Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 17th, 2007

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

Your presentation was kind of truncated by votes and discussions about what we were going to do about that. Before we finish here today, was there anything you wanted to present that you didn't have an opportunity to get to and would like to get on the record?

[Nick Summers]

I want to comment on the fact that in Mr. Harrison's report there really isn't justification given for why the minister needs to have a say in naming people to the selection committee. It's put forward that this is the minister's prerogative, and this is what was intended in the announcements in 2004. That doesn't make it a good idea, as far as I'm concerned.

The fact is that what Minister Sgro and Prime Minister Martin did in 2004 is more important than what they put on paper. They gave the chair of the IRB the go-ahead to appoint his own committee. Experience over the last three years has shown that it was the right decision and the best way to proceed. As far as I'm concerned—and I know I speak for the rest of the committee when I say this—following this recommendation would be a major step back towards partisanship.

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

To your knowledge, has there ever been any suggestion that Mr. Fleury was acting as a political partisan in the way he handled his duties as the head of the IRB?

[Nick Summers]

Absolutely not. I have very great admiration for Jean-Guy Fleury and his ability to avoid politics in his job. I don't know how he did it, because it's such a minefield of politics.

I've known him for many years. Before I was on this advisory panel I also sat on a committee called the Consultative Committee on Practices and Procedures of the IRB, which he chairs. I went to it at least two or three times a year for many years. So I've known him for a long time, and I've always admired his professionalism and refusal to get into political debate.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for your patience today.

I have a few questions, first with respect to Mr. Summers. Quite frankly, when I looked at what the recommendation was in 2004, when the announcement was made—I'll read it, because it comes from the report. In annex 4 it says:

The advisory panel will be independent and representative of Canadians. Nominated by the IRB Chairperson and the Minister

—it specifically said both—

the panel will, for example, include membership from the legal community, academia, non-governmental organizations and human resources experts.

It was always intended that the advisory panel, which was just one aspect of the process of appointment, would have equal representation from the minister and from the IRB chair.

Was that not your understanding as to the recommendation that was actually made?

[Nick Summers]

That is, I understand, the recommendation that was made.

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

Okay.

[Nick Summers]

My position, regarding the comment you made about what was originally proposed in 2004, is that whatever was stated in writing at that point—and I don't recall back in 2004 exactly what was said—

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

I'm reading to you from what the report—

[Nick Summers]

I'm sure it's correct. The fact of the matter is that this wasn't what happened.

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

So the only ministerial input in the selection process, before the names were referred to the minister, would have been the representation on the advisory panel, which didn't make the decisions itself. It actually referred them on to the selection board.

[Nick Summers]

Yes.

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

In fact, the recommendation made in this report is that the advisory board has an equal representation by persons nominated by the chair and persons nominated by the minister, with the chair presiding. Is that not correct?

[Nick Summers]

Yes, but you have to remember that half of the panel would be made up of IRB staff, which would be the half that the chair was appointing. So this would leave all of the public positions in the minister's hands.

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

The recommendation is that the two, the advisory panel and the selection board, be combined, and that there would be an appointment of three and three, with the chair still presiding. Is that not correct?

[Nick Summers]

Yes.

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

So the only influence that the minister might have is in appointing persons to the advisory panel or to that particular board, which the IRB chair still chaired.

The people who we're talking about as being on the advisory panel would be persons such as those with a human resource background, from academia, or from non-governmental organizations. Those kinds of people could just as easily be picked by the minister as by the IRB chair, could they not?

[Nick Summers]

They could, but why does he need to?

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

Then the IRB chair himself was appointed by someone.

[Nick Summers]

By the minister.

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

That's correct. So now all that this process does—at least that's the suggestion—is bring this back to where it was intended to be by giving the minister some input somewhere. Wouldn't you agree?

[Nick Summers]

No, sorry, because I think you're oversimplifying the situation. The fact is, I don't know what Prime Minister Martin and Judy Sgro intended.

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

Except what they stated in writing, and I just read to you what they had said.