Public Service Commission

www.psc-cfp.gc.ca

Common menu bar

• Français
• Home
• Contact Us
• Help
• Search
• canada.gc.ca

Breadcrumb

1. Home >
2. Audit and Data Services >
3. Completed Reports – 2009

Audit of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

A report by the Public Service Commission of Canada

October 2009

Public Service Commission of Canada
300 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0M7
Canada

Information: 613-992-9562
Facsimile: 613-992-9352

All of the audit work in this report was conducted in accordance with the legislative mandate and audit policies of the Public Service Commission of Canada.

Table of Contents

• Summary
• Introduction
  • Reason for the audit
  • Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s challenges
  • Focus of the audit
• Observations and recommendations
• Elements of a framework for staffing are in place
  • Mandatory policies generally comply with Public Service Commission requirements
  • Human resources planning requires improvement
• Human resources support needs improvement in the Central Region
  • Knowledgeable, trained human resources advisors are accessible to sub-delegated managers in most regions
  • Human resources support to sub-delegated managers in the Central Region is insufficient
  • Sub-delegated managers in most regions understand their roles and responsibilities
• Merit was not demonstrated in 9 out of 31 appointments using advertised processes
• Compliance needs significant improvement in non-advertised processes
  • Merit was not demonstrated or not met in 11 of the 23 appointments using non-advertised processes
  • Most rationales for non-advertised processes did not address the guiding values
• Preferential treatment in certain leadership and former Governor in Council appointments
• Monitoring activities are insufficient
  • Leadership does not provide an effective oversight of human resources activities
  • Human resources challenge function is insufficient
• Conclusion
• Overall response of entity
• About the audit
• Glossary

Summary

1. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Canada's largest independent administrative tribunal, was created in 1989. The IRB states that every year it renders more than 40 000 decisions on refugee protection and immigration matters efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The IRB reports to Parliament through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), but remains independent from both CIC and the Minister.

2. The objectives of this audit were to determine whether the IRB has an appropriate framework, systems and practices in place to manage its public service appointment activities and to determine whether its appointments and appointment processes comply with the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) Appointment Framework, the IRB’s human resources (HR) policies, other governing authorities and with the instrument of delegation signed with the PSC.

3. We found that of the 54 appointments reviewed for this audit 21 of the 54 appointments met both merit and the guiding values. There were 33 appointments where either merit or the guiding values or a combination of both merit and the guiding values were not met or demonstrated.

4. We found that sub-delegated managers in the Central Region (Toronto) did not have adequate access to human resource advisors validated by the PSC.

5. Our audit found that the human resource planning done at the IRB was not coordinated among its branches and regions. The HR planning did not provide specific direction to sub-delegated managers or HR professionals. The IRB’s management did not monitor the overall performance of its appointment-related authorities, hence they were unable to identify and correct deficiencies.

6. The IRB identified that they require the services of former Governor in Council (GIC) appointees of the IRB who possess knowledge of the tribunal proceedings and have in-depth experience in dealing with the tribunal operations. We are concerned that preferential treatment of the appointment of former GIC appointees to public service positions in the IRB compromised the PSEA’s core value of merit, along with the guiding values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness. Appointing former GIC appointees where merit is not met or demonstrated further compromises both the core and guiding values of the PSEA. Similarly, appointing former GIC appointees either through non-advertised processes or in advertised processes, where the experience can only be obtained as a former GIC appointee of the IRB, does not respect the guiding values of the PSEA. We are also concerned with preferential treatment in certain executive (EX) and executive equivalent appointments.

7. Delegation will be affected as a result of this audit.

Introduction

8. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) is an independent administrative tribunal that reports to the Parliament of Canada through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The tribunal renders more than 40 000 decisions on refugee protection and immigration matters. It is responsible for making well-reasoned decisions on immigration and refugee matters efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

9. As of March 31, 2009, the IRB employed 925 public service employees and 118 Governor in Council (GIC) appointees. Planned spending for 2008-2009 was $113.4M, which included 1 025 full time equivalent employees and GIC appointments. The IRB is organized into three divisions and it has three regional offices (Montréal, Toronto, and Vancouver). While each division is responsible for making decisions on different immigration and refugee matters, they all follow an administrative process similar to, but less formal than, a court process. Decisions at the Immigration Division are made by IRB employees, who are federal public servants, however decisions at the Refugee Protection Division and the Immigration Appeal Division are made by IRB members who are GIC appointees.

10. The Human Resources Professional Development Branch (HRPDB) is accountable for providing corporate leadership and expertise in the development and establishment of human resources (HR) policies and programs. However, regional HR organizations in the IRB report through Operations and not through the HRPDB.

Reason for the audit

11. The audit of the IRB was identified in the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) Audit and Data Services Branch plan for 2007-2009. The PSC’s 2007-2008 Departmental Staffing Accountability Report (DSAR) assessment of IRB’s staffing performance identified areas for improvement or requiring attention. Specifically, the PSC observed that analyses of planned versus targeted HR staffing activities were not being conducted, and staffing strategies were not linked to business plans.

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s challenges

12. International and domestic factors can influence the IRB’s working environment. Conflicts and country conditions can result in more refugee movements, as is the case for patterns of migration and people seeking admission to Canada. The Chairman of the IRB has stated that, during the period of this audit, the IRB had to contend with an overwhelming challenge in all three of its divisions where intake had steadily increased, while the capacity to resolve refugee claims and appeals in the Refugee Protection Division and the Immigration Appeal Division was constrained by a lack of GIC appointees (decision makers) as a result of a series of changes of government. The backlog of refugee protection claims awaiting a decision rose from 20 200 in 2005-2006 to 42 300 in 2007-2008. In the 2009-2010 Report on Plans and Priorities, the IRB has attributed this backlog to a growing inventory of claims and fewer experienced decision makers. Moreover, the backlog of claims has increased and the budget has decreased from $117M in 2006-2007 to $113M for 2009-2010.

13. The number of refugee decisions made by the IRB is dependent upon the number of GIC appointees at the IRB at a given time. The Governor in Council’s decisions on appointments have a direct impact on the number of public service employees needed to support the IRB. GIC appointees are appointed for defined terms and there may be gaps between the expiration of GIC appointments and the appointment of replacement GIC appointees. Therefore the demand for public servants fluctuates, as does the need to train newly appointed GIC appointees at the IRB.

Focus of the audit

14. The audit objectives were:

• To determine whether the IRB had an appropriate framework, systems and practices in place to manage its appointment activities; and
• To determine if appointment and appointment processes in the IRB complied with the Public Service Employment Act, the PSC’s Appointment Framework, including the instrument of delegation signed with the PSC, the related departmental policies and other governing authorities and policies.

15. This audit covered the period from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2009, during which time a new Chairperson was appointed in June 2007. We examined 54 appointments. Our first sample was of 35 appointments designed to focus on areas of risk identified in the appointment framework controls. This sample was selected arbitrarily to represent a cross section of the IRB’s regions and divisions, key occupational groups as well as collective and non-collective processes. Our second sample targeted 19 additional appointments selected based on risks identified during the audit planning phase. These included every appointment under the PSEA of former GIC appointees of the IRB during the period of the audit, 12 in total, and 7 appointments to executive and executive equivalent positions. The appointment files reviewed included acting periods greater than four months, advertised, non-advertised, internal and external appointments. We analyzed documents related to HR management at the IRB and we interviewed sub-delegated managers, managers, HR advisors and union representatives. For more information on the audit, refer to the About the audit section at the end of this report.

Observations and recommendations

Elements of a framework for staffing are in place

16. The Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) provides the statutory basis for a merit-based, non-partisan public service that is professional, representative of Canada’s diversity and able to serve Canadians with integrity and in their official language of choice. The preamble of the PSEA articulates the core values of merit and non-partisanship and highlights the guiding values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness in staffing. Appointments to public service positions within the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) are governed by the PSEA and the Public Service Employment Regulations and policies.

17. The Public Service Commission (PSC) is responsible for the administration of the PSEA. The Act gives the PSC exclusive authority to make appointments to and within the public service, based on merit. It further allows the PSC to delegate its authority for making appointments to departmental and agency deputy heads. It also allows the organization to establish appointment processes according to its particular needs: managers can initiate and approve actions within their own areas of responsibility, in accordance with sub-delegated authorities. Deputy heads are accountable for adhering to the conditions of their signed instrument of delegation. The Chairperson of the IRB had full delegation authority during the scope of the audit.

18. We expected the IRB to have established a management framework for appointments and appointment-related decisions which ensures that:

• Human resources (HR) planning is integrated with business planning, risks and objectives are communicated and supported by appointment-related policies and strategies;
• Roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for appointment-related authorities are defined, communicated and understood by sub-delegated managers;
• Mechanisms are in place to ensure that people have the necessary knowledge and skills to carry out their staffing responsibilities, to coordinate decisions and actions and to provide relevant and timely information for decision-making;
• Staffing activities are monitored and assessed to identify and explain variances from plans and to identify areas for improvement, appropriate changes or actions taken as needed; and
• Appointment decisions are consistent with staffing plans and respect the core and guiding values.

Mandatory policies generally comply with Public Service Commission requirements

19. We found that the IRB put in place the mandatory PSC appointment policies. We found IRB-approved policies for area of selection, revocation and corrective action and the criteria for choosing non-advertised processes. The IRB’s criteria on the Use of Non-Advertised Appointment Processes and the Policy on Area of Selection were not completely consistent with the PSC’s Appointment Policy on the Choice of Appointment Process. The guiding value of representativeness was not identified in these two policies. The IRB provided a revised draft which addressed this issue, however it had yet to approve the policy changes. With the exception of this omission, the policies met the PSC requirements.

20. We expected that the organization of the HR function would facilitate decision-making and accountability on staffing issues. Roles and responsibilities, including accountabilities in staffing, would be clearly defined so that decisions and actions are taken by the appropriate people.

21. The IRB document Roles and Responsibilities of Delegated Managers and Human Resources Advisors in the Staffing Process clearly defined their roles and responsibilities. From interviews at Headquarters and in the regions we found that sub-delegated managers and human resources advisors (HRAs) understood their roles and responsibilities.

Human resources planning requires improvement

22. Human resources (HR) planning is required to effectively manage delegated appointments and appointment-related authorities. HR planning enables staffing to be conducted so that competence is maintained, skill shortages are minimized, renewal of staff is addressed and other HR priorities are supported. Deputy heads are expected to ensure that appointments and appointment-related decisions are in line with current and future HR requirements.

23. The PSC requires delegated departments and agencies to complete an annual Departmental Staffing Accountability Report (DSAR). This information is used as an input to assess and improve organizational staffing performance across the federal government and to report on the health of the federal public service appointment system. In the 2007-2008 DSAR, the IRB self-rated the organization as having fully met the PSC expectations related to integrated HR planning supporting the business priorities. This included a staffing strategy providing senior management with direction and priorities for the entire organization.

24. We found that HR planning in the IRB was not well coordinated. For the 2007-2008 fiscal year, the IRB developed regional, divisional and branch-specific HR plans. However, the IRB did not have a corporate integrated HR plan for the fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The lack of corporate HR direction resulted in regional, divisional and branch plans being uncoordinated and inconsistent. We found that the regions, divisions and branches did not complete HR plans in 2008-2009, except for the Corporate Planning and Services Branch.

25. The IRB’s Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC) recognized that this approach to HR planning did not produce the desired results. A revised approach was introduced in March 2009 with the expectation that it would simplify and improve the HR planning process.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Response: The IRB is in the process of integrating human resources planning with its internal planning and budgeting process. All IRB branches and divisions have submitted their 2009-2010 human resources plans based on their respective business priorities, and a summary of forecasted recruitment and staffing needs for the entire organization has been prepared for follow-up purposes. This exercise will allow the IRB to identify the most efficient staffing strategies and actions that must be taken to respond to organizational needs and coordinate the HR Plans between the regions and Headquarters. The Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC), chaired by the Executive Director, will closely monitor the IRB’s HR planning activities and status reports will be presented to the Chairperson’s Management Board on a quarterly basis.

Human resources support needs improvement in the Central Region

26. Human Resources Advisors (HRA) are responsible for providing expert and strategic advice to client managers on appointments and appointment-related decisions as well as providing a challenge role with regard to potential outcomes.

27. We found that HRAs generally understood their roles and responsibilities through interviews that were conducted at Headquarters and in the regions.

Knowledgeable, trained human resources advisors are accessible to sub-delegated managers in most regions

28. We found that trained and validated HRAs were available at Headquarters and in most regions. A validated HRA must pass the Appointment Framework Knowledge Test, a mandatory requirement of the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI). The Human Resources and Professional Development Branch launched a professional development program for entry level HRAs. The hiring managers we interviewed were generally satisfied with the quality of the advice provided to them by their HRAs.

Human resources support to sub-delegated managers in the Central Region is insufficient

29. In the Central Region, responsible for Ontario (except for the Ottawa area), we found that there was inadequate access to validated HRAs. The hiring managers also observed that they received conflicting advice from regional and corporate HRAs. Sub-delegated managers we interviewed indicated that this limited access to reliable HR advice was compounded by the fact that they had not received enough training on their responsibilities, subject to the PSEA. Moreover, despite having entry level HRAs, the central region was not using the IRB’s Corporate HR Professionals Development Program.

Sub-delegated managers in most regions understand their roles and responsibilities

30. Sub-delegated managers received training on sub-delegation, accountability, the IRB’s appointment framework, the core values of merit and non-partisanship and the guiding values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness. These documents, together with advice and guidance from HRAs, should lay the foundation for sub-delegated managers to acquire the necessary understanding of their roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.

31. In the Central Region, the sub-delegated managers we interviewed indicated that they were not comfortable with their sub-delegated responsibilities and they expressed a desire for refresher courses.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Response: The IRB recognizes the importance of having fully qualified human resources advisors who can provide high quality advice and service to clients at Headquarters and in all regions. The gap noted by the auditors has been corrected. The Board will review the organizational structure for its human resources management function and take steps to provide managers with ongoing and adequate access to HR advisors validated by the PSC. The IRB will also expand to all regions its internal PE Development Program for entry-level advisors.

Merit was not demonstrated in 9 out of 31 appointments using advertised processes

32. We expected the IRB’s appointments and appointment processes to comply with the PSEA, other governing authorities and policies and with the instrument of delegation signed with the PSC. We further expected each appointment to respect the core values of merit and non-partisanship, and the guiding values.

33. Section 30 of the PSEA establishes that appointments must be made on the basis of merit. Merit is met when the PSC is satisfied that the person to be appointed meets the essential qualifications in the Statement of Merit Criteria and, if relevant, any other asset qualifications, operational requirements and organizational needs applied to the specific appointment. The ADAI requires that appointment and appointment-related decisions be fully documented.

34. We found that merit was not demonstrated in 9 of the 31 appointments using advertised processes (Table 1). Of these nine appointments, one did not meet merit and the other eight could not demonstrate merit. We were unable to conclude whether these appointments were meritorious because there was either no assessment on file, or because the assessments were incomplete. Assessments that were incomplete either did not evaluate all essential qualifications for the position or did not fully evaluate one or more essential qualifications.

Compliance needs significant improvement in non-advertised processes

Merit was not demonstrated or not met in 11 of the 23 appointments using non-advertised processes

35. We found 11 out of 23 appointments using non-advertised processes where merit was not met or demonstrated (Table 1). We were unable to conclude whether merit was demonstrated in these appointments because there was either no assessment on file, or because the assessments were incomplete. Assessments that were incomplete either did not evaluate all essential qualifications for the position or did not fully evaluate one or more essential qualification.

36. We found two external appointments where merit was not met because the individuals failed to meet the essential qualifications related to official language requirements (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1: Merit not met and preferential treatment

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

¹ denotes 35 appointments of 34 people
² denotes 12 appointments of 9 people
³ denotes 7 appointments of 4 people

Most rationales for non-advertised processes did not address the guiding values

37. As in all processes, adherence to the guiding values is central to non-advertised processes. The PSC’s Policy on Choice of Appointment Process requires departments and agencies to establish and communicate criteria for the use of such processes. There must also be a written rationale to demonstrate how a non-advertised process meets the established criteria and the guiding values.

38. We observed that the IRB’s policies provided clear direction to sub-delegated managers on how to prepare rationales for the choice of appointment processes. Despite these guidelines, we found that:

• In 21 out of 23 non-advertised appointments the rationale did not respect the PSC’s Policy on Choice of Appointment Process and the guiding values; and
• In 17 out of 23 non-advertised appointments the rationale did not address the IRB’s Choice of Appointment Process Policy and Criteria for Non-advertised Processes.

It should be noted that of the 23 non-advertised appointments, eight of these appointments had no rationale in the staffing file.

Exhibit 2 gives examples of rationales that did not address the guiding values.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Response: The IRB agrees that staffing decisions must respect merit and the appointment values. The Board will implement its revised Policy on Choice of Appointment which contains the four guiding values and a common set of criteria for the organization. Clear direction and assistance will be provided to sub-delegated managers to ensure that assessment tools and methods for each appointment process fully assess essential qualifications and other identified merit criteria and that files are adequately documented. In the case of non-advertised processes, the IRB will revise its approach in preparing rationales so that the guiding values are clearly outlined. Tools such as a staffing checklist and templates will be put in place to assist HR advisors and managers.

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada.

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

¹ denotes 35 appointments of 34 people
² denotes 12 appointments of 9 people
³ denotes 7 appointments of 4 people

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

¹ denotes 35 appointments of 34 peopler
² denotes 12 appointments of 9 people
³ denotes 7 appointments of 4 people

Preferential treatment in certain leadership and former Governor in Council appointments

39. Tribunal decisions on refugee protection and immigration matters are made by Tribunal members, who may be GIC appointees or federal public servants. Decisions in the Immigration Division are made by IRB employees, who are federal public servants. Decisions in the Refugee Protection Division and the Immigration Appeal Division are made by IRB members who are GIC appointees.

40. Public servants are appointed under the PSEA, other governing authorities and policies, as well as the ADAI signed by the President of the PSC and the Chairperson of the IRB. The PSEA provides the statutory basis for a merit-based, non-partisan public service that is professional, representative of Canada’s diversity and able to serve Canadians with integrity and in their official language of choice. The preamble of the PSEA articulates the core appointment values of merit and non-partisanship and highlights the guiding values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness in staffing.

41. GIC appointees, who are not public servants, are appointed on the recommendation of the responsible minister and approved by the Governor General in Council, i.e. the Governor General acting on the advice of Cabinet.¹ Through the GIC process, the government appoints individuals to Crown corporations and a wide array of federal entities: agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals, including the IRB.²

42. The process for GIC appointments involves identifying appointment positions where incumbents’ terms will be expiring, determining selection criteria, assessing qualifications and recommending a candidate.³ Supporting the GIC appointment process on behalf of the Prime Minister’s office is a function of the Privy Council Office. GIC appointments are recommended by the responsible minister. The Governor in Council’s authority to appoint is generally conferred by statute and formally given effect by an Order-in-Council⁴ (a more detailed description of the appointment process of GIC appointees can be found at the IRB’s Web site⁵ or in the 2009 Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Chapter 2, Governor in Council Appointment Process, paragraphs 2.85 to 2.90).

43. As a result of concerns expressed by IRB employees during this audit, we examined whether former GIC appointees were given preferential treatment in certain public service appointments.

44. The IRB has a need to train newly appointed GIC appointees by former GIC appointees who have corporate knowledge and experience. This can be accomplished under the PSEA through a casual 90-day appointment where the core and guiding values do not apply. This can also be accomplished through advertised or non-advertised processes, term and indeterminate tenured appointments that are subject to the core and guiding values of the PSEA.

45. We found 12 appointment processes subject to the PSEA that involved nine former GIC appointees. Seven of these were newly appointed to public service positions at the IRB during the scope of the audit. In these seven appointments either merit or the guiding values or a combination of both merit and the guiding values were not met or demonstrated. The eighth former GIC appointee was appointed to the public service prior to the scope of the audit; however, a subsequent appointment during the scope of the audit was found to be non-compliant. The ninth former GIC appointee appointed during the scope of this audit was found to be compliant with the PSEA.

46. In four of these cases, the individuals were appointed through non-advertised processes. In all four cases the rationales did not address the guiding values. In one of the four non-advertised processes, merit was not met; as the language requirements of the position were changed after the individual failed to meet the language requirements (Exhibit 3). In two of the four cases, merit was not demonstrated, as the individuals were not assessed for knowledge.

Exhibit 3: Preferential treatment of a former Governor in Council Appointee

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

47. In the fourth case, although merit was demonstrated, the rationale did not address the guiding values. The non-advertised appointment rationale stated that the employee was essential for the completion of a two year project. The rationale also stated that if the project was to extend beyond the original two years, an advertised process would be conducted to make the position permanent. Eight months into the term, the employee was extended an additional 12 months, making the term a total of 36 months. This was despite the fact that the employee would be going on long-term leave during the original two year term. The decision was challenged by the HR advisor as one which indicated preferential treatment as well as not respecting the staffing values of fairness, accessibility and transparency.

48. Three of the seven former GIC appointees were appointed to public service positions through the same external advertised process. There were strong indications of preferential treatment in this process. In the staffing file we found documentation from the sub-delegated hiring manager stating that in order to allow former members to apply, the IRB needed to have a competition open to the public. Of the 174 applicants, 171 applicants were screened out because they did not meet the experience requirement. Three of the four experiences had to have been obtained from the "Alternate Dispute Resolution in the Immigration Appeal Division or other Tribunal." Merit was not demonstrated in the appointment of any of the three individuals, as none were assessed against the remaining Statement of Merit Criteria for the position.

49. We also found one additional appointment involving a former GIC appointee who had previously entered the public service and subsequently became a GIC appointee. The appointment process file contained insufficient information to demonstrate merit. The only items on the file were: the letter of offer, an evaluation grid indicating the individual "met" all statement of merit criteria and a staffing action request form.

50. For the examination phase of the audit we also selected an additional seven executive (EX) and executive equivalent appointment processes. Three of these processes were non-compliant as they did not demonstrate merit. The assessments were either incomplete as they did not address all the essential qualifications or did not use the appropriate assessment tools. One of these three processes was non-advertised, without a rationale to demonstrate how the process met the guiding values.

51. The remaining four processes related to one individual, all four of which were non-compliant. In all four cases, either merit was not demonstrated, the guiding values were not respected or merit was not demonstrated and the guiding values were not respected. Ultimately, the individual was promoted three levels through a series of appointments and a retroactive reclassification.

52. We are concerned that the PSEA’s core value of merit along with the guiding values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness, were compromised through preferential treatment in the appointment of former GIC appointees to public service positions in the IRB. Appointing former GIC appointees, either through non-advertised or advertised processes, where the experience can only be obtained as a former member, does not respect the guiding values of the PSEA; similarly, appointing former GIC appointees where merit is not met or merit is not demonstrated further compromises both the core and guiding values. We are also concerned with preferential treatment in certain EX and executive equivalent appointments.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Response: The IRB maintains that there has been no preferential treatment in any of its staffing processes. Training will continue to be delivered corporately to sub-delegated managers. The IRB will review the content of its current training materials to ensure that the module dealing with the choice of appointment process adequately reinforces the importance of respecting the guiding and core values of the PSEA. For human resource managers and advisors, the Staffing Certification Program will address this topic, among several others.

Monitoring activities are insufficient

53. Departments and agencies are expected to monitor appointments to ensure that they respect the requirements of the PSEA, other governing authorities and policies and the instrument of delegation signed with the PSC. The PSC has established the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF) with indicators to determine how appointment authorities are being carried out. Deputy heads are required to demonstrate to the PSC that their organization’s staffing system meets mandatory indicators identified in the SMAF.

54. A key element of the SMAF is Organizational Accountability for Results, according to which deputy heads are expected to establish their own monitoring practices and make improvements where deficiencies are identified. Monitoring is an ongoing process of gathering and analyzing qualitative and quantitative information on current and past staffing results. This allows an organization to assess staffing management and performance (including risk assessment in staffing). It also makes it possible to identify early corrective action, so as to manage and minimize risk and improve staffing performance.

55. In its 2007-2008 DSAR, the IRB was advised to improve monitoring of its staffing information to assist sub-delegated managers in their decision-making. The IRB indicated that they have started the implementation of the recommendations but were unable to provide supporting documentation.

Leadership does not provide an effective oversight of human resources activities

56. IRB’s planning templates anticipate that monitoring occurs and that regional, divisional and corporate HR plans are modified and updated, as appropriate, in order to keep them relevant to the organization’s business needs. We expected to see that monitoring was planned and carried out as planned, such that actual staffing activities were compared with planned activities and with evidence that variances were noted and adjustments made. We also expected that active oversight of the HR function would be exercised through the IRB’s senior management committees.

57. The IRB’s management was responsible for discussing key issues related to the effective management of human resources and to provide direction to the organization in these matters. The IRB monitored staffing activities through various reports on a regular basis throughout the organization. However, two issues affect the quality of the reports: data integrity and timeliness of information. We observed many blank fields and incorrectly coded fields in the Human Resources Management Information System (Exhibit 4). There was no indication of monitoring, identification of deficiencies and corrective action. These deficiencies make monitoring and measuring of staffing activities against the HR plans difficult and limit the organization’s ability to make effective adjustments in order to achieve its objectives.

Exhibit 4: Missing HR data

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

58. We observed that in March 2008, an internal audit was conducted of the administrative processes in the IRB’s Regional Offices. Two issues identified in the audit were specific to staffing, both of which related to insufficient documentation on staffing files. The IRB published a Management Response and Action Plan. The plan did not provide the details and specific actions to ensure that deficiencies are addressed (Exhibit 5).

Exhibit 5: Action plan lacking details

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Response: The IRB will implement a robust staffing monitoring system which meets the requirements of the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF). In doing so, the Human Resources and Professional Development Branch will work in partnership with the IRB’s Internal Audit and Integrity group to ensure that the monitoring framework is consistent with established standards and methodologies. The IRB will report on and analyse planned staffing activities versus actual activities and take appropriate corrective action where gaps or other issues are identified. The Human Resource Management Committee will oversee activities on a quarterly basis and a report to the Chairperson’s Management Board will be submitted every four months.

Human resources challenge function is insufficient

59. We expected HRAs to exercise a challenge function and document their advice. We also expected to find more HR challenges, given the number of non-compliant files we found and we expected to see evidence of monitoring of compliance on individual appointment process files. In the regions, we found no examples of HR challenges.

60. At Headquarters, we found a challenge in seven files. In six of these, the HR advice and challenge was provided, however the decision taken by the sub-delegated manager was not consistent with that advice (Exhibit 6).

Exhibit 6: HR advice not followed

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Response: The IRB will establish quality control measures to ensure that all appointment-related decisions meet legislative requirements, the PSC Appointment Framework and other governing authorities and policies, and will take corrective action where appropriate. The forthcoming Staffing Certification Program will also incorporate a module on the HR challenge function. In addition, a forum will be established to identify and discuss high risk and challenging cases across the organisation.

Conclusion

61. We found that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) did have elements of an appropriate framework in place to manage its appointment activities. However, our audit found that the human resources (HR) planning done at the IRB was not coordinated among its branches and regions. The HR planning did not provide specific direction to sub-delegated managers or HR professionals. The IRB’s management did not monitor the overall performance of its appointment-related authorities; hence, they were unable to identify and correct deficiencies.

62. We found that sub-delegated managers in the Central Region did not have adequate access to human resources advisors validated by the Public Service Commission (PSC).

63. We are concerned that in 33 of the 54 appointments we examined we found that either merit or the guiding values, or a combination of both merit and the guiding values were not met or demonstrated. These appointments did not comply with the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), the PSC’s policies or with the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument signed with the PSC.

64. The IRB identified that they require the services of former Governors in Council (GIC) appointees who possess knowledge of the tribunal proceedings and have in depth experience in dealing with the tribunal operations. We are concerned that preferential treatment of the appointment of former GIC appointees to public service positions in the IRB compromised the PSEA’s core value of merit, along with the guiding values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness. Appointing former GIC appointees where merit is not met or demonstrated further compromises both the core and guiding values of the PSEA. Similarly, appointing former GIC appointees either through non-advertised or advertised processes, where the experience can only be obtained as a former GIC appointee of the IRB, does not respect the guiding values of the PSEA. We are also concerned with preferential treatment in certain executive (EX) and executive equivalent appointments.

65. We have referred all files in which issues have been raised to either the Chairperson of the IRB to investigate and take appropriate action, as required, or to our Investigations Directorate to determine if an investigation is warranted. The PSC will monitor these files to ensure that corrective action is properly carried out.

Overall response of entity

The IRB is of the view that weaknesses in the audit methodology appear to have been a major factor in leading the auditors to draw unsubstantiated conclusions. For example, their conclusion that insufficient documentation on the staffing files in certain appointment processes is indicative of merit not being met or values not being respected or demonstrated is unsustainable. All that can be stated with certainty is that the documentation the auditors reviewed does not allow them to draw a conclusion one way or the other with regard to merit and staffing values being demonstrated or met.

About the audit

Objectives

The audit objectives are:

• To determine whether the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) has an appropriate framework, systems and practices in place to manage its appointment activities; and
• To determine if appointment and appointment processes in the IRB comply with the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) Appointment Framework, including the instrument of delegation signed with the PSC, the related departmental policies and other governing authorities and policies.

Scope and approach

In the planning phase of the audit of the IRB we conducted interviews with managers and human resources advisors (HRA) and analyzed documents and data related to IRB staffing activities.

Based on this analysis, we selected a sample of 35 appointment processes. The sample was designed to focus on areas of risk identified in the assessment of the appointment framework controls. Our sample was selected arbitrarily to represent a cross-section of the IRB’s regions and divisions, key occupational groups as well as collective and non-collective staffing processes.

We also clustered the appointment processes into four types: external advertised (7), external non-advertised (4), internal advertised (11) and internal non-advertised (13).

We focused on the following appointment processes:

• Eight Tribunal Officers (occupational classification group PM);
• Eight Hearing Support Assistants (CR); and
• Seven Administrative Assistants (AS).

These occupational groups were identified during the interviews as the most challenging to staff due to a specific skill set or a high turnover rate. The remaining 12 processes were distributed among other occupational groups.

In the examination phase we focused on senior level positions and selected 19 additional appointments and appointment processes that were based on further interviews with IRB managers and HRAs, along with analysis of data from the planning stage. These included every appointment subject to the PSEA of former Governor in Council members of the IRB during the period of the audit, 12 in total, and seven appointments of executive (EX) and executive equivalent positions.

The processes included acting periods greater than four months, advertised, non-advertised, internal and external appointments.

Criteria

We drew the following audit criteria from the PSEA, the Public Service Employment Regulations, the PSC’s Appointment Policies, the policies established by the IRB, the Staffing Management Accountability Framework, and the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument signed by the Chairperson of the IRB and the President of the PSC.

We expected that the IRB would have established a management framework for appointments and appointment-related decisions which ensures that:

1. Human resources planning is integrated with business planning; risks and objectives are communicated and supported by appointment-related policies and strategies.
2. Departmental sub-delegation authorities and departmental policies are consistent with the PSEA and the departmental appointment framework; roles, responsibilities and accountabilities are understood and accepted.
3. Mechanisms are in place to ensure that stakeholders have the necessary knowledge and skills to carry out their appointment-related responsibilities, to provide relevant and timely information for decision-making and to facilitate decisions and actions.
4. Appointments and appointment processes are monitored and assessed to identify and explain variances from plans and to identify areas for improvement; appropriate action is taken as needed.
5. Appointments and appointment processes are consistent with related planning documents and respect the merit principle, non-partisanship and the appointment values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness.

Audit team

Vice-President, Audit and Data Services Branch:
Jean Ste-Marie

Director General, Departmental Audits Directorate:
Dena Palamedes

Director, Departmental Audits Directorate:
Darren Horne

Audit Managers:
Cybèle Robertson-Dupéré
René Lajzerowicz

Auditors:
François Bélanger
Dominique Charlebois
David Morneault
André Raymond
Elena Tkalitch

Glossary

Access (Accessibilité)
One of the guiding values of the Public Service Employment Act requiring that persons from across the country have a reasonable opportunity, in their official language of choice, to apply and to be considered for public service employment.

Acting appointment (Nomination intérimaire)
The temporary promotion of an employee.

Advertised appointment process (Processus de nomination annoncé)
When persons in the area of selection are informed of and can apply to an appointment opportunity.

Appointment (Nomination)
An action taken under the Public Service Employment Act to hire or promote someone.

Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI) (Instrument de délégation et de responsabilisation en matière de nomination – IDRN)
The formal document by which the PSC delegates its authorities to deputy heads. It identifies authorities, any conditions related to the delegation and sub-delegation of these authorities and how deputy heads will be held accountable for the exercise of their delegated authorities.

Appointment Framework (Cadre de nomination)
Sets out expectations for deputy heads when designing their staffing systems to ensure they respect legislative requirements and values guiding staffing in the public service. The framework has three components: appointment policy, delegation and accountability.

Appointment Framework Knowledge Test (AFKT) (Examen de connaissances sur le Cadre de nomination – ECCN )
A test developed by the PSC to assess Human Resources (HR) specialists’ knowledge of the PSC Appointment Framework and the related legislation. A condition of delegation is that deputy heads ensure that those to whom authority is sub-delegated have access to HR specialists whose knowledge of the Appointment Framework has been validated by the PSC.

Appointment policy (Lignes directrices en matière de nomination)
Under the Public Service Employment Act, the PSC can establish policies on making and revoking appointments and taking corrective action. The PSC has a number of policies on specific subjects that correspond to key decision points in appointment processes and should be read in conjunction with the Public Service Employment Regulations.

Area of selection (Zone de sélection)
The geographic, occupational, organizational and/or employment equity criteria that applicants must meet in order to be eligible for appointment that provides reasonable access to internal and external appointments and a reasonable area of recourse for internal non-advertised appointments. A national area of selection is prescribed by the PSC for certain external appointment processes.

Asset qualifications (Qualifications constituant un atout)
Qualifications that are not essential to perform the work, but which would benefit the organization or enhance the work to be performed. Asset qualifications may include experience, education, knowledge, skills, personal suitability, or any other qualification with the exception of official language requirements.

Audit (Vérification)
An objective and systematic examination of activities that provides an independent assessment of the performance and management of those activities.

Casual employment (Emploi occasionnel)
A short-term employment option to hire someone. Under the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), a casual worker cannot work more than 90 working days in one calendar year in a given organization, with the exception of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, where, in certain circumstances, the maximum period is 165 working days in one calendar year. The provisions of the PSEA, such as the merit requirement, do not apply to casual workers.

Classification (Classification)
The occupational group, sub-group (if applicable) and level assigned to a position.

Corrective action (Mesures correctives)
A process aimed at correcting an error, omission or improper conduct that affected the selection of the person appointed in an appointment process, or to address situations where an employee has engaged in an inappropriate political activity.

Departmental Staffing Accountability Report (DSAR) (Rapport ministériel sur l'obligation de rendre compte en dotation – RMORCD)
A periodic report that organizations provide to the PSC on the management and results of their staffing operations. The DSAR asks questions based on the Staffing Management Accountability Framework and the appointment values.

Employee (Fonctionnaire)
A person employed in the part of the public service to which the PSC has exclusive authority to make appointments.

Essential qualifications (Qualifications essentielles)
Qualifications necessary for the work to be performed and that must be met in order for a person to be appointed. These include education, experience, occupational certification, knowledge, abilities and skills, aptitudes, personal suitability and official language proficiency.

Executive Group (Groupe de la direction)
An occupational group providing leadership to the public service. It consists of five levels (EX-1 to EX-5).

EX equivalent levels (Niveaux équivalents EX)
Commonly called "EX equivalents" these levels correspond to at least the entry level of the Executive Group.

External appointment process (Processus de nomination externe)
A process in which persons may be considered, whether or not they are employed in the public service.

Fairness (Justice)
One of the guiding values of the Public Service Employment Act requiring that decisions be made objectively and free from political influence or personal favouritism, that policies and practices reflect the just treatment of persons, and that persons have the right to be assessed in their official language of choice.

Fiscal year (Exercice financier)
April 1 to March 31, for the public service.

Human resources planning (Planification des ressources humaines)
A process that identifies an organization’s current and future human resources needs and the planned objectives and strategies to meet these needs.

Indeterminate (permanent) employment (Emploi pour une période indéterminée – emploi permanent)
Employment of no fixed duration, whether part-time, full-time or seasonal.

Indicator (Indicateur)
A quantification or qualification characteristic that is measured to assess the extent to which an expected result is achieved and which is used to predict the health of the federal public service appointment system.

Internal appointment process (Processus de nomination interne)
A process for making one or more appointments for which only persons employed in the public service may be considered.

Language requirements of the position (Exigences linguistiques du poste)
The designation of a public service position, by the deputy head, as bilingual or unilingual according to the following categories: bilingual, English essential, French essential or either English or French essential.

Linguistic profile (Profil linguistique)
The language requirements of a bilingual position and the proficiency level required in the second official language for reading, writing and oral interaction.

Merit (Mérite)
One of the core values of the Public Service Employment Act. An appointment is made on the basis of merit when a person to be appointed meets the essential qualifications for work to be performed, as established by the deputy head, including official language proficiency. The sub-delegated manager may also take into account any current or future asset qualifications, operational requirements and organizational needs.

Merit criteria (Critères de mérite)
Essential qualifications as well as other merit criteria. Essential qualifications are those necessary for the work to be performed; they must be met in order for a person to be appointed. The other merit criteria can include any additional current or future asset qualifications, operational requirements or organizational needs, as established by the deputy head. The sub-delegated manager decides whether to apply the other criteria when making an appointment.

Non-advertised appointment process (Processus de nomination non annoncé)
An appointment process that does not meet the criteria for an advertised appointment process.

Non-partisanship (Impartialité politique)
One of the core values of the Public Service Employment Act, non-partisanship ensures that appointments and promotions to and within the public service are made free from political influence and supports the capacity and willingness of employees to serve governments, regardless of political affiliation.

Occupational group (Groupe professionnel)
A grouping used for classification, comprising similar kinds of work requiring similar skills.

Operational requirements (Exigences opérationnelles)
Current or future requirements to ensure the work to be performed can be completed. For operations that run 24 hours a day, shift work might be an example of an operational requirement.

Organizational needs (Besoins organisationnels)
Current or future needs that are not essential to do the work but could enhance how the organization operates or fulfills its mandate. Organizational needs could include the consideration of employment equity designated group members.

Organizations (Organisations)
In this report, the term "organizations" refers to federal government departments and agencies.

Personal favouritism (Favoritisme personnel)
Involves an inappropriate action or behaviour by a public servant who, by using knowledge, authority or influence, provides an unfair advantage or preferential treatment to a current employee or a candidate for employment in the public service for personal gain and contrary to the good of the organization.

Political influence (Influence politique)
Interference in the appointment process. It could include, but is not limited to, interference by the office of a minister or a Member of Parliament.

Public service (Fonction publique)
As defined by the Public Service Employment Act, the departments named in Schedule I to the Financial Administration Act, the organizations named in Schedule IV to that Act, and the separate agencies named in Schedule V to that Act.

Representativeness (Représentativité)
One of the guiding values of the Public Service Employment Act requiring that appointment processes be conducted without bias and without creating systemic barriers in order to help achieve a public service that reflects the Canadian population it serves.

Second language evaluation (SLE) (Évaluation de langue seconde – ELS)
Language tests administered by the PSC to determine the second official language proficiency of employees and applicants. Includes reading, writing and oral interaction tests that assess the applicant’s ability to read, write, and to speak and understand their second official language in a work context.

Specified term employment (Emploi pour une durée déterminée)
Part-time or full-time employment of a fixed duration.

Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF) (Cadre de responsabilisation en gestion de la dotation – CRGD)
The SMAF sets out the PSC's expectations for a well-managed appointment system and the reporting requirements of deputy heads to the PSC. It serves as the basis for measuring key success factors and the achievement of results and appointment values.

Sub-delegated manager (Gestionnaire subdélégué)
A person to whom a deputy head has sub delegated, in writing, the authority to exercise specific appointment and appointment-related authorities which have been delegated to the deputy head by the PSC.

Tenure (Durée d'emploi)
The period of time for which a person is employed.

Transparency (Transparence)
One of the guiding values of the Public Service Employment Act, requiring that information about strategies, decisions, policies and practices be communicated in an open and timely manner.

Foot Notes

1 2009 Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Chapter 2.1, Governor in Council Appointment Process [Return]

2. ibid [Return]

3. 2009 Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Chapter 2.2, Governor in Council Appointment Process [Return]

4. 2009 Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Chapter 2.5, Governor in Council Appointment Process [Return]

5. http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/brdcom/empl/memcom/Pages/process.aspx [Return]

Primary navigation (left column)

Date Modified:

2009-10-09