Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Certainly the time that has transpired since the earlier meeting and today gave me a chance to reflect a little bit. While I certainly have expressed concerns based on some of the testimony we heard that the government would essentially give the minister too much discretion in regard to establishing categories on whatever criteria that particular minister, he or she, would want, this may not always just apply to the current minister. It will apply to future ones. I really didn't like the arbitrary design of the legislation. I certainly appreciated that MP Blaikie sought to make an amendment. The original amendment, where you would have a committee process, at first seemed to be more ideal than just the minister deciding on a particular category with very little warning as to what he or she was thinking.
The problem, though, with that is that, when you have a committee you ask yourself who this committee would consist of. If it's at the discretion of the minister, then it could be a committee of staff members. It could be a committee of Liberal supporters. It could be a committee of experts at large. That may or may not be a good thing, depending on the composition. Ultimately, if a minister was simply just to say, “Well, it's actually the committee that is the reason why I'm putting this group category together,” that would be less than ideal because ultimately I think what MP Blaikie is looking for is a little more accountability. If you just say you're doing this because they told me to, you're pointing the finger at someone else when you're the decision-maker. I do think that having some sort of consultation process is key, but the question is what that is.
With your permission, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the officials who are present here today about this. Currently, under the immigration and refugee protection regulations or the act, IRPA itself, is the use of the term “public consultation process” defined?