Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 13th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Patten has indicated it will be a couple of weeks.

Thank you very much.

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

The minister asked us to study the point system, and I think that's a good idea. I want the deputy minister to come back when we're studying the point system, and I want to find out how we got it so wrong in 2002. I think it's important to look at why you made those mistakes if you're going to avoid making them in the future. This has really thrown our whole system into a crisis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's a topic for tomorrow.

Thank you again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll welcome our next witnesses.

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

We need copies of their speeches.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll see....

I want to welcome, first of all, from the Canada Public Service Agency, Joan Atkinson. Ms. Atkinson, welcome, on behalf of the committee.

And we have Daniel Jean, associate secretary in the senior associate secretary's office, the Treasury Board Secretariat. Welcome.

You have opening statements, I would imagine. If so, have you given copies to the committee, or could you provide us with copies?

Okay, good. Thank you.

You're first, Ms. Atkinson, or Mr. Jean. It's up to you, whichever way you wish to proceed.

[Joan Atkinson, Visiting Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Public Service Agency, As an Individual]

I'd be happy to go first.

I will have copies for members.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am happy to make a short opening statement.

My name is Joan Atkinson and I am the Visiting Assistant Deputy Minister at the Canada Public Service Agency.

It's a bit of a strange title: the fact that I'm a visiting ADM doesn't mean that I just visit and have tea, but I actually do work there. In my capacity as the visiting ADM of the Canada Public Service Agency, I'm responsible for talent management of the ADM community. I provide advice to deputy heads, to ADMs, and to the Clerk of the Privy Council on human resource measures as they relate to ADMs.

I was deployed to this position in June 2006. Prior to joining the Canada Public Service Agency, I was the assistant secretary to the cabinet on social development policy from September 2004 to June 2006. Prior to that, I was the ADM for socio-economic policy and programs at Indian and Northern Affairs from January 2003 to September 2004. And prior to that, I worked for almost 24 years in the immigration program in Canada and overseas, first as a visa officer and then in various positions in national headquarters and, starting in 1997, as the director general of the selection branch until June 2000, when I was appointed the ADM of policy and program development at Citizenship and Immigration.

While I'm pleased to appear before the committee, with whom I've worked closely in my public service career in the past, I feel that I do need to explain the limitations of my ability tonight to assist in your deliberations on part 6 of Bill C-50, given my responsibilities as a public servant. While I will always remain interested in immigration and citizenship, given that I left CIC almost six years ago, I simply don't possess any substantive knowledge of this bill and really can't provide you with any expertise or technical information on the bill, since I really don't know it.

As you know, as a public servant, my duties are to provide advice to the government in areas of my competence and responsibilities, and to ensure that once policy decisions are made, the policies are administered appropriately. It's also my responsibility to provide parliamentarians with factual information, technical details, explanations, and rationales for proposed legislation and other policies of the government. It's not my role to engage in a debate or a discussion on the merits of a particular policy or approach.

Given that I haven't worked in any capacity at CIC for several years, I'm afraid I really don't have the competence to be able to answer factual questions about part 6 of Bill C-50.

I have taken your invitation to appear before you seriously and that is why I am here. However, I trust you will appreciate the limitations imposed on my ability to respond to questions concerning the matter before you today, given my responsibilities as a public servant.

But I would be happy to be able to respond to other questions in any way I can be helpful to the committee.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Atkinson.

Mr. Jean.

[Daniel Jean, Associate Secretary, Senior Associate Secretary's Office, Treasury Board Secretariat, As an Individual]

Honourable Chair and members, I wish to thank you for your invitation today to discuss part 6 of Bill C-50. My name is Daniel Jean, and I'm an associate secretary with the Treasury Board Secretariat.

I joined the Treasury Board Secretariat in March 2007, first in the position of assistant secretary of international affairs, security and justice, and was appointed to my current position on October 29, 2007. Prior to that, I worked for almost 25 years in Canada and overseas in positions related to the Government of Canada's immigration program.

My last three assignments in Citizenship and Immigration Canada's headquarters were as director general of the international region from August 2000 to December 2002; as assistant deputy minister of the development of policies and programs from January 2003 to March 2006, where I replaced Joan; and assistant deputy minister of operations from April 2006 to early March 2007.

I am pleased to appear before this committee that I have worked closely with for so many years. Given my current responsibilities in a different department, I have not followed in any substantive way the issues related to Part 6 of Bill C-50 and accordingly, I do not profess to have any knowledge or expertise on the matter.

As a public servant, my duty is to advise the government on proposed policies and ensure the appropriate administration of current policies and programs. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the wisdom of proposed legislation from a policy standpoint.

That said, I am pleased to appear before you today and answer any factual questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

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

Who is it that requested the appearance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I think Mr. Telegdi has just indicated he asked these people to come to our committee.

A point of order, Mr. Wilson.

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

A point of clarification, actually.

I think the parliamentary secretary cleared up my first question. I was wondering who put the request in to ask these witnesses to come.

The question I have for you is this. If these two witnesses have just stated that basically it's not appropriate for them to comment on the legislation or the policies before us—

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

They can comment on past legislation.

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

—what can they comment on, and why are they here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's a good question, and I have absolutely no idea. The only thing I can say to you is that they were invited by the official opposition to be here. With respect, I guess we'll just proceed, see where it goes, and see what the line of questioning is and what information these witnesses can provide.

We realize that you don't know a great deal about this bill. You've made that clear. However, we will proceed, now that you are here, and see where we go from there.

Have you some more questions, Mr. Komarnicki, before we proceed?

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

I would like to make a comment further to Mr. Wilson's point. It's a good point. If they're not going to be able to comment on this legislation, I think we could thank them for coming and taking their time to come here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I saw Mr. Telegdi's hand first.

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

It's a point that—

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

Why don't you let Mr. Telegdi go the round of questions? You have people who want to ask questions. What's the problem?

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

They've already indicated what they can't do. One thing they can't do is make comments on Bill C-50, which is what we're studying. I think Mr. Wilson's point is a good point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Let's not engage in pointless arguments about this. The witnesses have been invited and the witnesses have come. They've stated what they can and cannot do.

I guess we do have to proceed. If it's determined that the witnesses really can't be of any assistance to us, we can say at some point that they are not being any help to us. We'll shut it down in that case, if the committee members agree.

First of all, we have to go to questioning on this. We'll begin with Mr. Telegdi.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think the importance of the appearance of these witnesses relates to what we are dealing with: a real problem with the point system that was put in place in 2002. The question is how we got it so wrong. The studies came out; the proof is in the pudding.

How did the process work, whereby the point system was devised? The point system wasn't put in place by the committee; it was done by regulation, it was done by the bureaucracy, and it was put through with a lot of people having a great deal of concern about it.

Here is the other issue I want to raise, and I say this to all the members. I ask you, Mr. Chair, to make copies available to the members of the decision by the judge in the Dragan case, who actually named both of you for being less than forthcoming with the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

A point of order by Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Telegdi is venturing into a study of something else, and the minister indicated we certainly could study it, and perhaps it could be made the subject of a study. That's the point system, but it does not have anything to do with Bill C-50. It's a personal matter that Mr. Telegdi would like to venture into with respect to a court case and the point system.

I would say that would be out of order. I'm prepared to ask the members of the committee to consider that, and if necessary vote on that issue to have it resolved if the chair doesn't.

I think Mr. Wilson's point was well made, and I can see that the questioning is off target.