things, but would I be correct in assuming that there are essentially two types of research functions done by that branch? One is compilation of reports and information pertaining to actual claims, certain claimants, individual matters - and I actually share your view in that case, that it is somewhat vital and somewhat core to what you're doing - and the other kind is a compilation of documentation or situations of certain countries and what it looks like.
.1725
Are those the two broad categories of research?
Ms Mawani: Generally speaking, yes.
Mr. Bélanger: Are you aware that in most countries the second type of research is already privatized and done outside organizations similar to the IRB?
Ms M