Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 19th, 2007

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

I think the problem we're facing here in the IRB is something the government is facing on a number of fronts. I just mention the passport backlog, which is another huge debacle that this government saw coming 12, 13 months ago and chose to sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing about. I think the Canadian people have to realize that by inaction they're actually creating problems for the Canadian people and for Canadian society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, good. You've gone over.

And the last speaker, who didn't get on the list was—

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

I'd like to challenge the chair on that ruling that he has gone over. How could he go over? When the challenge between you and I started, that clock should have been stopped. You never stop the clock when it's to the left of you; you always stop the clock when it's to the right of you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please.

That is not a point of order.

Ms. Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all for your time and your presentations. My question goes to Ms. Dench.

Ms. Dench, in a September 2005 submission to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, your organization said, in reference to the Immigration and Refugee Board, and I quote:

Its independence and competence has historically been undermined by practices of political patronage appointments. These concerns persist, despite some reforms introduced through the appointment process in 2004.

Can you please expand upon these concerns about political patronage following the 2004 response?

[Janet Dench]

As I said, we welcomed the 2004 reforms as a step in the right direction. There was created a more methodical, transparent process to evaluate the competencies of candidates. However, the experience proved that when names would go forward to the minister in the cabinet at the time—and this was applying under the previous government as well as apparently under the current government—appointments would not necessarily be made, even though competent candidates were put forward. Some people say three candidates for every position is a suitable ratio; however, I would wonder why. If you've got three candidates and one is clearly the best, why isn't it clear that the best person would be appointed?

As long as a selection is going on independently of and separately from the committee that is doing its merit-based appointments, the political aspect comes in. We have seen it in the delays in making appointments, when it is supposed that the reason for the delay is that the minister doesn't see the names he or she is looking for on the list of candidates that has been put forward. I've also mentioned the issue of reappointments, another area in which we persistently hear that political connections determine whether someone is reappointed or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I think that concludes the number of people we have. I do want to thank you for your presence here today. Of course, you'll be hearing more on this in the future. Thank you.

Mr. Siksay has a motion he would like to present. It seeks unanimous consent to have the standing committee express its appreciation to Ms. Trupati Patel for her service to the standing committee and to wish her all the best in the future. This is her last day; she's leaving us to go to the justice department.

We want to thank you on behalf of the committee for all of your service to the committee and to wish you well in the future. Of course, that's the motion put forward—

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

—and I think we'll get unanimous consent on that—no objections.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much, Ms. Patel, for that.

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

I will briefly comment, Mr. Chair, that sometimes the procedural wrangling that you might have witnessed in this committee may have gone sideways, but overall it's legitimate debate that needs to take place to be sure that the very rights we want to protect are protected. Although it can be seen in a negative light, it's also a very positive thing. When you leave here, I want you to know it's a committee that works pretty hard in terms of putting their points across, even if we don't agree with those points sometimes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We have a second motion. It is from Ms. Faille. The motion is that on Thursday, April 19, 2007, the committee conduct clause-by-clause study on Bill C-280.

Go ahead, Ms. Faille.

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

I introduced this motion last Tuesday, having regard to the fact that no amendment had been moved to Bill C-280, to have us use our remaining time to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration. I move that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Are there any further comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Komarnicki.

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

When we had the last meeting on Bill C-280 there were two witnesses who testified. One was Mr. Gallagher, and I forget the other one. I expressly asked this committee if we could call witnesses on Bill C-280. I think it was in the form of a motion. Remarkably, the motion passed for the witnesses to be called to testify. The names were given to the clerk, who arranged for the witnesses to be here. I'm not sure if they were going to appear as separate panels. Were they kept together? Their presentations weren't particularly lengthy, but they certainly had a perspective on that issue. It seems that we already decided it was okay.

I would suggest a friendly amendment to Ms. Faille's motion, to the effect that the clause-by-clause proceed at the next scheduled hearing date—which I understand is Tuesday of next week—with the opportunity to hear from the witness. I know it's a moderate delay, but it's not an overly lengthy one.

We're almost at one o'clock in any event. I'm not sure how urgently the committee wants to try to put through this motion today. Maybe you want to hear further on the motion, but as we have it—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'd have to hear the amendment first.

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

The amendment would be that we proceed clause-by-clause at the next scheduled meeting, whenever that will be--I suggest Tuesday of next week--after having heard from a witness. I don't know if our witness is available, but certainly if Mr. Gallagher is not available we could have a substitute witness arranged for that time. It seems to be fairly short notice, but nonetheless we could do whatever was needed for that to happen. So I move that the motion be amended to change the date from today to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have the amendment? Are you presenting the amendment?

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

I can give it verbally, I suppose: that the date be changed from Thursday, April 19, to Tuesday, April 24, and that the witness, Stephen Gallagher, or in his absence another witness, be allowed to testify before the clause-by-clause.

I think that's the extent of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, to the amendment—

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

I had put a motion in, but unfortunately due to family circumstances I was not able to be here on Monday to have it addressed. We had invited Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury to come to give testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You're free to present that motion after we deal with this one.

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

I wanted to finish my comments on the amendment. It's interesting to see the request of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I think there might be a problem here, in that Mr. Karygiannis' motion was also for April 24.