Of the Senate and the IRB

[August1991]

Both of these actions are the right thing to do, and they will also be vote winners for the Tories.

The Senate has shut down a slush fund that gave thousands of dollars to Liberals over the past year, and at least one Conservative senator only learned of the fund recently, CTV News has learned.

...

Sen. Serge Joyal received money both years, adding up to $25,000. He is writing a book on Canada-U.S. relations.

"It involves a lot of research. It can't be done overnight, of course," he said.

He added that the money "is not a very large budget, if you consider the involvement and the amount of work that is involved with that."

...

Sen. Jim Munson accused LeBreton of using the same bipartisan theatrics that have marked the House of Commons, to help Prime Minister Stephen Harper make Senate reform a campaign issue.

"It's all about taking the Senate down another notch so (Harper) can use it in an election campaign," said Munson.

CTV

I'm tired of hearing this "Harper's so partisan" argument. Since when is it partisan to stop people from reaching into the cookie jar? Many Canadians would simply like to abolish the Senate but if it must exist, they certainly don't want Senators inventing their own budgets and then giving themselves more money to do whatever they want.

Harper is also entirely right to do something about the Immigration and Refugee Board, and in particular how we nominate adjudicators.

In the past, it was a patronage morass. The Liberals claimed to have cleaned it up but instead they just turned it over to the lawyer-advocacy groups. Hardly a major change. Understandably, teh advocacy groups will complain and the Liberals will say "Harper is being partisan".

"I think all these (events) point to the growing frustration over the government's non-commitment to make a depoliticized system work," noted Janet Dench of the Canadian Council for Refugees, part of a coalition of advocacy and legal groups that also condemned the move.

Summers worries the government might appoint an "ideologue who sees this as an opportunity to get tough on refugees."

"People at the head of the board shouldn't have a security bent and their primary focus must be on the protection of the rights of refugees – to ensure a fair (refugee) screening system. The people who are going to pay for that are the refugees."

Toronto Star

Harper has picked two good issues to shake things up. The howls will only give more votes to the Tories.

[Alexandra]

Summers, a Refugee Lawyer, appears to believe he does not have a conflict of interest with sitting on the Board vis a vis his ability to earn his lifestyle as a lawyer for refugees; and,

"Summers worries the government might appoint an "ideologue who sees this as an opportunity to get tough on refugees."

Does Summers mean the government may have appointed "an ideologue who saw this as an opportunity to be soft on refugees, referring to his appointment of 3 years ago?

Summers believes "People at the head of the board shouldn't have a security bent and their primary focus must be on the protection of the rights of refugees ........"

Obviously Summers, et al. believe that refugees' [undocumented or from safe havens, etc.] rights and protection of same should supersede that of the protection of Canadian citizens.

No doubt this mindset is how Canada ended up harboring X number of terrorist groups, according to CSIS, and have lost, according to Immigration, approximately 30,000(?) or so refugees who did not show up for their refugee board hearings.

In an ideal world all members of any government department committee or board would be selected strictly on merit paying particular note to any conflict of interests, political, personal or careerwise.

[jdobbin]

Harper has picked two good issues to shake things up. The howls will only give more votes to the Tories.

Here is a prediction that really hasn't played out.

Senate reform continues to be a divider. Four provinces reject it and the Senate itself has shelved the reforms until the Supreme Court sorts things out.

Harper likes to say: "Sue me." Perhaps he should refer it to the Supreme Court if he is that confident that he can do things unilaterally.

As far as the Refugee Board goes, the backlog was zero. It is now grown like crazy.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070616/..._claims_backlog

But despite that flurry of recent activity, there are still 45 vacancies in the IRB's 127-member refugee protection division.

The backlog of claims, meanwhile, has climbed to about 8,000, according to IRB records. Board spokesman Charles Hawkins said the number of pending cases is rising by about 900 a month, with each claim taking an average of 12.5 months to process.

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper took power 16 months ago, there were only five vacancies on the board, which at that time had 119 members. Moreover, the backlog of claims had been effectively reduced to zero for the first time in a decade.

The delay in filling vacancies appears to stem from the government's decision to commission an independent review of IRB appointments and the resultant recommendations for reform issued last January.

Among other things, the reforms include requiring applicants to pass a written exam and giving the immigration minister more say in the selection of adjudicators. The latter recommendation sparked fears that the appointment process will be politicized.

In the past, Immigration Minister Diane Finley's office has suggested the delay in filling vacancies was because of the transition to the new appointment process.

But Bill Siksay, the New Democrat's immigration critic, said the Tories have now had six months to implement those reforms and yet the foot-dragging continues.

[Michael Bluth]

Summers believes "People at the head of the board shouldn't have a security bent and their primary focus must be on the protection of the rights of refugees ........"

Obviously Summers, et al. believe that refugees' [undocumented or from safe havens, etc.] rights and protection of same should supersede that of the protection of Canadian citizens.

I sure hope those aren't the priorities of the people making appointments to the IRB.