Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 19th, 2007

[Stephen Green]

No.

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

Why not?

[Stephen Green]

Again, as my colleagues have all stated, it's got to be a totally merit-based system. I would even refer to a statement made by the former chair, Mr. Showler, who was dealing with these issues. His prescription for IRB reform, detailed in his new book, argues that cabinet should totally remove itself from the selection process, leaving the task to a neutral body to develop a binding short list using merit as the sole criterion--merit, merit, merit.

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

So your concern is that with the new proposed process there is significant political interference and involvement in making that decision?

[Stephen Green]

Yes.

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

If you'll allow me to make just a short statement, it's quite bewildering to many Canadians that this so-called new government and the Prime Minister have made accountability and transparency as their number one priority. In fact, it was this Prime Minister who made so-called “political appointment” a pejorative term. It's quite ironic to hear anybody defending political involvement and patronage appointment in government roles.

You also spoke about the impact of paralysis in making appointments and how not only does it affect refugees—and that's the perception as well, that this is only impacting refugees. You eloquently explained that it has a significant impact on refugees, for sure, and the fairness of the treatment of refugees, but also on family reunification, on immigrants who have appeal in front of the IRB, and also on the security of our country. So this is a very serious problem.

What I would ask you is, what do you think the consequences of significant political interference in these appointments would be?

[Stephen Green]

I think it would create Canadians' questioning whether these are appropriate decision-makers. We just don't want that. We want a system that's based on merit.

Again, I always question if the CBC has it accurately, but at one point, Ms. Diane Ablonczy indicated that she was disappointed in Ms. Sgro's statement, back in 2004, with regard to the new system. She stated, “I really can't see how this would stop the PMO, for example, simply telling the chosen head of the IRB we want these people to be appointed.” So she also indicates she wants a merit-based system.

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

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You have about a minute and a half.

I'm going to try to get all members in who didn't have a chance to speak. So after Mr. Alghabra, I will go over to Mr. Batters and back to Mr. Wilson, and maybe to Ms. Grewal, if she feels so inclined.

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

I'm going to continue asking Mr. Green these questions.

Why do you think there's reluctance right now to appoint IRB judges?

[Stephen Green]

I can't comment. I don't know what's in the mind. I don't know. I'd be guessing.

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

It's really an interesting question. Even putting aside the fact that there is an attempt to manipulate the appointment process, why are we stopping? Why aren't we making appointments?

[Stephen Green]

I don't know, but it would be interesting also to examine—I know it's not before this committee—the citizenship appointments. It's the same issue. There's a lack of citizenship judges. I don't know the answer.

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

That's all I have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much, Mr. Green.

Now, Mr. Batters. Then back to you, Mr. Wilson.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a great honour for me to be sitting in on this committee. It's my first time at this committee. I find this quite fascinating.

I have just a couple of comments, and then some questions for the witnesses.

Thank you all very much for appearing today.

First of all, I'd like to say, regarding Mr. Fleury, who has nearly 42 years in public service, as I read here, that I congratulate him on all his years in public service. I understand that he indicated a desire to spend more time with his family and to pursue new endeavours. So certainly he's well entitled to that, and I wish him all the best.

Mr. Chair, I find it more than passing strange to hear Liberal members opposite talking about the need to depoliticize the IRB, or, frankly, any other board for that matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Prior to 2004, the minister appointed every IRB member.

My first question, Mr. Green, is a short question, and I only have five minutes. I want to clarify—clarify and reconfirm—something you said in your exchange with Mr. Karygiannis. You said that the current review backlog started to happen under the previous government. Correct?

[Stephen Green]

Yes—

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you.

[Stephen Green]

—as a result of the non-appointment of people at that time.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, sir.

My second question is for Ms. Dench.

About your comments today, I have to say that I really sympathize. I understand that all of you simply want to see the best process put in place to serve individuals and to reunite families. So with regard to your statements, I do very much sympathize and empathize. But I would ask, what is the fear here with a revised process? There does seem to be some amount of paranoia.

Minister Finley and certainly Minister Solberg before her have had a great interest in seeing that the IRB works well and carries out its very important role. Certainly that can be best achieved with a balanced selection process between the chair of the board and the minister, following a testing process that absolutely must be adhered to.

Ms. Dench, what is the fear with this revised process, given that the ministers, as you do, clearly want the system to work well for individuals?

[Janet Dench]

I wouldn't say we're afraid of revision. In fact, as I've said, we have some problems with the previously existing system, so we would like revisions. Our concern is with re-politicizing the process. In our view, we need to go in the opposite direction, which is depoliticizing.

You speak about Minister Finley's commitment. I'm not questioning any individual's commitment, but we look at the future and think, what is the process that's in place? How might it, either under this minister or under a future minister, influence the process and the legitimacy?

What has not ever been explained—not in the Harrison report and not in what you've said today—is what is the interest in the government? Why do you want to go in this direction? In fact, the Harrison report seems to me to be a bit contradictory in the sense that, from the outset, it talks about the reason for the reform of the process: “One objective of the new selection process”--they're talking about the 2004 one—“was to address the perception of patronage—”

They acknowledge that this is one of the things you're trying to address. So what is the purpose in going in this opposite direction?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I understand your question. Couldn't one equally argue, though, that it's conceivable that we could end up, down the road, with a chair of the IRB who ends up making appointments that are very politicized? I'm not suggesting that has been the case, but I'm saying that is certainly conceivable. Just as there may be a fear that a minister could politicize the process, we could end up with a chair who would be very political and appoint not just golfing buddies but donors to certain political parties.

Is that not a legitimate fear?

[Janet Dench]

Certainly that's a concern. As I said, we'd be very happy to discuss ways in which the process could be revised so that it is in the future, and guaranteed to be, completely independent and merit-based. That is our objective.