Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please.

Mr. Telegdi, please.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't think we imagined when we were going to have people come before us that we were going to have reappointments coming. I think probably we want to pay more attention to who the new appointments are because obviously that's going to reflect government policy and that's what we want to get a handle on. I don't think anybody questions the competence of these particular individuals. But I think Omar is quite correct that when people come before us we can ask them questions as to how they can end up enhancing the system.

I note both of these people are lawyers, and as Mr. Komarnicki would know, lawyers are used to going to court and are very mindful that you have things like appeals. Many lawyers and judges I know and crown attorneys I know feel very good about having appeals, because if they make a mistake, they end up sleeping better at night knowing somebody could correct a mistake that might happen.

So I think it's quite relevant, just as questions on whether or not the shortage of members is building up the caseload.... Is that relevant? I think that's relevant.

Failing all that, and I think Omar is totally on the right track, we could perhaps ask the member from the board that particular question, because I think it has great relevance to what we as a committee are trying to do. So asking if you feel that the RAD would be beneficial for you is very much a relevant question to ask. I don't see any particular problems in asking that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I would rule that Mr. Komarnicki, of course, has a valid point of order because the chair has no authority to direct witnesses to answer questions that are outside of the scope of the examination of their qualifications and competence to perform their duties. Again, this is all the chair can do. I can easily say to the witnesses, if you feel like answering these questions that seem to be outside the qualifications and competence to perform your duties, well, feel free to do so, but you may not if you don't feel like doing it either. Again, I would say that questioning by members of the committee may be interrupted by the chair if it attempts to deal with matters considered irrelevant to the committee's inquiries. These are not my words. These are the Standing Orders, and the chairs are ruled by the Standing Orders, and this is all they can do.

I want to be as flexible as I possibly can, and I don't want to tie the committee's hands in dealing with the witnesses, but we do have a means at our disposal to get the information that the honourable members of the committee wish to get by calling other witnesses.

So we'll proceed, and I'll allow witnesses to feel free to answer these questions, or if they want to remain within the strict limits of the order in council and Standing Orders, they may do so.

I'll continue again, Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm really surprised at the defensive nature, especially of the opposite party. A lot of this legislation was passed by the Liberals, so don't worry about it. If there's some criticism of the legislation, don't worry. You don't need to be so defensive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's not the point, Mr. Alghabra. We have to--

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I'm genuinely and sincerely interested in learning from the experiences of the witnesses we have in front of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, ask your questions, because you only have a minute and a half left.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I don't know where my six minutes went. I want to get back to my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, I'm hoping--

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair, I think the member made an aspersion that I would like to respond to before he continues with his questioning.

You being flexible, I think I'd simply like to say to this member that as the chair has stated, there is the opportunity to call people for that specific purpose. But here we have a Standing Order that clearly reads that the committee “shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated”. That's the sole reason they're here, and we should respect that Standing Order.

If you want to get into the questions the witness has, you certainly can, but do it in a different forum with a different witness. These witnesses certainly shouldn't be subjected to that, because the only reason they're here is because of the Standing Order. It's not a question of defensiveness; it's just a question of the facts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. Before you proceed, Mr. Alghabra, I'm sorry, I missed you last time around, Mr. Gravel.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I want to come back to the comments the member made earlier when he said that it was a matter of competency. The ability to be able to say what can be improved in a system is a matter of competency. I think that this is part of one's responsibilities.

We don't ask a police officer to comment on legislation, to tell us whether he or she agrees or disagrees with such and such a law. However, we may ask that individual what can be changed or improved with regard to their work as a police officer.

I think that this is part of one's responsibilities, and that is why I completely agree that this question should be asked.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. With the committee's indulgence, we will proceed onward now and see if we can make some progress in this regard.

Go ahead, Mr. Alghabra, please.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm really not trying to put the witnesses on the spot. As I said, we're genuinely interested in learning. This is a unique opportunity for us to benefit from the wealth of experience you have.

Can you tell me what the biggest obstacle is for you, first, in conducting your job?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair, you just ruled on a point of order and he's going contrary to the point of order. So what's the point of the point of order if the questioner doesn't respect that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Again, the chair is placed in a very difficult position here. Again, I can only quote the Standing Order that we're here to examine the qualifications and competence of the individuals to perform the duties.

I will allow the question without any problem whatsoever if the witnesses feel like answering that kind of question, which seems to be wandering outside the qualifications and competence factors.

Now I'd like to hear from the witnesses about whether they feel comfortable going into these areas, because the chair tends to be very flexible in this regard. I don't want to tie the hands of the committee in any way, shape, or form. So maybe I'll just ask the witnesses if they feel like going into these areas, or if they just want to have the meeting confined to their competence to perform their duties.

Mr. Jobin and Mr. Guilbault, may I have a response in that regard, please?

[Michel Jobin]

Mr. Chairman, if my memory serves me, the motion tabled on December 12 stated that we were to be questioned on the qualifications of appointees by order in council to the IRB.

I understand that we are all citizens and that we all have an opinion on a subject we hold dear, but I believe that, at this point, if you wish to talk about the lack of board members or about the Refugee Appeal Division, you are in a better position, as parliamentarians, to pass legislation and regulations. This is my personal opinion on this matter.

If you want to implement the Refugee Appeal Division, it is within your power to do so. A member does not have the authority to suggest that you take one road over another. You were elected by the constituents in your respective ridings, and I believe that it is your responsibility to take one road over another, particularly with regard to the Refugee Appeal Division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You feel that the questions should be directed to you with respect to your qualifications and your competence to perform your duties, as the Standing Orders state, and you would not feel any great comfort level in responding to anything outside of that. Okay, that's fair enough.

I would remind members of the committee that I have a Standing Order here, and the chair will enforce that Standing Order. It is not for any particular reason other than to make the witnesses feel comfortable that we are here to examine their qualifications and competence, and I will enforce that.

Go ahead, Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

On a point of order, when we had questions of witnesses in the same situation last week, you aggressively overtook those Standing Orders and you really stretched it. When questions are asked of witnesses--and certainly witnesses have come forth because they have different experiences and they bring to the table different knowledge--I think you keep reminding us of that Standing Order. It just goes a bit beyond the point. I think you're going a bit beyond the point of saying to us, “Hey, children, don't reach over the desk and grab the candy.” I think we're all grown people over here and we know what we're doing. Last week, sir, you certainly overwhelmingly kept on badgering this side on the questions.

If the witnesses have received a position with the federal Government of Canada, and their competence and their knowledge and skill bring them to this position, I am sure they're competent and knowledgeable enough to answer questions that are put forth to them, not on any political affiliation but on whether they have sought political office in the past. That certainly adds to the individual's credibility and the individual's worth. We're not asking them about a party affiliation, and you keep badgering us on this point. Certainly it is not something the chair should do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

The chair has no wish to tie the hands of the committee.

We have a point of order to that point of order.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

On a point of order, I'd like to make a comment.

Speaking frankly, I think the chair was wrong last week to allow us to go outside the Standing Order. He's correct today. I think it's an abuse of the process and an abuse of the witnesses to have them go outside the area, and this committee surely has to have at least some rules of procedure to itself. The reason they're here is simply for their qualifications to do their job. Anything other than that I think is abuse of process.

Second, it should be the chair who decides that issue; the chair should not be asking how the witnesses perceive the jurisdiction of this committee. They've already indicated to us that questions outside of that should not be allowed, and I think that should be made an order and should stay there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm working with your point of order, so I'm going to Mr. Telegdi now.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I've got to say that in the previous Parliament we certainly didn't let the parliamentary secretary take the kind of dominant role that this parliamentary secretary has been taking at these committee meetings. I don't think it's necessary for him to respond to every comment made around this table. Here we are; we've wasted half an hour. Mr. Alghabra got a grand total of probably two questions off, with no answers, and if you need a ruling from the floor, we can move a motion on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, I'm prepared to go forward on this. I don't think there's any point of order here. The chair has to operate within the Standing Orders in the same way that the Speaker of the House would have to operate within the Standing Orders. There is no point of order, but I again will go to Mr. Alghabra in the hope that he will ask questions in line with the Standing Order and that committee members will be able to--

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I would like to challenge your decision, Mr. Chair, on that point of order. I think we should be allowed to ask the witnesses if they had any...not political affiliation, but political experience running as candidates. That is part--