Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 29th, 2007

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to get on the record, because there's been a lot of discussion here this morning concerning the bigger question of the RAD. I think we can all recognize the fact that in the past, legislation was passed that included the RAD. At that time, for some reason, the minister of the day, who was a Liberal, and the government decided not to implement that portion. Subsequently, there were at least two other Liberal ministers who did not implement it. There have been two Conservative ministers of citizenship and immigration who did not.

As a parliamentarian, I sit in the House and I recognize that there are five current or former ministers there, none of whom seem to believe that going ahead with this is a good idea. I wondered about that. And I can tell you that the other night I sat and watched the vote and saw the three Liberal former ministers there, and I actually saw one of the ministers vote against Bill C-280 and the other two remain in their seats, which is a powerful statement in itself, and not vote on it. They would not take the party's position that they supported Bill C-280.

I respect the fact that many people believe the RAD should be implemented, and I respect the fact that the NDP and the Bloc members on this committee feel that way. My question is for the Liberal members of this committee. I think you should be asking yourselves if some of your own colleagues, and I appreciate what Mr. Telegdi has said--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Please direct any questions to the chair.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to take the question.

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

No, no, just let me finish. Please let me finish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, I'll let you finish.

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

I have heard what Mr. Telegdi has said, and he says it colourfully, but basically what he says is that when you become minister, the bureaucracy gains control of you, and that explains why all these ministers wouldn't do it. It's an interesting question whether, if Mr. Telegdi had ever been made minister, he would have been taken over as well.

That aside, I think we owe it to ourselves and to Parliament and to Canadians that we think this through. This is not just a political thing to be kicked back and forth. I think there are some good questions we need to look at, and it doesn't seem to me that some of my colleagues want to take the time to look at those questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, your point is made.

Our schedule has now taken us a little beyond here, but if we want to get a question from each of the other parties here, we can go another couple of minutes, five minutes or so. Okay, fine.

So who will go? Mr. Wilson or Mr. Telegdi?

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

I'll share my time with Mr. Telegdi.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

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

Mr. Chair, I had my name down on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, Mr. Telegdi or Mr. Wilson?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of responding to that, one of the problems we have had is that we have had ministers who did not have the experience in the department to be making those decisions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. The fact of the matter is that we had Parliament pass the bill. It was passed to enhance the decision-making and enhance the fairness, and that point was made.

Since I have the floor, I would like to make a motion that the chair not receive any dilatory motions, quorum calls, or requests for unanimous consent, and proceed with the meeting as put on the agenda, and the timeline already established at the beginning of the committee meeting.

That's my motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

The motion is in order. Is there debate?

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

I'd like to have a written copy of that motion and I'd like to have a look at it. Certainly I'd be prepared to speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

In the meantime, while that's being circulated, we can go back to questions and have a go at that in a few minutes.

Would you want to proceed with your question, first of all?

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

Yes, I want to proceed with that.

In regard to the 26,000 backlog--and I think this is a big concern to all parliamentarians, to all parties, and I hope to all members of this committee, even the Conservatives--if we did not have a shortfall of 52 members, what would the 26,000 backlog be?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Aterman.

[Paul Aterman]

It's difficult to say. I guess the best way to answer that.... I can't pinpoint precisely the time that we started to have vacancies, but there was a tendency downward in terms of the pending inventory. If I recall correctly, we reached--

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

Let me rephrase that. The average decision-maker makes 200 decisions a year, so if we had 50 times 200, then we'd be talking about 10,000. We were down to 20,000, so subtract 10,000 from 20,000, and we'd have a backlog of 10,000.

Would that be reasonable, in broad strokes?

[Paul Aterman]

I think what we were looking at, if I recall correctly--and this was at the end of 2005 and in 2006--is that the intake had gone down. We had a full complement. The inventory was going down. I think we were heading towards a year-end inventory at the end of 2005-06 of around 18,000, and if it had continued we would have gone down to, I think, around 15,000.

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

Thank you very much.

The other question I have is this. You made a point about having good decision-makers. Can I suggest that given the high quality of people we have had at the IRB, we could have picked the best of the crop who have left? There is that body of people with expertise to draw from.

Would I be correct in that statement?

[Paul Aterman]

Ultimately, the question of who the government appoints is a matter for the government. I can tell you that the nature of the work that's required at the RAD is somewhat different from the work that's required at the RPD, because--

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

I appreciate that, but you said you wanted people who ideally had experience at that level. There's a body of people who could serve as a pool for the appointments, and we want to appoint the best and most experienced people. So I'm saying you already have a ready-made pool of people who have served on the IRB particularly well, because you have evaluations of folks as well. Is that correct?

[Paul Aterman]

I don't think the board would want to limit its search necessarily to--

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

I wasn't asking if you want to limit it. That's a pool you could drawn upon.