Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 15th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Madam Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I wanted to add that the IRB has advised us of some problems in connection with the appointment process. It would seem that there is a shortage of board members and that appointments are being delayed because of operating problems. This is a very critical issue, given the IRB's operations. The mandate of many board members who were released from their duties should have been renewed. Among other things, service was interrupted.

Therefore, it's important that we support this motion. Given that the House gave its unanimous support, I don't see any problem with our throwing the ball back in the department's court.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Ed, and then Andrew.

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

I'm going through the motion, and much of what you say certainly resonates with me. I saw a problem with item two of this motion, and perhaps we can receive some clarification.

As I understand it, the essence of the motion in item one talks about the government developing skills and competence-related criteria. Item two says that the government must submit this criteria to a standing committee for consideration, which is fine, with amendment if necessary. It talks about the approval of those criteria by this committee. Why is that particular phraseology there? Are we trying to say that in this resolution the criteria would have to be approved by the committee before it can be effected by the government?

If that's the case, I won't address it further, but perhaps somebody can address it. It seems to be an unusual kind of provision. The rest isn't unusual, but item two is, and it surprises me somewhat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Bill, is that the intent of the motion?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Let's confirm that it is indeed the intent.

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

It is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That the government then submit these criteria to the Standing Committee for consideration, and approval with amendment if necessary.

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

Right. I think there's a reverse order that I would be concerned about in the sense that the committee can certainly make recommendations. I suppose it should be able to move amendments for consideration, and it should do a whole number of things, but it shouldn't require the government to receive approval from the committee to the criteria itself.

I'm not sure what the direction might be on that, but is it something that's within the auspices of the committee to even do? Perhaps the clerk might be able to amplify or speak to that. It seems to be a very unusual kind of provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Telegdi.

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

I think the committee can do what it wants to do. We've got our own mandate and are the masters of our own agenda.

One of the important things--and committee members recognize it--is that when some of the positions were put in place there wasn't the kind of oversight there should have been. The process has gone through a great improvement since the last Conservative government, when the Prime Minister's wife's hairdresser got appointed as a citizenship court judge, and all sorts of liberties were taken in appointing people to the refugee board. The committee worked diligently to make sure that wasn't the case. So this is an extension of those discussions.

I remember when I was on that committee in previous years and we had discussion around this, I quite openly said that if we had a Conservative, NDP, or Bloc member--even if we had a Liberal government--as long as they were competent they would probably make a very good appointment, especially if they knew the issues.

I think I'm very much in support of this motion. If the government has a problem with that it's the government's problem, but certainly not the committee's problem. That's an important point to make. We're the masters of our own fate on this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I don't think anybody is taking issue with the fact that the person needs to be qualified to meet the criteria that are set. This is establishing the criteria for the position, not the person filling it. I think the rest of the motion deals with what you're talking about and additional items, which certainly make good sense. But the issue I'm raising is that this committee is actually in the position of approving or disapproving the criteria for the position, which is something very different. If that's the case, I'll probably want to move an amendment to that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

The committee can make recommendations, but the government clearly doesn't have to act on any of them.

Mr. Wilson.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I read it, point one is talking about developing the skills and competence-related criteria.

Point two doesn't have any commas in it, so you read it in a complete sentence: “That the government then submit these criteria to the Standing Committee for consideration and approval...”.

So the consideration, approval, and amendments deal with the criteria being set and not with the exact individual assuming the position. I just wanted to clarify that. At least that's the way I interpret it.

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

And that's the point I'm making.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Devolin.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Is this the way it worked in the last government? Is that what's being said? Did the government establish the criteria...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You're saying that the motion was adopted unanimously in Parliament the last time around.

The motion is clearly in order. Is there any further discussion on it?

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

Would it be in order for me to move an amendment to that motion to remove the word “approval”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Your amendment has to be in writing and signed,

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

Does a subamendment require a 24-hour notice?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No.

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

It just needs to be in writing. Then I'll do that.