CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 11, 1998

• 1108

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)): I'm calling to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The order of the day is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of Mr. Deepak Obhrai's motion, which you all have before you.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): I have a point of order. We will deal with the motion, obviously, immediately after, but could I clean up some stuff, just to finish off on the report? I think it's important that we do that, if people would agree. There's a press conference this afternoon and there are some things I'd like to raise to be clear on it.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Chairman, I know yesterday you said we would have a press conference today, and obviously anyone who wants to go will be going to participate, but because it is a bilingual country and we do need to make sure you are able to answer the questions not only in English but also in French, so that the French-speaking population in Canada can in fact hear the response directly, in addition to the translation, could I suggest that the vice-chair, who is obviously perfectly bilingual, be with you on the podium and be able to participate in the press conference?

At the press conferences I was involved with in the previous Parliament, there was usually the chair, sometimes with two members and sometimes not.

I'm not sure how you are organizing it. Maybe you could tell us how you plan to set it up.

• 1110

The Chairman: Could I explain exactly the instructions I received? There will be six members, the two vice-chairmen and myself—that's three—and someone from each of the opposition parties, excluding the Reform Party, because John is a vice-chairman. So Mr. Ménard would be there, and then the other two representatives, one from the PC Party and one from the NDP Party.

Did I miss anything?

The Clerk of the Committee: No, and a notice was sent out to those six members, informing them of the press conference and saying that the chair requested their presence. And that would be participation. Everybody is expected to be on the podium, and press passes have been sent to your offices accordingly.

The Chairman: That means that those people would always remain on the podium. Throughout the entire session you would be there, and the questions could be directed to anyone who is on the stage. Okay?

Ms. Maria Minna: Okay. My only other question is, since we are having a press conference this afternoon, we have the Reform's report, but does the Bloc have a minority report of any kind, as well?

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): No.

Ms. Maria Minna: What about the NDP? Will we see it before? I think people are going to ask questions, and all of the members around the table should know what the context might be. I don't want to be sitting there and....

The Clerk: I think you have it.

A voice: It's not a report; it's a letter.

The Chairman: Before we deal with anything else, let's get back to the first item that was on the floor, which was regarding the press conference. Are there any other comments related to the press conference?

Ms. Maria Minna: No.

The Chairman: Madam Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): This is fine as far as what you've told us, but I would certainly appreciate finding out how you intend to carry out the press conference, who is saying what, what we're saying on behalf of the committee.

The Chairman: There's a prepared statement that I will read to the press representatives, and then it's open from that point on.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Is that statement going to be distributed to us before the conference?

The Chairman: I don't have copies here.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'd certainly appreciate having a copy.

The Chairman: We could certainly get copies and give it to you in advance. Okay?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: All right.

I have another point I'd like to bring up, Mr. Chair. I feel very strongly that the presentation that is going to be made before the media should be made in two languages, that part of the presentation should be made in English and part should be made in French. I feel very strongly that if we don't do that as a committee, we're going to be very heavily criticized by certain parts of the media.

The Chairman: Okay. Is there automatic translation going on in there for the French stations? I don't know if there is or not.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, if you want us to have interpretation, we'll have to go to the press building, because in the Robert-Lynch room, we can't be more than six. We can make an opening statement. Then journalists ask questions in both languages and you can reply in the language of your choice. Ms. Folco is right: it's always more interesting to have both points of view.

On the other hand, I don't know if it's too late to change venues and go to the press building. In that room on Wellington Street, we are seated and there is interpretation. You can speak in the official language of your choice and have interpretation. But it may be too late.

[English]

The Clerk: We sent out over 100 press releases this morning.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: In what language?

The Clerk: Both, and we also sent out a media advisory yesterday that there would be this. I think it's too late to inform everybody in the Press Gallery that this meeting has been changed.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Why couldn't Mr. Saada or Ms. Folco say a few words in French? We could be behind them and if there were questions, we could answer them. It wouldn't be very complicated. Since Ms. Folco is the vice-chair, let her say a few words in French. She knows the topic well. You see what I mean.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Excuse me. I think you are the one who understands this best.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, let her make a statement. The problem is that you cannot speak for more than five minutes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, hold it.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): May I suggest that if you have a prepared statement, you read half of it in English and Ms. Folco will read the other half in French.

The Chairman: Okay, but I'll have to get it to you as quickly as possible and make sure you can translate English into French.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm not going to do the translation. I imagine there's a service for this.

• 1115

The Chairman: I don't know if we can get it done in time for 3.30 p.m.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Could you try, please?

The Chairman: We'll try. If not, then we'll just have to carry on as originally planned, and then you'll have to answer questions in French.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: If you give the order to your assistant now, I think it's early enough for four sentences to be translated. I don't have time to do the translation, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: For the sake of three sentences...

[English]

An hon. member: Could we do the motion now, so we can—

The Chairman: Yes, we're going to do it.

The problem has been solved. We'll go right ahead.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I would like to ask...maybe I'm the only one in this case, and if I am I will see why.

[Translation]

I have not received the final report at my office.

[English]

The Clerk: It was sent to your office this morning.

Mr. Jacques Saada: It's not in my office. I just called again.

The Clerk: I'll call my office and find out if it was sent urgent or if it was sent by internal mail. That's all I can tell you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, but my problem is that, in terms of protocol here, the final report of the things that are presented this afternoon we will have after the press conference. As a member of the committee I have a problem with this.

The Clerk: I will verify it. I will check with my secretary to see how it was sent to your office.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Would you, please? Am I the only one not to have it?

Ms. Maria Minna: No, I don't have it either.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We did not get it.

[English]

The Clerk: Madam Folco has hers, so it got to some members' offices.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I got it from my administrative assistant half an hour ago; he came back from the office to bring it to me. I seem to be the only one.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes.

The Clerk: It was sent to all members' offices at the same time. It was in a plain brown envelope and so perhaps people didn't notice it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, could I just get some clarification? Do I understand that the report has not been translated at this time? Is that what—

The Chairman: It's in both languages.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What is it that requires translating for Madam Folco?

The Chairman: The statement that I'll be making today at the press conference to open up the press conference.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The actual report itself is clearly in both official languages.

The Chairman: Yes, in the proper fashion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's in that copy and it's done on the flip side?

The Chairman: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And that's been sent to our offices?

The Chairman: Yes. Okay? All right ladies and gentlemen, we now will continue with the deliberations—

Ms. Maria Minna: Excuse me, I'm sorry but I need a clarification. What are we dealing with in terms of the NDP stuff? What does this letter mean? Is it that it's being released today or they're coming—

The Chairman: I was going to deal with that. I might as well get it out of the way right now. It'll only take one or two sentences. We received it late, and we gave you a copy. There was some concern from the NDP Party. This is their official statement, in communication with them this morning, just a matter of a few minutes ago, when they stated.... Manny could you tell us what they stated?

Mr. Manuel Arango (Legislative Assistant to Mr. Stan Dromisky): They just said that as long as Canadians get a chance to look at the letter, they're happy; they aren't concerned as to whether it is attached to the report or not.

The Chairman: There's reference there to a report that they're supporting, and if any of you can get a copy of it, or if you have a copy, so be it. All right then, that item is now finished.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What's happening with the minority report of the Reform? Are we—

The Chairman: It's attached.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: To the report?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's in both languages?

The Chairman: Yes. Can we proceed?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: In English and French, I take it.

• 1120

The Chairman: You have before you a motion that's been introduced by Deepak Obhrai. There's no need for me to read it, but maybe for the record I should read it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think you should.

The Chairman: Pursuant to section 18 of the Constitution Act, section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, and paragraph 108(1)(a) of the standing orders, it is moved that this committee send for the names and crimes committed by all 1,497 criminally inadmissible people who received Minister of Citizenship and Immigration entry permits in the year 1997.

All right then, so be it. The opposition is first.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I know there's probably some concern about naming people because of the Privacy Act, and our concern here is not so much the names of people, but to find out what kind of people are being admitted and the crimes they committed. I'd be prepared to put an amendment to the motion that would take out the names.

The Chairman: We have to get consent from the mover of the motion for that. Do you approve? I haven't heard the amendment yet, but I'm hoping you were working together. Let's hear the amendment.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Yes. The amendment will likely read as saying to delete “send for the names”, which should be “send for the country of origin and crimes committed”.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Say that again.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It's to send for the country of origin instead of the names.

Mr. John Reynolds: Where the original one says that the “committee send”, you put “for the country of origin and crimes committed” instead of “for the names”. It's for the country of origin and the crimes committed.

The Chairman: That's a completely different.... Is it clear to everyone now exactly what the amendment is?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Part of my reading material in my year in Ottawa has not, tragically, included section 18 of the Constitution Act, section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, and paragraph 108(1)(a) of the standing orders. I have no idea what they say or mean and I would like the information. I'd like to know what this is about. If we're going to be voting on something as sensitive, obviously, as this in committee, and for all of the political reasons it's here, I want to know what each one of those sections of each act say. I want copies of them and I want to know what they mean.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Réal Ménard: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: What's the point of order?

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's not a point of order; it's a point of debate. If the people want to debate, take the time and do it right. Perhaps it will be, but it's not a point of order.

The Chairman: No, it is a point of order.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It is a point of order, Mr. Chair, because I don't feel comfortable debating something that refers to specific documents that are not available to committee members. You can call it a point of whatever you want. I want to know what the preamble to this motion means.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Could I know why in English it's 108(1)(a) of the standing orders and it becomes 108.(1) du Règlement de la Chambre?

A voice: Yes, the French is different from the English.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's a point of order.

The Chairman: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Ménard.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Be it a point of order or a matter of debate, Mr. Chairman, I have to concur with Mr. Mahoney. How can we make any kind of possible decision based on sections of acts that we do not have here? And we can't just have the section of the act; we need to look at it in what context it is in, because you can pull out sections of the act. As long as we know that, you just cannot do that. There are also the annotated rules as well, the statutes cited.

I would like to see what cases have been passed under this before I'm in a position to make this.... I just cannot do this. This would be contrary to any kind of rules the law society prescribes, and I'm still registered with the law society. I cannot do this. I just think John would absolutely agree with me on this. A lawyer cannot make these kinds of decisions. I need to see the statute annotator. I think we require that as well. I just don't know what to say here.

• 1125

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard had a comment to make.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Any practice allowing a committee to obtain the names of those having committed criminal acts seems totally irresponsible to me. There are no witch hunts anymore and there is no reason for us to behave that way. But if the idea is for us to understand the process, all right. If you have a criminal background, you are not supposed to be admitted to Canada, at least not through regular channels.

I don't know exactly what the purpose of the motion is. Why don't we try to convene the committees to see what the process consists in and what went wrong? I would be opposed to any disclosure of personal information. I want that to be clear.

I would like the mover of the motion to explain it to us. He states that 1,497 people were inadmissible because, when a security check is done people are deemed inadmissible if they have a criminal background, unless a pardon is granted by the minister. So, 1,497 criminally inadmissible people received entry permits.

I would like us to have more information on the objective of the motion. If the objective is to shed light on potential irregularities, it is incumbent upon the committee to examine the issue and I will support the motion. But if the objective is to launch a witch hunt, I would share the viewpoint of a lawyer who was very militant.

[English]

The Chairman: That's a justifiable request. Really it's my fault; I should have asked the presenter of the motion to make his presentation at the very beginning.

Would you do that, Mr. Obhrai, and give your question—?

Mr. Réal Ménard: What is the main point?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry; I haven't had a response, and neither has Ms. Bulte, to our request about section 18 of the Constitution Act, section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, and paragraph 108(1)(a) of the standing orders.

The Chairman: We'll come back to your request.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But how can you debate this until I know what they say?

An hon. member: Oh, come on!

The Chairman: No, we just want his rationale, and then we'll come back to your issue and to Mr. Saada's issue, and also the issue that has been presented by—

An hon. member: Mr. Ménard, you might find we're on the same side on this issue.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): In my view, this procedure is out of order, and I'm putting a motion on the floor at this point, seconded by my friend, with whom I'm always loath to agree, that this motion is out of order for failure to provide—

The Chairman: We cannot accept a motion on the floor when we have a motion on the floor already, unless you're going to make an amendment to the motion.

Mr. John McKay: Procedural motions are never put forward in writing and they are always in order, and you have to deal with the procedural motion before you get to the substantive motion.

In this particular instance, this motion takes precedence over the substantive motion, so I'm putting a motion on the floor verbally that this motion is out of order, because the mover of the motion has failed to provide the documentation referred to by Mr. Mahoney in his initial comments and as substantiated by Ms. Bulte. That's my motion.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

You stated that the motion was in order. But this is an unacceptable practice. The motion has been found to be in order. I don't agree with the motion and we will have it defeated. You stated yesterday that the motion was in order and we must now debate it. I will not support it, but it would be improper to try to say today that it is out of order.

You made a decision yesterday. You stated that the motion was in order and you convened us so that we could debate it. Let us, then, debate the motion. You gave people the floor so that they could explain the substance of the motion and you declared it in order yesterday.

[English]

Mr. John McKay: The committee can set any orders and motions it wishes to set. It is entirely within the purview of the committee to control the order and precedence of its motions, and this committee can therefore make the decision that this motion is out of order for the reasons enunciated by Mr.—

Mr. Réal Ménard:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. John McKay: It's a procedural thing, and you can do it at any time and in any place. So I'm moving that motion. I believe this motion has precedence over the substantive motion of Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Obhrai. I'd like to have a vote taken on that.

Mr. Réal Ménard: The chairman took a decision about that.

Mr. John McKay: The chairman can be overruled by the committee.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No.

• 1130

Mr. John McKay: The chairman is always subject to the rules of the committee.

The Chairman: Call to order here. We'll carry on. The decision has been made. If Mr. Obhrai wishes to discuss in his presentation your resolution or your motion, he may do so.

Mr. John McKay: That's meaningless.

The Chairman: All I'm asking him to do is present his rationale.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

An hon. member: Oh, come on!

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I bring up the same thing. How can we debate something when we don't know what we're debating? We don't know what section 18 says.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That principle is held to be primordial by the courts. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You can't say that we won't debate it because you don't know the law. Imagine someone in court who says: "I can't be convicted because I wasn't aware of the law." Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You can vote against the motion, but don't tell us that we can't debate it because we don't know the law.

[English]

How are you, Mr. Chairman?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Just a minute. A concern has been raised here.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I don't know what I'm voting on.

The Chairman: Order, order. We will have the rationale presented by the mover of the motion and then we will go back to deal with the concerns that have been raised already by three people. All right? All we're getting is the rationale from Mr. Obhrai, and then we will deal with the logistics of it all, the legality of it all, the procedure and process, and so forth.

All right then. Mr. Obhrai, go ahead and give us the rationale.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just before I start, I would like to say that every committee member had 48 hours to read this motion, and if they had any questions or concerns about section 18 of the Constitution—

Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Chairman, I did not have 48 hours. I saw this yesterday for the first time.

An hon. member: As did I.

Ms. Maria Minna: It wasn't distributed.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I have here paragraph 108(1)(a) to look into this.

What I'm asking is for the minister to become transparent on entry permits that were issued in 1997 to 1,497 individuals who, under our laws, were criminally inadmissible people. The people of Canada have every right, through this committee and through this motion, to have the information as to why these were issued and what crimes they had committed.

After all, we as a Parliament are representing the people of Canada, and they have every right to know why the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued these permits. It could be legitimate; it could not be legitimate. That's what we are here to find. We have every right to know the names and the crimes that were committed.

As per the laws of Canada, they were criminally inadmissible, and they were overridden by the minister. My rationale in putting this forth is we would like to know.... I can understand that giving the names may infringe the Privacy Act, and therefore we changed it to the country of origin and the crimes committed, whether they were serious or whatever.

The purpose of this motion is to become transparent as to why these permits were issued to these individuals. In total, over 4,000 permits were issued. We are not interested in the balance of the other permits, because that is a different issue. We are seriously interested in the people who were criminally inadmissible. That is the rationale for this motion.

• 1135

The Chairman: So the rationale has been presented, and we really have three or four people who want to have a debate on the—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd like some clarification of—

The Chairman: All right then. We'll proceed with debate pertaining to the rationale. Please, continue.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is this a debate or is this for clarification? I'm trying to understand—

The Chairman: It's debate.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's debate.

Mr. John McKay: I have to strongly dispute whether the chair.... I'm asking for a ruling from the chair and asking the committee to overrule the....

I brought up a point of order. A point of order, by definition, is the order by which a committee deals with its business. That's a point of order.

My motion was that this motion was out of order, in essence. You didn't deal with that. You can vote on it and vote me down, but you didn't deal with it.

So I want to lodge a complaint that the motion should be put. It has been seconded by my friend, and in my view, this takes precedence over it.

The Chairman: Well, you didn't have a seconder before, but now you have a seconder.

Mr. John McKay: I had a seconder, but you didn't hear it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Did you make a decision?

[English]

The Chairman: Just a minute. We have a motion now.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Ménard, really!

[English]

The Chairman: We have a procedural motion on the floor. Now it's in the hands of the committee to decide which way they want to proceed.

Would you please repeat the motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We can't accept that motion, Mr. Chairman. We have to be consistent.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You cannot accept the motion.

[Translation]

You can adjourn the committee. Mr. Chairman, we have to be consistent. You convened us this morning and you stated yesterday that we would debate the motion. I am against the motion, but parliamentarians have the right to hold this kind of debate. There is no rule that would authorize you to reverse yesterday's decision today, unless you change it.

If you tell us you were mistaken and made a bad decision, very well, but a decision was made yesterday and in the name of democracy, we should abide by it. I am against the motion and we will be voting against it, but why should we not respect the chairman's decision because you don't want us to debate the motion? What kind of procedure is that? Were you there yesterday?

[English]

Mr. John McKay: Any committee of this House is master of its own fate.

Mr. Réal Ménard: He took the decision.

The Chairman: We carried out the decision to a certain extent, but in the democratic process, if resolutions or motions come up, we must abide by them during that process.

We started in a very positive manner with the resolution or the motion that was presented to the committee, and that's why we're here today. We will have to accept whatever happens as we go along.

We have a motion on the floor, seconded by a person, so now we must abide by that resolution.

The Clerk: You know, the seconding means nothing.

The Chairman: The seconding doesn't mean anything, but that's just an indication of support.

The Clerk: You can second it if you want to, but the standing orders are clear on this.

The Chairman: It doesn't matter.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I asked for clarification. What Mr. McKay is saying is that it's out of order because we don't have back-up material. I understand Mr. Ménard's concern that he wants to be seen above all to be a democrat, and as distasteful as this motion might be to him, he will defend the Reform Party's right to be wrong.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's your point.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Of course that's my point, and I think that's Mr. Ménard's point.

What I would like to know is what section 18 of the Constitution Act, section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, and paragraph 108(1)(a) of the standing orders say that make them part of this motion? What impact is there? What does it mean?

I know what it means to ask for.... Say this motion simply said that—forget “Pursuant to”—Mr. Obhrai moves that the committee send for the names or the country of origin or the family tree, I don't really care, of the individuals involved and the crimes committed of all 1,497 criminally inadmissible people, etc. I don't care, but I don't know what the first part of this motion means.

I'm sorry that I'm just an inexperienced parliamentarian.

A voice: I'm with you there.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You're with me that I'm an inexperienced parliamentarian?

A voice: No, no.

• 1140

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are not a rookie.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm obviously a rookie, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to understand this. That's all I want.

I don't need to throw the motion out. I'm hopeful we'll debate it and point it out for what it actually is: a disgusting attempt to create a witch hunt.

I'm prepared to make that debate here and where it should be made, which is on the floor of the House of Commons, if you have the guts to do it. I'm prepared to fight it there, but I want to know what we're talking about.

I don't think it's an unreasonable request for a member of this committee. You can do it through a staff explanation. This would be to read the sections. Mr. Obhrai has a copy of part of this that he could read into the record.

I want to know what the consequences are, because when I go back to my constituents and they ask why I voted on that in one way or the other, I want to be able to say that I did so under certain conditions. This is what I feel. This was a motion brought forward duly and appropriately in the parliamentary system pursuant to section 18, etc.

Why is my request all of a sudden becoming some attempt to be undemocratic? I just want to know what the hell we're talking about here, which is a really unusual question for a parliamentarian to ask sometimes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I think that's a good speech.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, please.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: If we're going to continue getting—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you a lawyer or a politician?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Don't accuse me of being a lawyer.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, please.

Okay, let's continue.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Just following up on the requirement for an explanation on section 18, section 4, and paragraph 108(1)(a), I guess before I debate this, I would like to know what “criminally” means. Does it mean they're convicted under the Criminal Code? Is that under a provincial act, which then is a quasi-criminal offence? Are we talking about indictable offences? Are we talking about summary convictions? Is this criminally as convicted under the Criminal Code? Does that include somebody who has been pardoned? Are we talking about someone who got an absolute discharge? I'd like to know whether that means convicted under the Criminal Code. You can be charged under the Criminal Code, but it's not a conviction. So what does “criminally” mean? People see “criminally” as quasi....

I think that's a legitimate position. Are we talking about under the Criminal Code? I think we have to mean criminally inadmissible as committed, charged, and convicted. I think the word “convicted” is very important too.

To me, this is scaremongering, too. So Mr. Ménard, we're going on a witch hunt here as well. Are we also just wanting to scaremonger the people, because people read “criminally” as different things?

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you. Let me address my colleague's question. The words “criminally inadmissible” were put out by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when she tabled this report in the House of Commons. This is coming from the minister as she said it in the House of Commons.

We're demanding what she admitted in the House of Commons in terms of being criminally inadmissible. It's not our definition; it's the definition of the government when they presented this official report in the House of Commons. We're asking for this legal report—the report was tabled in the House of Commons—to give us the information we're looking for.

Of course, we totally disagree with you about this nonsense of fearmongering and all these things. We, as Canadians and members of Parliament, have every right to know who is going to be admitted into this country when your own minister said “criminally inadmissible”. This was in the House of Commons.

Listen, when I talk, I would like to finish, then you can talk about it.

The Chairman: We have all received the report Mr. Obhrai is referring to. That's where he gets the figures from and the information. This is a report the minister presented in the House of Commons, and we have all received a copy.

We could be here for a long time arguing about this. Here's what I would like to suggest as a recommendation from the chair. Simply because of the information that's lacking and the kinds of questions and concerns that have been raised by the various members, if we can put together all this information they're demanding regarding these acts and so forth, it won't be done today or tomorrow. Is there an urgency that has to be met immediately?

• 1145

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes. The people of Canada would like to know exactly why, as quoted by the documents put in the House of Commons by the minister, that for the year 1997 criminally inadmissible people were granted the minister's permit.

The Chairman: So what you're hoping for is that we vote on it today.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes. The section and the mandates are here. All they're saying is that this committee has the right to the information. Parliament is supreme and asks for this under paragraph 108(1)(a), which has been quoted here. All we are saying is the committee has the right to demand this information, so this motion is legal.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I want to put a question to the parliamentary secretary.

Madam Parliamentary Secretary, you will understand that the Reform Party's intention is of course to obtain more information and that it is the opposition's role to try to make to make the government even better. In this case, that is a full-time job.

According to you, when the motion refers to 1,497 criminally inadmissible people who received visas, does that mean the minister granted them a pardon? What would your interpretation of that point be? Let's not assume that there were wrongful intentions. Let's suppose that the process was followed properly. What is your interpretation of that point?

[English]

Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Chairman, obviously the minister is respecting the law. These people are allowed in the country under the law, with the minister's permission; otherwise, they would not be. The minister has that discretion. Without it, she wouldn't be able to allow them in.

You're talking about people who may have had a problem with the law in their country. It depends on which country you're talking about. When we talk about convictions, some people are convicted in countries where the rule of evidence isn't the same as ours either. Nonetheless, somebody may have been convicted ten years ago, may have served their sentence and have a clear record for the last ten years, five years, what have you. They may need to come in for a funeral of a parent, or for 30 days for short-term work. We sometimes have people from the U.S. who drive through, the truckers will come through, and because of their—

Mr. Réal Ménard: We're not objecting to them doing that.

Ms. Maria Minna: They do not represent any danger to our public because they would not be out.... This is why they have to have permission through a ministerial permit. Because of their actions in their lives in the past, they are inadmissible because we say that people with a criminal record cannot come into Canada. But the ministerial permit is there to make those exceptions.

Each one is looked at very closely. The history is looked at. The RCMP, the police, do investigations of their background. We do it for the average immigrant, so we obviously do it for these cases. Only after that kind of close scrutiny is a judgment made as to whether or not this person can come in, only for that stated purpose, and that permission can be revoked immediately should anything happen.

These are not people about whom there's any doubt whatsoever in the minds of the people giving the permit that there might be some incident in which they have recently been involved. There's a lot of care taken in this. As I said, it's for a specific purpose.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You would be willing to state under oath that according to the information you have as parliamentary secretary, these people do not constitute a threat. That is the Reform Party's argument. If we are being assured today that they pose no threat to Canada, then there is no reason for the motion.

[English]

Ms. Maria Minna: These are not. Absolutely.

An hon. member: All I want to see brought in—

An hon. member: If you keep talking—

An hon. member: I haven't said a word. This is a joke—

The Chairman: Order, please! Put your hands up and I will take you in order.

I have a point of order here.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to bring to the attention of the committee that, in my view, no single member can dictate who should speak and who should not speak. That is the role of the chair. I resent very much the statement made by Mr. Obhrai just a few seconds ago. It is an abusive prerogative. I would like, Mr. Chairman, that this not be allowed again. It's not for a private member of this committee to decide who should speak and who should not.

The Chairman: Yes, it's up to the chair.

Mr. Obhrai.

• 1150

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you. Of course, I disagree with what Mr. Saada says, but it's the usual stuff happening.

I'll go back to what my colleague on the other side said, referring to what she says may have been given for a short period of time for all this information. That is why it is more important that I put this motion, to bring transparency into this. You have quoted a lot of things there that may or may not have happened, could have happened, this was the purpose, that was the purpose—

Let me finish.

An hon. member: I'm going to the pissing room. Don't pass it without me.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Order. Thank you.

Mr. Obhrai, please continue.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Based on that, exactly what Madam Minna said is exactly why we want this information. There are too many questions in there, with maybe and maybe not, and this sort of thing. We are not on a witch hunt. We want information, information that was....

Would you tell your colleague not to interfere here, sir?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yeah, right. You tell me, if you've got the guts.

The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I beg your pardon.

The Chairman: Steve.

An hon. member: He is out of order.

The Chairman: Yes, he is. Go ahead.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam, that is why this motion is exactly what you have just stated. As a matter of fact, it now becomes more important, after your statement, that we have transparency as to why 1,497 permits were issued. That is why we want the information and that's why we put this motion forward.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally and then Maria Minna.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not intending to do any heckling or any loud yelling, at least not yet.

I think at the core of this motion is what we've been working on here for this whole year, which is the integrity of the immigration system. We've been talking about removals, about detentions, about some serious concerns we have about the system. I mean, we've seen a lot of them first hand.

As was indicated in the report that was tabled by the minister, there were 395 serious criminal offences. That has raised a number of concerns.

Here we are, spending our time working hard together as a committee to address some serious concerns with the system, and we see first hand again that these people.... Well, this could damage the integrity of the system and send a message to Canadians, who will say, “Hey, you guys are working hard fixing the system. It's not working. How can this happen?” Or “Who are these people and what's going on?”

What we're looking for here are some answers as to how this can happen. How can criminally inadmissible people come here? Is there an explanation? Some of them are very serious criminals.

That's the intent of the motion. The intent is not to cast aspersions on particular individuals. We're looking at the system and the integrity of the system. We're looking at all those things and the recommendations that we've just made in this report to address improving the system. If we don't get accurate information, if we don't see where maybe some of the problems are, then how in the world can we ever address the problem of how to make the system better. That is the intent of what this motion is about, I think.

A voice: Are we going to vote?

Mr. Grant McNally: The committee can choose to vote that down, and that's fine.

The Chairman: Maria is next, and then Madam Folco after Sam. Go ahead.

Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Chairman, I think what Mr. Obhrai said earlier and what Mr. McNally has just said in effect supports what I said earlier. The motion doesn't give you any additional information other than what you've already got—other than that now you're going to know which countries. I think that could also be an issue of racism. They're never going to tell people, well, there are three from that part of the world and four from the other side. That doesn't really change the situation.

The fact of the matter is, the bottom line really is, that there is a law that says individuals who have committed certain acts in their lives are not admissible to Canada other than with the express permission of the minister under the law. It's set out, and that's what those sections are about. If we had them here, we could read them, and maybe we could be a little bit more enlightened about that. We might do that at some other time. So that's very clear.

• 1155

Each case is looked at and evaluated very, very carefully. I don't see how you're going to be better enlightened unless you are able to individually, personally, go and second guess each and every one of these decisions and analyse each one so that you can say yes, I agree with the permit given, or no, I don't and this is wrong.

Then we go back to the question of where you get the right to go and witch hunt every single case and decide and what have you.

Each case is decided, as I said earlier, very carefully. These decisions are not given carelessly. As you may have seen also from the report the minister tabled in the House, the decisions have been drastically cut from the previous government's decisions, from 16 to 4. These are the overall permits, not the criminally inadmissible ones but the overall ministerial permits, because they are much more careful with the application.

As I said, every case is looked at very, very closely. The information with respect to the individual's activity—both where they come from as well as our own security system and local police and what have you, and the reason for them needing to be in the country at that time—is scrutinized very closely. The minister must be assured that there is no threat whatsoever to our society, and this is why they're given.

I don't understand what this motion changes, other than to tell you that some of these special permits have come from certain parts of the world. But so what? How does that change anything, except to maybe assist some members of our society who wish to point fingers and say that in Metro Toronto in the year 2000, 60% of the population will be visible minorities? Does that mean the chances are that 60% of overall visitors' permits, including some of these, may in fact be visible people? Does that mean that then we're going to be able to skew the impression of society?

I simply don't see the benefit of this particular motion. The safeguards are well built into the system, entirely, and any of these permits can be revoked at any time by the minister should there be any doubt or anything that suggests there may be a problem. But great care is taken prior to them being given, so I don't understand really what this motion does.

The Chairman: Sam.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'd like to comment that I think we are all here on this committee because we want to make the system work better. I think there's no doubt about that.

We have been sitting here dealing with removals and detentions. One of the things that I loved about this committee was that there was no acrimony here. We were all working together to try to make the system better.

Things aren't perfect, and that's why we legislate. Our ILRAG report came out, and there are some good things and bad things in that, according to what I hear from people who come to my constituency. I think we would agree that we all want to make the system better, and I believe that's where your motivation comes from. But I don't see how this motion will help. What I see is the devastating effect it will have on my riding.

I want to tell you about my riding. My riding is in West Toronto. It's still part of what was called the old city of Toronto, but it's still the west part of Toronto. It's Parkdale—High Park. Parkdale—High Park is perhaps one of the most culturally diverse ridings in all of Canada.

Mr. John McKay: Second only to Scarborough East.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No, no. I want you to understand where I'm coming from and why I think this motion, if passed, will have a devastating effect on the people in my riding. You have to know a little bit about my riding. So if you'll just bear with me, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

My riding on the west is bordered by the Humber River with beautiful, beautiful homes—million dollar homes. It's the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant community. Then in the middle we have a park—that's why it's called Parkdale—High Park—and it's right in the middle. There is a lot of crime. While it's a beautiful park, we're trying to make it a safer park.

Actually, last weekend we built a brand-new playground in High Park. It was the adventure in High Park, and that's one of the things we're trying to do to make the community safer.

Then we go into the Parkdale area. The Parkdale area is bounded from Queen Street on one side to Roncesvales down to the lake, which is next to the CNE and has a lot of people living in apartments. In the middle, between the rich and the poor, is The Crossways. It's an appropriate name, because The Crossways is where a lot of immigrant families come.

• 1200

I made sure, based on my own ethnic background, that I went into all of those ridings and into all of those buildings, and I made sure that I met as many of the new immigrants that were there. You know, what really struck me when I was there were the different nationalities that were there. What also struck me was that people were afraid to come to the door. They were afraid because they were immigrants. They were afraid, because if you walk down Queen Street, you had the white gangs coming up and beating up on the new immigrants.

What bothers me is that if we start listing the Somalis, for example—because I have a very large Somali population there—what's going to happen to those gangs that are there? I mean, we're trying to clean up the area. We are really trying to do things through the crime prevention programs. I want to make it safer, too. The crime prevention programs we're trying to work on—that's how we can work to make our neighbourhoods better.

When you knock on those doors you see these people who are wonderful. The kids are polite, and they come and shake your hand, and they're wonderful. But what happens is you have the white gangs going down the streets, and they're having problems in the park as well.

What's going to happen when we start saying, “Oh, these people came from Jamaica”? I have Jamaicans who live in the riding. I have Somalis. I have Ukrainians. I have Lithuanians. I have Poles. I have people from Trinidad and Tobago. I have all those people.

Remember when we were writing the report on deportation and removals, and we actually talked long and hard about whether we should name those countries or not? On one hand we're having crime prevention protection programs to help our communities get better, but I'm afraid that what we're going to be doing is inciting those very gangs and keeping those immigrants who are in there from not being able to answer their doors, and being afraid—I mean really, really being afraid.

How then are we making the system better by fearmongering and scaremongering? What does it achieve, letting the white community know what the Parkdale immigrants are doing, and that they're bad, and that we should go out and hunt them?

On Queen Street and on Dundas Street—that's a junction area, at the top part of my riding, and the junction area is another area where we have problems. We have problems because businesses are moving out. Banks are moving out. We're talking about that problem at the task force—about the fact that the financial institutions are leaving.

An hon. member: Can we deal with the motion?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Right, we support that.

An hon. member: What does this have to do with this motion?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: By naming the country of origin here, we're putting them front and centre.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We will defeat the motion.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm trying to sincerely explain why it would have a devastating effect on people in my community. Maybe in your ridings you don't have that kind of problem. We are working so hard to make it safer, to make it better, to keep those gangs out. But that's the way the people are in my riding, and the immigrants who live in the apartment buildings—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: What have immigrants got to do with this, though? It is not an immigrant issue.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, it is, Mr. Obhrai. Mr. Obhrai, with all due respect, I—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I am really disturbed with what I'm hearing here, pointing this thing to the visible minorities and to immigration. You're all asking for this. Why are you pointing to it over there? Please, what does that have to do with it?

The Chairman: Order! Could we have order, please?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It's absolutely disgusting.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It is not an immigrant issue. It is not a visible minority issue.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: Order, please!

I'm declaring a ten-minute break to give time for people to cool off. Please reconvene at 12.20 p.m.

• 1205

• 1218

The Chairman: We are now going to resume the session.

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: I can be very strict.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: I don't want anyone speaking out of order. If you have something to say, you'll put your hand up and I'll put your name on the list.

Do you have a question, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We all need to see the text.

[English]

The Clerk: Copies of it are in your offices.

The Chairman: You have a copy in your office.

All right. Sam had just finished and then on my list—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No, Mr. Chairman, I hadn't finished. I don't know what I was accused of, but I hadn't finished trying to make my point and I'd like to have the opportunity to respond.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What's the balance of your list?

The Chairman: We have Raymonde, Steve, Mr. Obhrai, Jean, and Jacques. That's the list.

There is an amendment being proposed?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: In reference to what happened over here, which bothered me the most when the word “racism”...and the whole debate turned to the factor of identifying the visible minorities over here, giving an impression that most of this was going to these criminally admissible people somehow or somewhere.... The comments I received were being directed towards visible minorities.

Being a member of a visible minority, I take serious offence at that, because it's identifying a group already that has not been.... We don't know who it was.

The Chairman: Okay.

• 1220

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Therefore, I'm taking serious offence at that. However, I'm going to put an amendment in here to say that we will take out “country of origin”, but we want crimes committed to be made public.

An hon. member: Is there an amendment to the amendment?

The Chairman: Yes. There's an amendment to the amendment. The mover of the motion is Mr. Harris. It was suggested that we take out “country of origin” and just leave “send for the crimes committed”. In other words, we're asking for the types of crimes. Is that what you're referring to?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes.

The Clerk: Is it “names and crimes”, as it was originally?

The Chairman: No. That's out.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: But I will go back to—

The Chairman: Really, in essence, you want to know the degree of the crimes, whether it's drunken driving or whether they've killed somebody or whatever it was.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Exactly. But I would like to stress very strongly that I am extremely disappointed with the tone of the debate that took place here with respect to trying to identify visible minorities. As a member of a visible minority, I want to make a strong objection to the tone of that debate.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We will now continue with our list.

Sam, I'll give you a couple of minutes—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No, I—

The Chairman: —and then we'll go on.

An hon. member: At least she should have the right to reply to—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I have the right to respond here.

The Chairman: Okay, go ahead.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: When I was talking, I was talking about my riding, Mr. Obhrai, and I have very many visible minorities in my riding.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Please....

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: You're the one who—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Visible minorities are not an issue in this—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: But you've made it an issue.

The Chairman: Please, Mr. Obhrai, you're out of order. Just let her talk.

An hon. member: Let her finish.

The Chairman: We must all abide by common rules of decency. In a democratic process you have the right to question and you have the right to make statements, and I ask you to use simple common rules of common decency and respect for each other. Please do not interrupt someone who is speaking.

Go ahead.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The tone of the debate was just simply that I was telling you what a wonderful riding I have and how culturally diverse it is. I have very many different ethnic communities in my riding.

We celebrated Heritage Day in my riding on February 14. It was the first time that I brought together the different ethnocultural communities in my riding so that we could share our heritages. There were many groups: the Somalis, the Afghan women's group, the Estonians, and the Jamaicans. We have a wonderful area.

What I'm trying to tell you is that I am afraid that with this motion, with the country of origin—now you've taken that out—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, it's not valid yet.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: —that would promote hatemongering in my riding. In Parkdale, on Queen Street, we have gangs, and on Dundas West we have gangs. What I'm trying to do in my community is bring it together and make things better.

My concern is that specifying the country of origin, be it the Ukraine or be it Estonia or be it some other country, is going to perpetrate hate in my riding.

My riding is not a normal riding. It is a wonderful riding. It is culturally diverse and is one that I'm very proud to be a part of. Now how can this be seen as an insult? I'm an immigrant. And you ask, why does it always come to immigrants? A lot of these visas or entries are given to people so that they can join people. They come to Canada to be with their communities and to be with their family members.

I'm trying to explain to you why my riding is probably the most different when compared to that of anybody here. It's the best riding in the world, and it's a time that we celebrate, and not only on Canada Day, but through the Parkdale Intercultural Council, which is a wonderful association in my riding. We go about bringing people together. Through the Parkdale Intercultural Council we've actually established a special little co-op group that came together and started a micro credit, Jean, that you've been really involved in.

Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this conversation has nothing to do with the motion that's been put forward. All we're trying to do, simply, is find out what the crimes were of these 1,497 people that make them criminally inadmissible.

It has nothing to do with what country they come from. The fact is that we have people who are inadmissible who have received Citizenship and Immigration entry permits. That's the fact.

An hon. member: Yes, but that they would enter—

• 1225

Mr. Dick Harris: Everyone has people from different countries, legitimate immigration that has come to the country.

Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order, my understanding—and I stand to be corrected—is that a point of order is just to state a point of order, not to start debating on the substance.

Mr. Dick Harris: I'd like to make the point of order, then, and my point of order will be that the member's argument has nothing to do with the subject.

The Chairman: Please keep in mind that we have already made an amendment to the original motion, and then we made an amendment to the amendment. So we have really, in a sense, narrowed the parameters of our discussion. You can go beyond those parameters only if you see and make a direct communication or direct link to the area in which we have confined our discussion at the present time.

Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order, here again, I stand to be corrected, but I think the amendment is not a valid one at this point, and I'm going to explain what I mean by that in terms of a point of order.

Since, before recess, you had recognized my colleague and she had not finished her statement, the interruption by the other colleague to introduce a new amendment was not in due time. She had to finish her statement before he could make this proposed amendment. So I would suggest that—

The Chairman: That's a very valid point.

Mr. Jacques Saada: —he wait until the intervention is over before he can make this amendment proposal.

The Chairman: Okay, but keep in mind what I said, after Sam has finished.

Go ahead, Sam.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I was saying why I don't want the countries of origin named, and I have seen that Mr. Obhrai now is going to amend that, should it pass. I think it's absolutely critical that we don't name the countries.

Again, as I was saying, the Parkdale Intercultural Council in my riding is working with all those communities. They even come together in co-ops, and every week they put in a dollar and try to do projects themselves. This is all the different communities in Parkdale. We're at the point now, where the Parkdale Intercultural Council has developed a—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Including Turkish...?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, we have everybody.

Mr. Réal Ménard:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm trying to tell you how hard we have worked in my community to acknowledge and respect and rejoice in everybody's parentage. So now we've got to the point where—and I know this is of extreme interest to Jean, because of the microcredit—the microcredit enterprises now work. So at different functions in the riding in Parkdale, at the Masaryk-Cowan Community Recreational Centre, which is sort of the main cultural area, we now have different caterers who come from the different cultural groups, and it has become the norm.

We have people working together, and I think what the Parkdale—

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm going on immersion to Toronto. Can I visit your riding?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, absolutely.

Let's get back to my point.

We are trying, through the crime prevention programs, through working together.... Something like this would have a devastating effect on my community, because there were times when there were gangs on Queen Street...those are police-documented.

So that's why specifically putting in one particular country of source—

The Chairman: Mr. Harris.

Mr. Dick Harris: I think you would find the correct thing to do, now that the amendment has been made, is that you formulate a new—

An hon. member: It's on the floor. That should be the focus—

Mr. Dick Harris: As I was saying, now that it's on the floor, you should have a new speaker's list of those who are going to be speaking to the amendment, or against the amendment. The speaker's list you have was dealt with before the amendment was tabled.

An hon. member: And that takes order of precedence.

The Chairman: Sam, I think you made your points very strongly, and I'd like to continue, because our list is very lengthy.

Do you have another point of order?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, I would like to ask you, Mr. Chair, if you feel you should do that. I would like to have a ruling. It's a technical point, but I think we are losing sight of the essential here.

Mr. Obhrai is perfectly entitled to make a second amendment to the motion he is presenting himself, but he can do that only when it's his turn to speak.

• 1230

My recollection—and I stand to be corrected—is that when we left this room, you had recognized my colleague who was speaking. Since she had not finished her intervention, there was no technical space for any amendment at that point. You cannot interrupt someone who is speaking to make a proposal for an amendment. So what I'm saying is simply that when she's finished speaking, then I think Mr. Obhrai will have the opportunity to put this amendment forward.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John McKay: You have to get back onto the speakers list before you're recognized, to be able to make the amendment.

The Chairman: Not really.

I'm going to make a decision here. Okay?

Mr. Dick Harris: An amendment can be moved at any time and takes preference in the order of reference.

The Chairman: All right, then. I will now accept officially your amendment to the amendment, so that everyone is aware of it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: A point of order on the amendment. I believe it's out of order.

The Chairman: The amendment to the amendment?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The amendment to the amendment to the motion.

The Clerk: The amendment to the motion?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The amendment to the amendment.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, the first resolution said “send for the names and crimes”. They put forward an amendment that deleted the word “names” and said “send for the countries of origin and crimes”. Now they're putting in an amendment that would delete “countries of origin” and simply say “send for the crimes”.

I believe that is contrary to the original intent of the motion, whereby the Reform Party submitted, appropriately within the 48-hour period, its request for, first of all, the names of individuals, which was replaced by countries of origin, and is now deleted entirely. I think we're dealing with an entirely separate motion—a whole new motion that, frankly, requires 48 hours' notice for this committee to deal with.

The reason—Mr. Chair, please, think about this. The reason is that that nature of the report would be dramatically different. If this amended motion were to carry, the result of the report that would come to this committee would be dramatically different from the report this committee would have received under the first motion, which was duly submitted with 48 hours' notice, and under the amended motion. I think we have a whole new issue here.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Mahoney. You asked me to really seriously think about it and take the time to think about it.

Order, please.

You gave me sufficient time to think very seriously about your proposal and your point of order, and I'm going to indicate clearly to you that we have not lost that motion. The motion still exists, with part of it still contained. There's no need for an absolutely new motion to be made, so I'm going to rule that we will continue with the amendment to the amendment as presented.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We can have a further amendment to that, which could say that we delete “and crimes committed”, and that this committee just send for the 1,497 criminally inadmissible people. Let's bring the people here. What the hell!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Order. We have two points of order here.

Raymonde.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: There seem to be two different points of view as to at what point Mr. Obhrai can present an amendment to his motion here. I would suggest very strongly that we find out exactly, according to the rules, how this can be done. Two different people have shown two different points of view, and I don't know which one of the two is the correct one. I would certainly like to have the information that tells us at what point Mr. Obhrai can clearly put forward the new amendment he wishes to bring to his motion.

The Chairman: I could point out to you that it was clearly established already. You got your directions, and the directions came from the chair.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm sorry?

The Chairman: The direction came from the chair. I have ruled exactly what the situation is.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): A point of order.

The Chairman: Yes?

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, as the chair asserted to himself, or verified to himself, that this third amendment is pursuant to section 18 of the Constitution Act, section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, and paragraph 108(1)(a) of the standing orders, has the chair—

• 1235

The Chairman: You're asking if I have changed, or you're asking—

Ms. Jean Augustine: No, I'm just asking if this is in keeping with those sections referred to.

The Chairman: It's not for me to make a decision whether that change is in harmony with section 18 of the Constitution Act, or section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, or paragraph 108(1)(a) of the standing orders. It is up to the committee to make this decision.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: To go back to my only remark, we don't know what they say.

The Chairman: Okay. Now I'll call upon Raymonde to make her remarks.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I want to talk about the issue of criminally inadmissible people referred to in the text of my colleague Mr. Obhrai's motion. I have several things to say in that regard.

Firstly, I believe that the law provides that when a person who has served a sentence for a criminal act applies to the minister for entry into Canada, the minister studies the type of crime for which the person was imprisoned. The minister will reject applications made by persons convicted of certain types of crimes. That is the case, for instance, for repeat offenders, those guilty of war crimes, hate crimes and genocide. So, I don't understand why the motion refers to criminally inadmissible people.

Secondly, I have always thought—and I think that the majority of my colleagues would agree—that when someone has served his time for certain types of offences, he or she has earned the right to live in society again rather than continue to be incarcerated. In the vast majority of countries, criminal codes state that when a criminal has served his sentence, he or she has the right to be reintegrated into society and to enjoy again—that is certainly the case in our country—all the rights and privileges he enjoyed before committing the criminal act.

When a person has served his sentence and when it is felt that he can rejoin society, I don't know why the minister shouldn't study that person's application for entry into Canada. The law allows her to do that. In a society such as ours, where individuals' rights are respected, we absolutely have to see whether individuals have committed a serious mistake. They can have made a serious mistake without it falling under any of the categories I listed—the list was incomplete—earlier, but when the offence is not serious, we have to respect the individual's rights and see whether he could not be admitted into Canada.

• 1240

It is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's role to take the rights of that individual into account and to consider whether that person, in light of the type of crime he committed in his country of origin, would be likely to commit a similar crime in our country, were he ever to be granted entry here.

I don't understand why the motion refers to criminally inadmissible people when we live in a country where the rule of law is important, is in fact fundamental, and where we respect human rights. Since the 18th century, to my knowledge, when individuals have finished serving their sentences, they then regain all of the rights and privileges other citizens living in this country enjoy.

[English]

Mr. Dick Harris: I'm calling the question.

The Chairman: No, you can't call the question. Just a minute. Hold it.

The question has been called.

Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I suggest you would find it very appropriate to look at the rules and regulations of the House, especially as they apply to the exceptions relating to the committees, to know that such a motion is not acceptable in committee. You will find ample examples, not only of this interpretation of the regulations, but also of the application of this point.

For instance—and I give you this as a point of information to clarify the matter—two weeks ago we had a debate in committee on the issue of Bill C-38. The person representing the Bloc Québécois, Suzanne Tremblay, very legitimately took three and a half hours to discuss the issue. The question was raised as to whether or not there was a possibility of a question—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: For approximately how long?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Three and a half hours.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I don't believe it.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Three and a half hours.

[English]

Three and a half hours. The point was raised by a member—not me, but a member of committee—and the decision was rendered by the chair as to the interpretation of the regulations of the House. The point is that this motion is not acceptable in committee.

Mr. Dick Harris: On a point of order, I think it's quite in order for you to call for the question now. But now the question has been called.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just so I'm clear, the motion is that the question now be put. I assume that's what the honourable gentleman wishes to say. That is the motion on which we would vote, not the substantive motion. The committee would vote on whether or not the committee wishes to end debate and vote on the motion that the question now be put.

An hon. member: Point of order.

The Chairman: There are a lot of points of order here. Just a minute.

Mr. Dick Harris: So my colleague can understand what I just said, I called question on the amendment to the amendment, which is what we've been most recently discussing. That's the question I'm calling.

The Chairman: On the amendment.

Mr. Dick Harris: On the amendment to the amendment.

An hon. member: Point of order.

Mr. Dick Harris: I'm not calling question as to whether it should be put.

The Chairman: Quiet, please. Put your hand up if you want to speak.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order.

The Chairman: On a point of order.

[English]

Mr. Ménard.

Just a minute please.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that in spite of the arguments I put forward earlier and the example I provided—and we could find many other such examples—my Reform Party colleague insists that you call for the vote.

What he is asking you to do, in fact, is to go against a confirmed regulation of the House of Commons. I think that is basically unfair to you and unfair to all of us. The decision was made on several occasions and was reconfirmed quite recently. It is a confirmed rule that has existed for years and years in the House of Commons. It is very much in keeping with the British system and we live under that kind of parliamentary system.

• 1245

I therefore submit that calling the decision into question would be in direct contravention of our own rules and that this committee does not have the power to change that decision.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. I will speak on that in a minute.

Go ahead, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I understand perfectly well what the honourable gentleman is doing. I want to know, Mr. Chairman, will all due respect, what your interpretation is as to what we would vote on, based on the motion he has put.

The Chairman: The motion that Dick Harris has presented is—would you repeat it again?

Mr. Dick Harris: I'm calling for the question on the amendment to the amendment of the motion.

The Chairman: And that is all.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Would it not be appropriate that this committee vote on the motion to call the question first and not—

Mr. Jacques Saada: If it's acceptable.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No. If he puts a motion that the question now be put, that is the motion we vote on. It has nothing to do with the amendment or the motion.

Mr. Dick Harris: No, that's wrong.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sir, I can tell you, go back and read something on it because you're dead wrong. That's the motion this committee would vote on as to whether or not we want debate to continue.

The Chairman: All right. I'm going to make a decision.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think Mr. Harris has now been informed by his staff that I'm correct.

The Chairman: Normally a question is called when a debate isn't in process, and once the question is called, the question must be presented and voted on on the floor. The motion that has been presented here—we call it a question—was that the amendment to the amendment be accepted.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, that is not a motion. I challenge the chair.

The Chairman: Hold it. All right.

Mr. Jacques Saada: With all due respect—and of course unless it is not interesting for the Reform Party that is proposing it, in which case I'll just wait until they are available—I have made a point that has not been heard. I think we are creating a very important precedent on the issue of procedure. On top of that, I would like to mention to you, with due respect, Mr. Chair, that a motion to call for the vote is a motion of its own, and it's only this motion that needs to pass so the vote can be called on the substance, whether it's an amendment or the motion itself.

I think what I'm seeing here is a deliberate attempt to hijack the process for political purposes. I would like to make sure the following two points are recorded. One, it is not up to any committee of the House, nor, with due respect, the chair of this committee, to decide to accept a motion to call for the vote in committee, which is contrary to the regulations of the House. I believe it's section 67.

Two, I would suggest to you that if we entertain a motion to call for the vote, because the committee decides to take the chance of going against the precedent that is established, the motion to call for the vote has to be voted on its own merits, not on the substance, but on the motion to call for the vote.

The Chairman: Okay. Now, just a minute. We have three points of order. Maria, what was yours?

Ms. Maria Minna: My point of order is very clear. The gentleman called for a vote. We should have a vote on whether or not the committee wants to have a vote and then stop debate. We were in the middle of debate. Basically, it's a call to stop debate. We should have a vote on whether or not this committee wants to stop debate, not on the motion this morning.

The Chairman: Is that clear? Okay, then we'll vote on that. Do you want—

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Dick Harris: I ask that this committee now adjourn until 3.30 p.m.

• 1250

The Chairman: We have a press conference at 3.30 p.m.

An hon. member: Do we need a motion for that?

Mr. Dick Harris: It's not debatable.

The Chairman: I'm going to ask now for your decision regarding permission to vote on his resolution regarding the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Chairman, I called a point of order that this House now do adjourn until 3.30 p.m. As I understand it, as even my learned friend will know, that is not debatable.

The Chairman: Okay. That's not debatable.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Let's hold the vote anyway.

The Chairman: No, we have a motion on the floor.

Mr. Jacques Saada: There's a point of order on this motion, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Dick Harris: It's not debatable.

The Chairman: No, it's not debatable.

Mr. Jacques Saada: It is not a debate, it's a point of order.

The Chairman: Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Jacques Saada: If there is any request from any member of this committee to move either the times of the meeting or the place of the meeting, it has to be subjected to a motion duly presented before this committee. If the gentleman would like to make a motion, he can do it. But I would like it under the form of a motion, in which case we have to vote on this motion.

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Chairman, I move that this House do adjourn until 3.30 p.m. this day.

Some hon. members:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

An hon. member: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order—

The Chairman: No, we have a motion.

Some hon. members:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: Hold it!

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no, no. Just one minute. We have to stop wasting time. If the Liberals don't want to pass the motion, let them say so, but we are not going to come back at 3:30 this afternoon. You have been quite flexible, but let's not be ridiculous.

I understand that the Liberals don't want to pass the motion. Either we defeat it, or we adjourn, but we're not coming back at 3:30. Do we understand each other?

An Honourable Member: Yes, we understand each other.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's time to stop clowning around. Do we understand each other?

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, Madame Folco. Madame Folco has the floor, please.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I noticed a few minutes ago the presence of a new member, a new colleague, from across the floor. Is this gentleman a member?

The Chairman: Yes, we have the form.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes. I don't know the gentleman's name.

The Chairman: Mr. Harris.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you.

The Chairman: He's a very nice man.

All right, we have a motion for adjournment, and in that motion there's a time stipulated for reconvening this committee. The time that was presented was 3.30 p.m. this afternoon. Keep in mind that at 3.30 this afternoon six of us will be at a press conference.

All those in favour of the motion to adjourn at the specified time?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That's only half of your motion.

The Chairman: No, that's the motion.

An hon. member: To adjourn and then...?

The Chairman: Reconvene at 3.30 p.m. this afternoon.

(Motion negatived)

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Dick Harris: Now I think we could deal with my call for a question on the amendment to the amendment, which I believe is quite in order.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I just want to know what question you're putting at the request of Mr. Harris before we vote. I want to know that we are only voting on the motion to call the question and not on anything to do with the motion.

The Chairman: Okay, we'll call. The question then will be: do you wish to vote on—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do you wish to call the question.

The Chairman: Do you wish to call the question regarding the amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Harris? Okay?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: Okay, so there we are.

So we will continue with our debate. Steve is next on the list.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Excuse me. I just want to say that I did bring up the concept of inadmissibility and I didn't get a reply from the other side. I do hope that at some point during the debate the author of this motion, Mr. Obhrai, will see fit to tell us why he wished to bring in this word “inadmissible” within the motion. To me this is important.

The Chairman: Okay, very good. Now, Steve.

• 1255

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I need a little bit of clarification of what's on the floor. There is an amendment to an amendment to a motion. Does the second amendment negate the first amendment and it thereby means we're debating the second amendment only, and the first amendment is deleted from the transcripts or deleted from the issue here today?

The Chairman: It's my understanding that we're dealing with the second amendment.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: After we deal with the second amendment, do we then deal with the first amendment?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So the amendments still stand. So it's quite appropriate that we would speak frankly on all the amendments as well as the substantive motion.

The Chairman: But I'm asking you, for the purpose of this discussion, to keep your comments around—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I just want to stay on topic, Mr. Chairman.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So the second amendment, the amendment to the amendment, is one that would delete the words “country of origin”, which was the first amendment, which deleted the word “names”. The second amendment then would delete that entirely and simply ask for the crimes committed by all 1,497 criminally inadmissible people.

A concern I have about simply going for a document that would provide a list of crimes, whatever they are, is that it would not include—and maybe you need an amendment to the amendment to the amendment for this—in addition to the types of crimes, the types of sentences that were imposed on the individuals. It would also not include the status of those sentences. For example, were they given a jail term? Did they serve that jail term in their country? Was the crime committed in their country under their law and they were put in jail for five years? How long ago was it? Was it a young offender crime? We don't know any of the answers to those questions. We could be dealing with people who have been out of prison—or have paid their fines—for 20 years, now have a family and a career, and are living what we would subscribe to be a normal life.

We wouldn't have any of that information if we were to agree to the somewhat simple-minded request that we simply get a list of all crimes committed. Perhaps what would be more appropriate would be to just get a list of all potential crimes under the Criminal Code of Canada. It would be just as effective as talking in terms of all crimes committed by persons unknown. It's really quite bizarre when you think about it.

An hon. member: Are these crimes criminal crimes in Canada?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's a question: are they criminal crimes in Canada? Do they apply in the same way? If someone comes from the Soviet Union, is their criminal justice system in any way related to ours? Do we need to know the different terms or why they were convicted? If they have a criminal record, perhaps they were convicted, Mr. Chair, under some regime that was substantially less than democratic, or less than the type of regime that we would come to know in this country.

So I just find the request on the amendment to the amendment to the motion to be just.... I guess what they're trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is to get a foot in the door here, so they get a report.... I can just see it in the House of Commons, where one of the members of the Reform Party would stand up and say, Mr. Speaker, we have a list, here are the crimes that have been committed by all 1,497 people who the minister issued permits to. Isn't it awful? Look at all of these crimes.

There's no information, no explanation, and we would be dealing in a vacuum.

Let me just briefly tell you a story to make my point. In 1980—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: On a point of order.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think I'm on target, aren't I?

The Chairman: As long as he's sticking to the topic.... What is your question?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm calling the question.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, that's totally out of order. You cannot interrupt a speaker on a point of order and call the question. I've been elected in every level of government in this country for the last 21 years. Don't try to snow the snowman, please.

I want to tell you a story that would illustrate my point.

In 1980, when I was a municipal councillor in the City of Mississauga—

An hon. member: Oh, come on.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's a very relevant issue.

If my colleagues would stop heckling, everything would be fine.

Would you get them in order, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: I've given up.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We had a young man who was—

• 1300

Mr. Dick Harris: I would like to just remind the committee and yourself that I called the question in the previous time when the other member was speaking, and you did in fact allow it to be put forward. So the precedent has been set for calling the question.

The Chairman: Are you finished?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I haven't even started. What do you mean, am I finished?

The Chairman: It's a 15-minute bell.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would like the record to show that the next time this item shows up on this committee's agenda, Mr. Speaker, I have the floor so that I can continue with my remarks.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I move to adjourn.

The Chairman: All right. The meeting is adjourned.

An hon. member: Wait a minute.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We need a recorded vote on this.

Mr. Jacques Saada: On the adjournment. I moved to adjourn and it was....

The Chairman: All in favour of the adjournment? Opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.