[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, 13 February, 1997
.1629 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see we have a quorum.
In conformity with Standing Order 106(1), your first item of business is to elect a new chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): I would like to propose the name of Stan Dromisky as chair.
.1630
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: Congratulations, Mr. Dromisky.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, everyone. We'll carry on with our agenda.
Now we'll have an election of the first vice-chair. It's from the government side that we normally select the first vice-chairman of a committee. The floor is open now for nominations.
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): I would propose Ms Judy Bethel.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: We all agree. That's fine.
Now we'll have the election of a second vice-chair.
The Clerk: No, it's just that. I'm sorry. Mr. Nunez's position hasn't changed.
The Chairman: That's right, your position hasn't changed, Mr. Nunez.
I apologize to you. That's an official apology from the chair. Do you understand that this is the first time that's happened in all the years you've been on the committee?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for the guidance.
Now pursuant to Standing Order 110 and Standing Order 111, the study of an Order in Council appointment, we have one individual here to be presented before this committee from the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. I would like to call Reid Rossi to the table.
Mr. Reid Rossi (Board Member, Convention Refugee Determination Division, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you.
The Chairman: It will be a pleasant and relaxing experience for you, I'm sure.
Mr. Rossi is accompanied by his legal counsel, Keith Bell. Welcome, Keith.
Mr. Keith Bell (Legal Counsel to Mr. Rossi): Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Now we will start our proceedings. Do you have a prepared statement or anything that you would like to say before we go into the questioning session?
Mr. Rossi: No, Mr. Chair, I have nothing at this time.
The Chairman: Okay, fine. We can start out with questions then. Maybe all the information will be gleaned in that manner.
Mr. Nunez, go ahead.
Mr. Nunez: Do you speak French?
[Translation]
Mr. Rossi: I can speak a little French, but if possible I would like to answer your questions in English. I can also practice my Spanish.
[English]
Mr. Nunez: If my colleagues accept that, it's no problem with me.
[Translation]
We have your CV here. I sometimes complain that they are too short, but yours is too long. In fact, it's not really a CV because it includes descriptions of work done at the IRB, which I do not consider relevant.
You were appointed as a Board member in Toronto for a two-year term starting November 4. As stated in your CV, you worked for the IRB's research unit. There is a lot of information missing from your CV. For example, what work did you do before joining the IRB? That is not stated anywhere.
.1635
Nor is it indicated anywhere that you were President of the Nepean Federal Liberal Association. It would appear that you very strongly supported privatization of the IRB's research service.
My first question is as follows: what role was played by the Liberal Party, its members of Parliament or the Minister in your appointment? What political support did you receive for your appointment as a Board member?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: Well, Mr. Nunez, there are a number of questions there. Which one would you like me to take first?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: What role did the fact that you belong to the Liberal Party have in your appointment?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: At this point, I can say absolutely none. I followed the standard procedure by making my interest known back in 1993 to Madam Nurjehan Mawani, chairperson of the IRB. At that time, I followed through the process.
I was notified in 1996 to see whether or not I was still interested in a position. I said certainly.
My résumé was updated. I was asked for the names of two referees. Those names were given to Mr. Fairweather, I believe it was, of the ministerial advisory committee on the selection of board members.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You were President of the Nepean Federal Liberal Association.
[English]
Mr. Rossi: Yes, I was. I was elected in December 1995. I resigned October 31, 1996, when I was told about the appointment.
The Chairman: May I interrupt just for a minute, Mr. Nunez? I know that in the past we've been permitting questions of this nature, but this inquiry must have questions directed to the witness that pertain to his competencies and his qualifications. So try to put your questions in those areas.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Why did you apply to become a Board member? You were already in a management position at the IRB. You had a permanent job, and although the salary is higher the position of Board member is a temporary one. Can you explain that to us? Was it you who applied? Did someone approach you?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: After seven years of working with the Immigration and Refugee Board and as a public servant, I had an interest in - this evolved, I guess, as I learned more about the refugee determination process - working on the other side of it. As a public servant, I provided a lot of the information. As a decision-maker, I can sit and weigh the information and use that in the hearing process.
I find it so different from the public servant side. It has been an exceptional opportunity to date, yet it has only been two months.
It seemed to be the next logical step in the process. I'm keenly interested in immigration and refugee affairs, and to have this opportunity and to see it come to fruition was something I couldn't turn down, never mind the security of a permanent job. I'm not about that; I'm about challenge and going ahead.
Mr. Nunez: Did you apply for the job or was the job offered to you?
Mr. Rossi: No, I had to apply. I had to apply for the job. It was not offered to me.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Did you appear before the Fairweather committee?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: Yes, the ministerial advisory selection committee reviewed my application.Mr. Fairweather himself, as I understand it, contacted my referees to confirm my background and to see whether or not I was a suitable candidate. On their decision, the recommendation was made to the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Were you part of a group or alone when you appeared before the Fairweather committee?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: I didn't appear before the committee. There was no interview in the process. The decision was made in respect of my qualifications and experience on the Immigration and Refugee Board. I was not contacted for an interview. The call was made to my referees, then whatever decisions were made at that time were done.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Have you been assessed as an official of the IRB? Have you received appraisals?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: In what sense?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Board members are appraised by the IRB.
[English]
Mr. Rossi: Right.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You were a public servant working in the research unit. Was that work also appraised by the IRB?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: Certainly. With any public servant, there is a process of performance review and an evaluation of your services, duties, and abilities. That is an annual process. Sometimes it's even more frequent.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Do you have the most recent appraisals of your work?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: Yes, in 1996. It was done in the spring of 1996. Actually, it was an excellent performance rating by both the director and director general -
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Do you have them here? Can you table them?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: No, I don't have it here right now. I didn't think to bring it, but it's a matter of public record. It's in my personal file at the Immigration and Refugee Board. It's certainly available, I'm sure.
.1640
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Did you want the IRB research service to be privatized?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: I certainly did make a privatization bid for the national research program of the Immigration and Refugee Board together with researchers in that program.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: What was the response of the Chairperson?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: Ms Mawani made the decision not to proceed with the privatization of the program.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Why did you suggest that?
[English]
The Chairman: I don't think you have to answer that.
Let's stick to your question for more knowledge pertaining to his competencies and qualifications for maintaining this job, Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Please explain what you did before working for the IRB, because there is no information in your CV about that. What were your previous jobs?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: I'm pleased to say that I'm in my thirties, so I don't have much of a history before my time with the board. I was an undergraduate student. I graduated one summer from Carleton University and started work that fall at the Immigration and Refugee Board as a researcher.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Was that the only job?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: That's it.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Did you personally contact the Minister to obtain your appointment?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: Absolutely not.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Or members of Parliament?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: No, absolutely not.
[Translation]
Mr. Graham (Rosedale): Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
There's a mistake. I believe he understood ``deputy minister'' by the question.
Mr. Rossi: Yes, I did.
Mr. Graham: The question was whether or not you contacted any MPs.
Mr. Rossi: In support of a nomination?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Did you contact members of Parliament during the appointment process, after submitting your application?
[English]
Mr. Rossi: Not to seek support for my nomination as a board member, absolutely not. I followed the process, which was to express my interest to the Immigration and Refugee Board directly. It was through that process, as far as I understand it. There was no knowledge of my previous political affiliation whatsoever. It was based on the merit and experience I brought to the position.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nunez. Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The problem with coming second is that Mr. Nunez actually dealt with the issues I'm concerned about. But I'm still not that satisfied with the answers in that Canadians have real problems with commissions and boards like the IRB because they see them as patronage appointments.
Although you do have experience as a researcher in the IRB, when you were a researcher in the IRB, you had problems with the process, with how you saw it working out. All of your efforts in getting that privatized seem to come to a conclusion about the time you got this appointment. Did the stopping of your efforts for privatization have anything to do with your appointment to the IRB?
Mr. Rossi: I think that's a fair question based on the chronology of events as they unfolded, but I can tell you that once a decision was made by the organization to say no, then that was all I received from it. From the time that I got a ``no'' until I got a ``yes'' from here, there was no contact with them.
It was something that I really supported and felt very strongly about, but I had to respect the decision of the organization. I expect it was an informed decision and one that was made with thought. I had to accept that decision.
Ms Meredith: Now that you are a member of that organization, is there not an ability as a member of the organization to once again look at the cost-saving measure and benefits of privatization? Do you feel that now you are a member of that organization you have, in essence, been shut down or that this concept or position can no longer be voiced?
Mr. Rossi: I can't really speak directly to the privatization attempt for the Documentation, Information and Research Branch. What I can say is that this government certainly has pursued a course of entertaining initiatives for public servants to consider cost-saving measures, alternate service delivery, and commercialization.
.1645
In my own case, sitting as a decision-maker now, I can tell you that the practical nature of the work means that I'm in at 8:15 a.m. to review cases all day long. Then I'm home to relax and I'm back into it again. It's my full occupation right now. The only thing I can consider is the decision-making process as a decision-maker.
Before, there was time to consider those items and it was something I spent a lot of time with, but now the nature of the work, the very challenge and the interest I have in it, means that it's my full-time devotion.
Ms Meredith: So basically you're telling me that you do not feel comfortable in progressing along with the concept of privatization. You're content to be the user of the information rather than concern yourself about the source of the information.
Mr. Rossi: No, I'm not really saying that at all. What I am saying is that I believe those kinds of initiatives are not lost on this government. I'm hoping that this government will continue to consider those initiatives.
If at some point in the future there were a way for me to be part of something like that, if I had the time, I would certainly pursue it. I'm totally committed to excellent service for value and service to Canadians. I'd like to ensure that the government does it in a cost-effective, measured way.
I made what I thought was a contribution in 1995. The government considered it and moved on.
Ms Meredith: I wanted to talk about the time line of your political involvement with being president of the Nepean riding association. It would appear that you applied for the IRB, and then you became the president of the Nepean Liberal Association. Did you seek that position because you recognized that would be a positive step in your application for appointment?
Mr. Rossi: No, not at all. In fact, at the time I applied there was no active consideration, as far as I knew, of my candidacy as a potential board member.
Ms Meredith: But don't you think that if your application was as sound as you say then they would have given you the position based on your application? You don't feel the application would speak for itself?
The Chairman: I think we can get back to the original purpose of this meeting, which is to search for more knowledge pertaining to his competencies, abilities, and so forth.
I don't think we can continue with that line of questioning.
Ms Meredith: With all due respect, Mr. Chair, an application was given to the IRB to consider. I asked him whether or not the information on the application was all that was considered. If it was, then it should have been dealt with in 1993.
You took a position as the president of the Liberal association in Nepean after your application was in. I think I was fair in asking whether that was a follow-up in the process of trying to get an appointment. It wasn't just the application, it was that your experience wasn't enough.
The Chairman: It's not necessary for you to answer that question. You made your application based on the qualifications you possessed at the moment you made your application.
Continue with your questioning, please.
Ms Meredith: There's no point in continuing my questioning, Mr. Chair, because what I'm concerned about are the qualifications. Supposedly, the qualifications for the appointment went in for 1993. Why was the appointment not made in 1994 if the qualifications were enough for that position?
The Chairman: We're putting the witness in an awkward position. In other words, we're trying to assume that he knows exactly what is going on in the minds of the people who are making the decisions that are remotely connected to him at that point and stage in the whole process.
It will be all conjecture. So let's not carry on with that line of thinking and questioning. Avoid that line. Please zero in directly on any of the qualifications that are listed here.
Ms Meredith: Mr. Chair, I am trying to get directly to whether the qualifications for an appointment to the IRB include one being a faithful Liberal supporter and president of a Liberal association. Is that one of the qualifications that, added to work experience, gets one an appointment?
The Chairman: He has no way of knowing, and you know that. There's absolutely no way of him knowing exactly what goes through the minds of the people who made the decision.
Ms Meredith: There's no point in -
Ms Minna: On a point of order.
The Chairman: Ms Minna.
.1650
Ms Minna: Just to go back for a moment, I think the witness said earlier, from a question from Mr. Nunez, that he did not solicit or get letters of recommendations from a member of Parliament. So presumably there wasn't any effort on the part of the witness to even try to get that kind of stuff into the process. I think that was answered.
The Chairman: Do you wish to resume your questioning?
Ms Meredith: No, I don't.
The Chairman: All right. We'll jump to the government side. Is there anyone here who wishes to make a statement or throw out a question or two?
Ms Minna: I just wanted to ask the witness this. You had a number of years in the area of collecting information. Now you have the advantage, I suppose, of being on the decision-making side and knowing where information comes from, and what have you. Have you started sitting on hearings as yet?
Mr. Rossi: Yes.
Ms Minna: Would there be any changes - I'm not talking about privatization now - to the process of information-gathering that you would suggest, given the kind of work you're now doing and seeing the kinds of issues you have to address as the chair, being on the other side?
Mr. Rossi: One thing I would say is that it is imperative when you're reviewing country conditions and the issues, depending on what the refugee-producing country is, for the information to be timely, au courant, and up to date.
I think one of the challenges we have is to ensure that the information on events that provide the impetus for flight are before us. We should be able to consider all aspects of a claim, whether it's general country conditions or information that supports or explains the issues from a variety of sources. And you need it quickly, because there are a lot of cases. There's a lot of work, and that's the big thing in the weighing of information.
Ms Minna: How does your previous job help you, do you think, in rendering your decisions and doing the analytical part of your job?
Mr. Rossi: My job was senior analyst, so it was an analytical type of position. It was the finding of sources. It was looking for a wide variety of information from different streams and different types of thought, such as that from academics and public on-line sources. It was putting that all together and letting the decision-maker weigh the information.
I think I had the ability to find the information quickly, put it together, synthesize a lot of it, and provide good training for the board members, which I did a lot of regionally. I think all of that coming together put me in a good position to appreciate and understand the issues of the decision-makers. I met a lot with them. It was a logical extension to transfer into this type of work. I'm putting all of those things into place.
I feel very privileged in that I'm one of the very few people who have come as a public servant in the Immigration and Refugee Board now into the decision-making side. I don't know anyone else who has done that. I think it's put me a step ahead of the game a little bit. It's made the job a lot easier.
Ms Minna: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Graham.
Mr. Graham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My line of questioning was very much along that of Ms Minna. It is perhaps unusual that one is able to get someone with the extensive background you have in the field and with this kind of experience directly involved in the process as deeply as you have been professionally before going to the board. You've already told Ms Minna that this is a definite advantage to you in terms of performing your duties.
You'll forgive me, but I'm not aware of how the board sits. My belief is that you sit in panels of three.
Mr. Rossi: Two.
Mr. Graham: So then you're able to use the experience you've had when having discussions with other board members to enrich the discussions by virtue of your own background.
Mr. Rossi: Well, not directly in the hearing room. It would be tantamount in some cases to a board member giving evidence, so I don't talk about the processes and procedures of acquiring claim-specific or claimant-specific information on the bench. That type of discussion is best left to the members' discussions outside the hearing room.
But I do try to provide as much information as possible. It has been a logical extension. It has been a natural convenience to be located at the Toronto front offices. That's the heaviest volume. I can be there to sit with my sub-teams and say that this is the likelihood of getting information out of the Canadian mission in Belgrade, and here's what we have to do; we need the claimant's consent to go to country X. We provide that, and I can hone in on a lot of the issues. Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are my specific areas. I just bring a lot of that information with me, and they draw on it.
The Chairman: Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: I have a small question. First of all, did you work in your privatization project with the MP for Ottawa - Vanier?
.1655
Mr. Rossi: I worked with no member of Parliament on developing my privatization proposal.
Mr. Nunez: But there was an article in the newspaper, you know. Are you aware of this article in Le Droit?
Mr. Rossi: Is that the one in Le Devoir?
Mr. Nunez: Le Droit.
Mr. Rossi: Le Droit, was it? I don't know. I don't recall what it said inside it, no. I knew there were a couple of articles about the privatization and that several disgruntled researchers had met with you to express their concerns. That was stated in the article.
Mr. Nunez: Then you don't remember if you worked with Mr. Bélanger on this project?
Mr. Rossi: No, I said I didn't remember the contents of an article. I certainly know well that I did not work with Mr. Bélanger to develop my proposal.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Has any other employee of the documentation service been named to the Board?
[English]
Are you the only one from the -
Mr. Rossi: I was the only one, yes.
Mr. Nunez: Why not the other people? Did they apply for the job?
Mr. Graham: He can't answer it.
Mr. Nunez: Did your colleagues apply for this kind of job?
Mr. Rossi: When you say ``they'', are you saying any research officer at the documentation branch?
Mr. Nunez: You were a member of a group of about fifty people?
Mr. Rossi: That's right. You asked me whether any of them applied.
Mr. Nunez: Yes.
Mr. Rossi: I have no knowledge of that. I have no knowledge as to whether they applied or not. I don't know about their personal or professional goals.
Mr. Nunez: Why are you surprised by this question? You know the answer is very clear. What is clear is that he's a good Liberal and he got this job because he's a Liberal. That is all.
The Chairman: I think that statement is out of order, Mr. Nunez, and you know that.
Do you have any questions?
Ms Meredith: I was going to ask the same question as Mr. Nunez. I'm tired of being a follow-up.
Why would you be the only one? If this is the kind of background.... I would think that this is what the IRB would be looking at. I would think employees who were making - I don't know - maybe $50,000 or $60,000 would like to get a step up and make $86,000. So it would surprise me that more of the employees hadn't applied. So after you made the comment that this was the first time an employee had gotten a commission appointment, I would ask the samequestion: why?
Mr. Rossi: That's not a question for me to answer. But is the list of candidates or people who have applied not available from the ministerial advisory selection committee? Maybe they make those names available or something.
The Chairman: I don't think you're in any position to answer those kinds of questions because you really don't have that knowledge. It has nothing to do, really and truly, with your abilities, competencies and expertise.
If you have no further questions to ask, we'll jump over to the government side. Are there any further questions or statements to make?
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): For how long is your appointment?
Mr. Rossi: It's a two-year appointment.
Mrs. Parrish: You mentioned in your first bit of evidence that you are not security-oriented; you are more interested in adventure and doing something different. I guess it's a hypothetical question, but many of the staff who work where you worked before are more interested than you in security and knowing they have a job for the next five or ten years. You applied for a two-year appointment. Maybe they're not willing to take that risk. Is that a fair deduction?
Mr. Rossi: I certainly can't answer that, but I didn't need -
Mrs. Parrish: At the end of two years his appointment can be terminated. He knows he would have had a secure position if he stayed working as staff.
Mr. Rossi: I had to resign.
Mrs. Parrish: All right. So maybe the reason you don't get an inundation of applications is that everybody else has other obligations.
The Chairman: Let's refrain from that line of questioning.
Mrs. Parrish: Bad question.
The Chairman: Yes, very bad.
Are there any further comments and so forth from the government side?
All right, we've gone two rounds. I think we have more or less exhausted the kinds of queries we could present to our witness.
I'd like to make a general statement. I think you handled yourself as a professional expert in dealing with the problem-solving process and with this type of pressure.
I'm very impressed with your curriculum vitae. In fact, I'm envious. When I take a look at the last page, under ``personal'', there's the fact that you can speak so many different languages and have working abilities with them. I'm amazed that you're a classical pianist as well. It's just mind-boggling.
I congratulate you for your outstanding achievements and your academic career. I hope you have a long life and will be serving the people of this nation for a great number of years. I'm wishing you the very best.
Mr. Rossi: I consider it a privilege, I really do.
.1700
The Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee.
The meeting is adjourned.