Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 19th, 2007

[Joseph Allen]

To be fair to the IRB in Montreal, a few Board members were recalled, in view of the existing shortage. Why weren't those who were qualified reappointed? I don't know, apart from the 10 years—

[Janet Dench]

I would point out that it's not the IRB that extends the terms of Board members. It's the minister or Cabinet that does it. We've observed that term renewals did not depend solely on the members' competencies. If they had useful political contacts that could further their appointment, they had much greater chances of having their terms renewed. According to the rumours that have been circulating since the present government was elected, those who could make contacts with the party in power could hope to have their terms renewed. Some individuals whose terms were not extended told me that, without any contacts with the party in power, they could forget the idea of having their terms extend.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Here's my other question. They're short 40, and they're going be short even more in the next few years. It's more than 40? It's 57? Let's say it's political reasons. Why doesn't the present government appoint other members who would be friends of the party in power?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please.

If something needs to be straightened out about what I just said, I would prefer that it be done after this meeting is over, because witnesses are here to make their case. We have people talking and sidebars going on all over the place. I would ask for your attention and respect for the witnesses who are here. We can straighten out any problems that might have arisen out of this motion after the meeting is over.

[Janet Dench]

That's a good question, but we can't find an answer. We know that a lot of names have been put forward.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair. With respect to what you've said, can I ask the parliamentary secretary to sidebar the conversation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's the chair's responsibility, and the chair has already indicated that.

Please continue.

[Janet Dench]

A lot of names have been put forward to the minister for the selection process. Names had previously been put forward in the spring of last year, when the government was elected. Then a number of other names were proposed in response to the call made last year. So we know there are a lot of names of candidates on the minister's desk. Why have so few appointments been made? That's the big question. Everyone agrees that there's a real need, and the IRB constantly repeats it. The Chair, Jean-Guy Fleury, said it before your committee in September of last year. He stated very clearly that there is a crisis, but there are no appointments. Why? No one's answered that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Gravel.

Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have just one question.

Ms. Dench, you mentioned that some academics, like François Crépeau and others, had talked about other models of appointment and this kind of circumstance. I wonder if you can tell us any more about that, or if you can maybe in the future direct us to where we might see some of that information. It sounded as though there were some interesting considerations going on there.

[Janet Dench]

I have a copy of the paper here that was presented by François Crépeau, professor of law then at the University of Quebec in Montreal, and Professor Houle, professor of law, Université de Montréal. This was on October 2, 2000. This is directed to the minister, but I believe at that time they also made a presentation to this standing committee. I remember, as I was there on the same day. It was in the context of the review of the legislation that eventually became the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

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

Chair, I wonder if the analyst might track those down for us and distribute those to the committee. It sounds as though that might be helpful information.

That's all for this round.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Batters, please.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

You can go to Mr. Devolin. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We had Mr. Batters on the table, but go ahead, Mr. Devolin.

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

I'd like to ask what's appropriate political involvement versus, I'll call it, bureaucratic or competence-based involvement in terms of appointments. I think this is an interesting subject area.

Before I go there, I have to say this to my Liberal colleagues on the committee. When we're talking about the inappropriate use of political appointments, I think people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Two members of your caucus had their husbands appointed to this committee.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair. Is there a question here or is this a preaching session?

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

It's his time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You're out of order.

Order, please.

Mr. Devolin has five minutes.

Mr. Devolin, I would ask you to address your comments through the chair to the witnesses and not back and forth. The meeting has a tendency to deteriorate when there's too much back and forth. Please, go through the chair to the witnesses.

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

Okay, through the chair to the witnesses, my question is this. In our government lots of appointment decisions are made without any political involvement, and other appointment decisions are made completely based on a completely political decision, from deputy ministers, to ambassadors, to heads of crown corporations, and judges. Members of the IRB are, at the end of the day, political appointments. What I find frustrating is that “political appointment” has become a pejorative term. Somehow, any political involvement in this appointment decision-making is inappropriate. I think everyone would agree that someone who is incompetent being appointed to anything is inappropriate.

As I understand the proposed plan, there would be testing to establish whether potential candidates have some basic qualification or some basic core competencies. If that test determined those who could be considered competent or incompetent, then all the candidates going before this advisory committee would be considered competent. So at that point the committee is making recommendations to the minister from a pool of candidates who are deemed competent, as to which ones they are suggesting ought to be considered for the appointments, recognizing that at the end of the day the minister still has the prerogative to make that decision. I think the advisory panel strives to provide more options than the minister has to fill positions. I appreciate that in the current context there's an urgency to get people appointed. I'm trying to think in the longer term in terms of a sustainable and functional model.

There is an inherently political aspect to this process, I think we all agree. What I do not understand is why having members on the advisory panel who were put there by the minister directly rather than by the IRB chair, who we've already said would be put there by the minister...I don't understand this concern that's saying in the past we've had problems with partisanship, so we want to be above reproach. We don't even want the appearance of a problem. I don't think that's a reasonable position to say we don't think there is a problem, but we're concerned there may be an appearance of a problem.

At the end of the day, the minister will still make a decision from that list. I don't understand how, in the advisory process somehow, it's inappropriate for it to have some political aspect when at the end of the day the decisions are political.

[Janet Dench]

I want to emphasize. You talk about the appearance of a problem. We're not talking about the appearance of a problem. We're talking about a real problem that has dogged the Immigration and Refugee Board since its inception. There has been no time in the life of the Immigration and Refugee Board where political patronage at one level or another was not impeding the integrity of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

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

Under previous structures, but you're saying that you're looking into the future, saying this new structure, which hasn't existed before, will have the same problem. Is that not a matter of opinion rather than a matter of historical fact?

[Janet Dench]

The future is the opinion of all of us. Nobody can speak about the historical fact of the future.

But I want to get to your question about the political interest in it and refer you to the conclusion of the Harrison report, where he says the proposed changes would also better reflect the interest of the Governor in Council. My question to you would be, what is the interest of the Governor in Council? Why is it political? When you speak about the legitimate political interest, what is that legitimate political interest? How is it that it needs to be exercised in this way rather than being part of the selection process, which would be geared toward finding the best, most competent?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We've gone past 5:30, so thank you very much.

Mr. Alghabra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming here today. Let's be clear. I think we're talking about two different situations that are relevant, but both are important to the integrity of the IRB. First is the political involvement in making appointments. Second is the paralysis in appointing IRB judges. I have a couple of questions.

Mr. Green, I'll direct them to you. Do you feel, in comparing the proposed new process of appointing IRB judges to the previous one, that the new one is an improvement?