Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 24th, 2007

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As a former chair of the committee, I agree with you. It was an excellent choice, and we made great headway with Mr. Fleury. I wish we were making some more with him.

Having listened to some of the questions, I think what we're dealing with is that the work of IRB is life and death. You make a wrong call, and somebody gets sent back, and somebody dies.

I had the occasion of almost resigning as the parliamentary secretary prior to my final resignation when I had a case before me in which somebody was turned down for refugee status because the board member was too ignorant about the situation in the former state of Yugoslavia. He turned down a refugee claimant because he did not believe that the state radio station and the police and the government collaborated together to deny people's human rights, particularly as related to minorities in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Of course we all know Milosevic, the war criminal, and the whole workings of the dictatorship, and that the board member was dead wrong.

I use that point because I'm convinced that had that person been sent back, that person would have died.

I want to clarify something for my mind, because after some of the questions, it became a little confusing. Going back to the date that you made the decision to resign—and I said that before—you did so because you believed that the appointment process should not be politicized, and that's why you did not want to see ministerial involvement at that level. If the selection process could have been preserved, and the Harrison report could have said, okay, at the appointment process let the minister set up an advisory committee to herself, that would have been okay with you.

That's where you really came to a parting of the ways. Am I correct on that?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Yes.

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

Okay. Good.

I would suggest that we really could have benefited from that process, keeping in mind that we want to make sure that the appointees are competent, not political. It doesn't mean that they couldn't have had political experience or have been involved in politics before, but the selection process for those people who are going to sit on life-and-death decisions has to be totally beyond reproach.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

That's my fundamental conviction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We're going to go for two minutes each to Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Jaffer.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I think most of my questions have been answered. I'll just again wish Mr. Fleury all the best with whatever business or whatever future he chooses. I'm sure he'll still be available when we sometimes need to pick his brain from time to time.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

I'll come in as an expert, not as a former chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Jaffer.

Mr. Wilson.

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

I have just a couple of final questions and comments on the difficult position that you've been put into with the politicization of this process and the changing of the systems. I just want to ask two questions.

To your knowledge, were there any appointments made of individuals who were not on the list of candidates recommended to the government?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

In the four and a half years, never. They always worked from the qualified list.

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

In your opinion, what impact is this mounting number of IRB adjudicator vacancies having? As Mr. Telegdi said, it's a life-and-death situation--going from five to fifty vacancies and increasing the time during which people's lives are put in limbo. How is it affecting the refugees' lives, and how is it affecting the political process as a whole?

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Again, I think you're hitting on something very important. After all, it's not about the public service bureaucracy and me; this is about making decisions that are fair for individuals who are waiting on the determination of their lives. That's what we're all about. If you lose sight of that, this is bureaucratic.

Now, you won't like my answer. Those who are in place are so professional that they go about their work as though there were a full complement, and they say, let's get the job done. And surprisingly, even though their morale may be affected, they are not showing it. I don't think the quality of decisions has deteriorated at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Well, that wraps up our meeting.

Do you have a comment you want to make, Madame Faille?

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

I want to wish you a happy retirement, Mr. Fleury. It's been very pleasant to be in contact with you in recent years.

I also worked at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, so I have been following the work concerning refugees and immigration for a number of years. I know it's not always easy.

I'd also like to point out that the bill to amend certain sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act concerning the Refugee Appeal Division will be voted on in Parliament. You have to be patient in order to work in that field.

I would have liked you to remain Chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board until we could solve the problems there.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fleury, for coming here today. We wish you very well in your retirement. I envy you your blood pressure. I hope to be there at some point too.

Thank you very much, and all the best.

[Jean-Guy Fleury]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Fleury will now take leave of us. We all wish him well.

Okay, continuing on with committee business, we're going to try to clear up once and for all the problems associated with the speaking arrangements we have at committee. Of course, we gave you some documents here a few minutes ago.

We've been operating on a variety of different motions here. The first one we had was a motion by Mr. Siksay on May 8, 2006. I'm not going to go through it all, but it was to have a seven-minute round for each party. Five minutes would be allocated to each questioner, alternating between the government and the opposition parties. I'm sure you can remember when we had that arrangement. That was working quite well, I thought. There was no discussion on that motion when Mr. Siksay brought it forward for discussion.

Then, of course, as the clerk informed me, on May 15 we had a motion from Mr. Wilson. The motion, the one we've been using over the last couple of meetings, is that the individual is given 10 minutes to make an opening statement. Then, at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses, seven minutes is allocated to the first questioner of each party, and thereafter, five minutes is allocated to each subsequent questioner of each party until all members have had a chance to participate, after which, if time permits, a new round commences.

Now, we have had some disagreement on that, and I think the chair has been working quite hard to come up with a third option, which I've given you. Does everyone have this option before them? I think you do.

So up for discussion, prepared for the chair of the standing committee by the clerk, is:

That witnesses from an organization be given ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement; and that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven (7) minutes for the first questioner of each party and that thereafter five (5) minutes be allocated to each questioner who has not yet had a chance to participate, in the following order:

And you see the order that has been given to you.

So I'm just hoping I got it. Now we'll have discussion. Hopefully, this will be the last one, and we can get operating on something or other.

We'll go to Mr. Karygiannis and Mr. Telegdi.

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

Mr. Chair, this is a very good solution you've put forward. I don't think it needs any discussion. It's straightforward. It represents what we do in the House in question period. It represents the spirit of electoral participation we had last year. I'd say it's a very good motion, so I ask for a unanimous decision to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

The clerk told me I'm ahead of myself here. What I should have done is ask that somebody move that motion, then we'll have discussion.

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

I do so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, we'll go to Mr. Telegdi, after whom we'll get more, I'm sure.

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

Yes, basically, Mr. Chair, this affords an opportunity for all members to participate. I know one thing I always tried to do as chair—I set myself this challenge—was make sure that all members who wanted to ask questions were able to do so. And that's the underlying principle of this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, and that means, of course, looking at it, that everyone would get a chance to speak at least once before we'd get anyone the second time around. Right?

Is there any further discussion? It's okay?

Go ahead, Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I do have a problem with the proposal, not surprisingly, since I'm the only one who loses out in the proposal. I'm a little taken aback because I don't believe I've ever been frivolous or overtly partisan in my contributions in questioning witnesses and hearing testimony before the committee. I don't think I've ever used it for grandstanding or even for speech making. I've often given my time almost exclusively to witnesses and questioned them.

I think that's an approach that has been helpful to the committee in the long run and hasn't debilitated the committee in doing its work. I've been known, Chair, to pass on my time to allow other members access or not to use the full time, as a courtesy to other members who might not have had the chance to get on.

So, Chair, I have a problem with the proposal you've put forward. I have some suggestions for changes to that—or that the clerk has put forward, sorry. I have some suggestions and I want to talk about them first, and then, if necessary, I will proposal some specific amendments.

The fifth round, I'm not sure why it's necessary, Chair, given that by the end of the fourth round every member of the committee would have had a chance to participate, if we look at the absolute numbers of members. By the end of the fourth round, four Conservatives would have had an opportunity to participate, four Liberals, two Bloc, and one NDP. So I think the fifth round is unnecessary and that after the end of the fourth round, we should begin again.

I think that is also something that should be in the motion. What I would suggest is deleting the fifth round and adding “after the fourth round, after which this schedule will repeat”, which has been part of our motions in the past.

But I'd also like to suggest, Chair, that if we're going to get stricter about speaking times and how the time is used, we should consider saying that no individual member should be allowed to participate more than once over the course of rounds one, two, three, and four, so the time that's spent is identified with a particular member. So for instance, the parliamentary secretary couldn't take all four Conservative spots in that time; it would have to be shared among all members, and if members didn't want to use their time, it would proceed to the next person on the list.

I also would suggest that individual members not be allowed to share their time with another member, so the time is specifically linked to the individual members.

I would like to propose those as amendments, chair. I'd like to propose the first one, that we delete round five and add “after round four, after which this schedule will repeat”.