CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 4, 1998

• 1546

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): The meeting is called to order. I apologize for the delay. We now have a quorum.

Our first item on the agenda relates to the fifth report of the subcommittee. You have a copy of that in front of you. We had discussed previously the first four items. We are now to discuss the fifth item. It relates to the briefing on the overview of the department. I think we had part of that already in terms of how the system works.

Steve, would you like to speak to any of the issues?

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): As I understand it, Mr. Chair, we'll have approved all but sections 5 and 6. Is that correct? Or did we approve six as well?

The Chairman: We already had the first meeting, more or less.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So section 6 is done. Then it's section 5.

My only concern, and I would like to propose an amendment, would be on item 5(c). I would like to replace those issues with the following: first, business visas; second, economic investor immigrants; and third, the United States visa issue, where the U.S. Congress is dealing with the issue of requiring all Canadians to obtain a visa to cross the border. I think it would be appropriate for this committee to look into those three issues as the main agenda items. Then item 5(d), which is visitors' visas, would stay as it is. Individual members may have concerns about that. I would move that as an amendment to this section.

The Chairman: So it's moved as an amendment. But in the other meeting we were slightly informal before we moved the motion. You moved so quickly with the motion—

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): I seconded it fairly quickly, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes.

An hon. member: There'll be another gentleman you didn't recognize the first time.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: If you have a motion, move to second.

An hon. member: We wanted a motion before.

The Chairman: We can speak to the debate on the motion, and of course you can still state whatever you'd like to say, Leon. You also wanted to be recognized, right? So let me yield the floor to Réal.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): We must follow proper procedure and it is your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to ensure compliance with the procedure agreed to by the steering committee. The point is not to debate this among ourselves. If we can't agree on our agenda, then were going to have some problems.

• 1550

At our last meeting, you asked us to submit in writing suggestions as to the future business of the committee. We were supposed to send the suggestions to your office and subsequently get a translation. That's what I did and the clerk subsequently introduced them.

We mustn't start trying to outmanoeuvre one another. Clearly, it is very important to me that we consider visas and I can see that this is also an important subject for our constituencies. However, given that the minister is preparing to review the legislation, I don't know if it's wise to begin with that. The minister is scheduled to table a new bill, most likely during the next session.

We had also said that we wanted to examine the whole issue of illegal immigration, smugglers and organized crime tied to immigration, all the while by adopting a constructive approach to the subject.

I hope that we can count on your skill and diplomacy to ensure that we achieve a consensus as to our agenda. Otherwise, working in committee will be pointless. I have submitted my suggestion. If you want me to read it, I can do that. If my colleague is prepared to compromise, then we can discuss it. I would ask him to consider that if we examine the visa question, bearing in mind the fact that the minister is scheduled to review the legislation, we run the risk of wasting our time. Does Mr. Mahoney agree with me?

[English]

The Chairman: I will yield to him later on.

Leon.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): At the steering committee Mr. Ménard put his motion forth and he was assured that it would be brought before the committee the first day we met. It wasn't, and it wasn't dealt with. I think his motion should come before this committee before the motion that has been accepted by the chair. And that's important, because you know very well, Mr. Chair, that if the motion and the amendment that's been put by Mr. Mahoney are voted on, the majority will carry it, and the majority are Liberals. Let's decide right now whether we're going to have an effective committee or not.

The Chairman: Just on that point, since you were making reference to the position taken by the chair with respect to the two motions that Mr. Ménard brought at the first meeting of the committee, with the consent of Mr. Ménard we incorporated that as part of our steering committee report. So it was with his full consent.

The clerk would like to remind us. Did he not agree at the steering committee that this should be part of the report?

The Clerk of the Committee: He gave it to me to have it translated, and my understanding is that it was to be in general terms, like what Mr. Benoit had mentioned about the security and all those things under the heading of immigration, criminality, and security issues.

The Chairman: I'm not making myself clear. Mr. Ménard introduced two motions at the first meeting of the committee.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm not talking about those motions.

The Chairman: You were not talking about those motions.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's another one.

[Translation]

No doubt you recall that during a steering committee meeting, you stated that each member should submit clearly worded draft motions by Tuesday. Mrs. Folco herself tabled this motion at the previous Thursday meeting. We agreed on some general topics. For example, the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois were most interested in examining the issue of organized crime and how it is linked to smuggling operations and I informed you at the time that we would make this the focus of a specific motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's what I did.

[English]

The Chairman: Was that thought at the time formally proposed as a motion? I want it to be clarified. Was that proposed as a formal motion during the last meeting?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Is it recorded as a proposed motion?

The Clerk: I don't recall that; I don't think so.

The Chairman: I apologize. The clerk did not record it and that's why I do not recall that it was a proposed motion. But at least.... I want it to be clear that here as chair I have an obligation to ensure we follow the rules and procedures that govern all meetings of the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, but I distinctly recall you asking us to submit this by Tuesday...

[English]

The Chairman: So I wanted it to be clarified. It is his recollection that he proposed it as a motion, but it is not recorded as a motion.

The Clerk: We were dealing with the subcommittee report.

The Chairman: Were the meetings of the committee being recorded at the time?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let me refresh your memory. At a steering committee meeting, I suggested, along with Mrs. Folco, that all steering committee members submit clear motions on the issues they wanted to committee to consider. That's what I'm talking about. Of course we didn't discuss this or adopt a report at our last meeting.

• 1555

Today, we should start by considering the draft motions. I have no objections to our discussing Mr. Mahoney's motion as well, but I would remind you that this was the agreement we made and this is what led to a motion on organized crime being on the table today.

Now then, the full committee has the prerogative, as always, of adopting a motion or of the rejecting it. The steering committee did not take a vote. It never does on such matters. However, we did agree on drafting motions for the committee. Am I making myself clear?

[English]

The Chairman: I will need the help of the committee with your recollection.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chair, I don't know if the recollection matters. I think Mr. Ménard is correct if he submitted this. I was certainly at no point told that I had to submit a motion in writing, and that's not a normal procedure that I'm aware of for a committee member.

Steering committee was a different issue. I think what Mr. Ménard is saying is you suggested after the steering committee meeting that members of the steering committee should submit in writing to your office, as chair, suggestions for an agenda.

If that's correct, I think Mr. Ménard has done that. It's here before us. I have no problem dealing with it first, as Mr. Benoit has requested. I have no difficulty with that at all, having it here in this form, and if it carries, that will be the mandate and the agenda of the committee. If it doesn't carry, then we'll have to deal with another motion.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Does the committee need notice before a motion is introduced?

The Chairman: I think we need a notice.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: It doesn't need notice.

The Clerk: Well, just for information and translation—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Right, okay.

The Chairman: Okay.

The Clerk: That's what I received.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay, the motion is in order, then.

The Chairman: The motion therefore was in order, and the proposal as agreed upon at the steering committee is equally in order. Mr. Mahoney has agreed to yield to Mr. Ménard's proposed motion, so we will now handle this with the consent of all. Did I hear everybody correctly?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So that it's clear on the question about a motion being in order, my understanding is that it's totally in order for a committee member to put a motion on the floor regarding any issue the committee is dealing with, to be dealt with by the committee that day. There's no requirement to give written notice and get translation and do all that.

If there is, I think we'd better have clarification on that. And if that is the case, and I think Monsieur Ménard is going to argue that it is, then I will be moving a motion of deferral, which is non-debatable, to have this matter deferred back to the steering committee, rather than have my verbal motion today, which I fully acknowledge is a verbal motion.... If it's going to be ruled out of order, I have some difficulty with that.

The Chairman: Will the clerk clarify for us—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I agree; I don't think it should be either.

The Chairman: —what has been the standing rule as agreed to by the previous membership of this still ongoing committee? Is that still a prevailing rule? Do we know that?

The Clerk: A notice was given about this motion—

The Chairman: No, I'm sorry. What is the prevailing rule today on the rules on the procedure to handle a motion, a motion without notice, a motion on notice, or what? Do we know that?

The Clerk: We don't have in this committee a 48-hour notice for a substantive motion. That has not been there.

The Chairman: Okay, so any motion can be moved and be accepted by the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I agree with you. We should be able to table a motion at any time, without any advance notice. That should be the prerogative of every committee member. We did, however, agree to proceed in this manner.

We are the only two committee members who attended that last meeting. We agreed that 24 hours' notice was required. I was opposed to that. The government members were the ones who brought in that motion because they didn't want to have to contend with any surprise motions.

If it is now the will of the majority of committee members to receive motions at any time, then the Bloc Québécois will certainly go along with this. However, we did agree to 24 hours' advance notice.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, I will reclarify that later with the clerk, I being a new member of this committee. At the same time, we have now agreed that we will handle your—

The Clerk: We don't have a quorum.

An hon. member: Well, we're not going to wait for him.

The Clerk: We need a quorum to adopt and to vote.

The Chairman: We don't see that he has left. We are blind to his leaving. He just went to the washroom.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, could we please have the motion repeated? We don't understand, since it was not written.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have agreed to defer my motion. I am withdrawing my motion for the time being.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: That's clear now. Thank you.

• 1600

The Chairman: Réal, would you now like to move this formally as a motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, I would like to make that a formal motion.

I see that several people have arrived and that we now have a quorum.

Let me begin by saying that I understand why government members may be concerned that our study on crime could get off track. I do, however, believe that we can take steps to ensure that we adopt a very constructive approach to this issue.

The Solicitor General, the Honourable Andy Scott, commissioned a study on crime which contains a number of references to the immigration issue. I referred in part to this study to draft my motion because it is a good study.

Therefore, I propose that we examine the impact of crime on immigration. The committee should also consider the fact that each year, thousands of people turn to criminal organizations to gain entry into another country.

The committee could analyse three facets of organized crime and the link with illegal immigration. First, it could look at how professional organizations arrange for illegal immigration. Secondly, it could examine how people are exploited. The Scott report touches briefly on this issue. Thirdly, it could look at how illegal immigration facilitates other criminal activities such as credit card fraud, drug trafficking and automobile theft.

Regarding this third component, I drew some of my inspiration from the Security Intelligence Review Committee which each year tables a report containing information on immigration.

There is indeed cause for some concern. However, I want to make it very clear right away that this study must be conducted with an open mind toward the immigration process. As you know, we the members of the Bloc Québécois believe that immigration helps to build a country and to consolidate any gains that have been made. That is our party's position.

That is the gist of my motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, can I move an amendment to this motion?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: In the second paragraph, I will move that we delete the last two words, “another country”, and replace them with the word “Canada”; and in the last line, “drug trafficking”, we delete the word “and” and replace it with a comma, and put “And”, upper character, and then the word “terrorism”, and so on.

The Chairman: Would you now like to speak to the amendment? Would you like to start a debate?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I have nothing much to add, but I think it makes the motion clearer and more focused if we add the word “Canada”. Terrorism is another activity related to immigration, and it needs to be addressed. Also, by putting the word I think we broaden rather than restrict the criminal activities.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: Is there further debate on the main motion? Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I would only make it quite clear that when we had our last meeting, I made a note of the issues that came up during the course of that debate, very serious issues, that I think the Canadian taxpayer would approve of us investigating: global competitiveness; business visas; the issue that I think my colleague, Mr. McKay, raised about the potential brain drain that is discussed, real or perceived; economic immigrants; the shift in sort of the demographics of where immigrants are coming from, whether or not they're economically challenged. Then leading to the other issue of investor immigrants was the issue that I believe Mr. Ménard brought up—it may not have been, but I thought it was—the issue of the settlement fee issue, which is one that has been raised by opposition members and members of the community. There was the issue also that was brought up with regard to the U.S. visas.

• 1605

To me, these are very real, everyday issues that impact on the economy and impact on immigrants coming into this country, whether they're sought out or whether they're applying on their own. Depending on what part of the world they're coming from, there's the spin-off. It's a natural tie-in to the fact that we spent the last session in this committee dealing a great deal with the refugee system and the economic impacts of the refugee system.

Let me tell you my thinking, the reason I put my verbal motion that would be contrary to this one. Rather than getting into the somewhat sensationalized aspects of crime, which I know some opposition parties would like to do, and rather than necessarily tying the crime issue and the immigration issue together—which I also know some members of opposition would like to do—I think we could have a much more constructive time at this committee if we were to study reports on that.

I'm very much opposed to what could turn out to be just a back-door entry by the opposition to get into the witch hunt mentality. If Mr. Scott is studying the issue of crime as it relates to immigration, then presumably there will be a report there that members of Parliament will have every opportunity to deal with. Indeed, it might even find its way onto this committee's agenda at some time in the future. But I'm very much opposed to this approach when it comes to setting the agenda.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, Mr. Telegdi, and Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I agree with Mr. Mahoney that the issues he has raised are very important issues. Last time, we saw the immigration department unable to meet its own targets in terms of economic-class immigrants over the last year. It's a very serious problem. Clearly, the system is now so broken that there just aren't enough resources there to deal with people who want to come in under the economic classes, people who can add to our economy immediately. I hear from companies right across the country that they desperately need people.

So I agree with that, but before we can deal or should deal with that issue, we should deal with the issue of criminal activity. As we heard from the departmental experts last time, we spent 80% of the resources of this department on 20% of applicants. The 20% are mostly people who find a way to get around the normal process, and that's wrong. We have to re-focus on people who are trying to get into our country by abiding by the rules we have in place rather than by circumventing the system in some way. For that reason, I think we should deal with the criminal element issue that Mr. Ménard has brought up and that we fully support.

I want to say one other thing. If we're going to have a productive committee here, we've got to right now—right now—stop this nonsense that Mr. Mahoney has started today in saying that somebody on this committee is somehow anti-immigrant because they want to talk about the criminal element. That is complete rubbish, and it is non-productive to take that approach in this committee. I do not believe Mr. Ménard is anti-immigrant.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wasn't talking about him.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Who were you talking about? I would like you to clarify that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I was talking about the Reform Party.

Mr. Leon Benoit: This is absolute nonsense!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Their record states it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If we're going to have a productive committee here, we've got to stop that nonsense right now.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Don't you be telling me what to stop.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm not going to put up with it any more.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The record speaks for itself.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The Reform Party is definitely anti-immigrant, so don't give me any of that.

The Chairman: The chair was in fact calling order for a moment. Please let us control our passions. I know it is a very heated subject. I've allowed Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Benoit the airing of their views. I hope we will control ourselves, and I'm sure we will.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Grewal?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I heard Mr. Mahoney accuse the Reform Party of being anti-immigrant. I will ask the chair to ask the honourable member to withdraw these words, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw that remark.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would hope so.

The Chairman: Okay, it is withdrawn.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't need your encouragement to do it, Mr. Benoit.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Ménard, and Mr. McKay.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Let me say something on the debate, Mr. Chairman. It would have been nice if the steering committee, properly constituted, had met.

An hon. member: We did.

• 1610

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Forget the proposal from before, under which the opposition has four and we have two. That just doesn't reflect the reality of who the Canadian people elected.

Let me go on to the motion, because I think it's important. I have been here since 1993. As members of the committee know, I came here as a refugee. Having been here since 1993, I can tell you that on the question of immigration, exploiting immigration, I have found the Reform Party to be compassionately challenged.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Wonderful.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: When the referendum was on, I was greatly bothered that the Parti Québécois would come forward and blame their loss on Jews and ethnics. I found that very troubling as a Canadian.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to interrupt the meeting, but the discussion is on the motion, not on Reform Party policy. Let's be focused on the motion.

The Chairman: The chair was listening intently and wanted to see the relevance. I think you intervened prematurely.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: To help inform my friend on the other side about the relevance, Mr. Chairman, it's imperative that we not overly focus on the question of criminality and immigration. Much time has been spent on it. There are other committees that can address some of those issues, such as the justice committee. They can also deal with the question of CSIS.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we had an announcement by the minister just a few short weeks ago that we're going to miss our target of 15,000 to 20,000 economic immigrants to this country. That has great implication for the future of this country. It's not something that maybe makes headlines and is sensational, but it's something that should be studied.

Mr. Chairman, I think we've studied the criminality question enough at the present time. We should be getting on to some of the other very important issues.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I can understand why my colleagues on the government side have some reservations. However, we can't deny... Denis Coderre will no doubt recall this because he too represents the Montreal area, but I became interested in organized crime the day a 13-year-old boy in my riding was killed when a booby-trapped car exploded.

I'd never given the subject much thought before that; organized crime is not necessarily part of everyday life. Of course, it all depends who you are.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): This has nothing to do with immigration.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, it does. It all depends on the approach we take. We should make it clear from the outset that immigration is an asset and that welcoming new immigrants is beneficial to us. Yet, there are international illegal immigration movements that are being set up. If you look at SIRC's report, you will note that there is a link with immigration.

We can, of course, argue what priority we should assign to this. However, you can't tell me that the two issues aren't connected. There is a link, to the extent that the Honourable Andy Scott deemed it advisable to have someone investigate the various aspects of organized crime. This investigation is not being carried out by a parliamentary group. The report does not deal extensively with this issue, but it does contain a series of references to immigration.

We should not call into question the advisability of welcoming each year 200,000 new immigrants, 27,000 of whom settle in Quebec. We should continue to welcome them. However, there are links between organized crime and immigration and that's the issue we want to examine, albeit not from a narrow-minded perspective. If anyone believes in immigration, it's yours truly and this didn't stop me from introducing this motion.

I wouldn't mind examining the question of visas either because this is an issue that our riding offices have come across as well. However, I think we would be burying our heads in the sand if we were to pretend that there was no link between immigration and organized crime. Anyone who isn't convinced of this need only consult Andy Scott's study or SIRC's latest report.

By maintaining a constructive approach, the committee could investigate these matters because in any event, the visa issue will be reviewed thoroughly when new legislation is tabled next January, provided the Minister of Immigration follows through on this. She has indicated that she plans to go ahead with new legislation.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal, you have the floor.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think one way in which the committee should work is to look at the issues, not at the political aspects of them. We are here to represent all Canadians, Mr. Chairman.

As for the Reform Party policy as quoted here, Mr. Chair, it was wrong. I will ask the members to grab a copy, look at it, and then comment on it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Why should we?

• 1615

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: About this motion, Mr. Chair, this is a committee dealing with immigration. This motion has very much to do with the immigration process. It is not dealing with the criminal or justice system.

Let me make something absolutely clear once and for all, Mr. Chair. The Reform Party is not against immigrants, if you read word by word their policy. We are against the immigration process. The Reform Party welcomes immigrants and genuine refugees to this country. But not a single Canadian will welcome terrorists to Canada, or drug cartels that are abusing this system, particularly those who go through the refugee determination process in order to use the back door to come into this country to sell drugs to our kids in the schools. They are abusing the system, Mr. Chair. The way this system is viewed by the drug cartels or the terrorist organizations is a mockery of that system.

Mr. Chair, I'll give an example here. Let's say Canada is my own home or your own home, Mr. Chair. If anybody is visiting our home, we want the person to come to the door and ring the bell. It's the discretion of the host to let the person come into the house. People are welcome. We welcome our guests and friends, those who want to come in, into our house. But I don't want anyone to be coming into my home through the back door, or through the windows, or through the ventilators. When I wake up in the morning and someone is enjoying coffee and sitting on my couch, I don't like that, Mr. Chair.

The immigration process should have the front doors open and carefully monitored, but the back doors, the windows, the ventilators and the small holes should be absolutely plugged, absolutely closed. That's what this motion is talking about, Mr. Chair.

Definitely, Mr. Chairman, this motion is expressing the idea that we address the immigration system. We should not let the big organizations and drug cartels abuse the system. If you are not aware of it, there was a report released by CSIS on about 40 organizations. There are 300 individuals under investigation currently in Canada for terrorist and other activities that arose as a result of abuses to this system.

Mr. Chair, I invite all the honourable members who have spoken earlier in opposition to this motion to go to Hastings Street in East Vancouver on the last Wednesday of any month, when welfare cheques are distributed. If they don't have the chance, ask for a copy of the tape from CBC, which had live coverage for two hours one day. Look at what kinds of drugs are dealt, at what kinds of drug addicts and drug dealers are there. Most of them are immigrants or have applied for refugee status.

I'm an immigrant, Mr. Chair. You are also an immigrant, as are many other members on this committee. The sole purpose of this motion, as I understand it, is that this system should be addressed. We should address the process, there should be witnesses, and we should close and plug those holes. I don't want my neighbour to be a terrorist, and I don't want my neighbour to be a drug dealer, Mr. Chair...not you; I'm talking about at my home.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I know.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chair, I think the immigration committee is the only place in this House to address this issue, and it should be the number one issue.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Let me say that I don't really give a hoot about the Reform Party policy. It's not of any great consequence where I come from. The issues that are before my constituents are much as were articulated by Mr. Mahoney, namely global competitiveness—whether we are or we're not—how immigration does or does not contribute to that, and the access to business visas. In my office, I just do visitors' visas all day every day, and I'm heartily sick of it. That is so much more of a priority than these issues that I can't quite express it.

The differential between the people who are coming in with apparently a great deal of skill is to in some manner replace those who find work in other countries. We have a disconnect between the people who have skills coming in and their ability to integrate into our society. The issues that arise out of economic and investor immigrantion are of extreme importance to my riding.

• 1620

I think this motion is all about priorities. To be perfectly blunt about it, if I put those ten issues on a pile, this business about criminality would just go to the bottom of the pile.

These are the issues that hit my constituents on a daily basis. Criminality is something for the Toronto Sun; it's something for people who seem to think every immigrant is a criminal and every criminal is an immigrant. I think that's just nonsense, and it just gives a platform for that.

In my view, this is a motion about priorities, and if I have to state my priorities, these priorities far exceed the priority in this motion. So I'd like to call the question.

The Chairman: I have your name and that of Mr. Benoit again. Perhaps with the consent of the group we can conclude our debate on that. The question has been called. I'd just like to call on him and then we will put it to a vote.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I agree with part of what Mr. McKay said, except if we don't deal with the problems in our system that are taking a majority of the time and involving a very few people, all of the problems he has identified will continue to be there. The system will be incapable of handling it. That's why I think it's important to focus on this first.

Just to reply to Mr. Telegdi, when he said he thought Reform was compassionately challenged when it came to immigration, I want to ask him whether he thinks it's being compassionate to have a system that is so broken that people who want to come to visit their families in this country wait months and months to get through the system. Legitimate refugees are being denied access because there are others who are trying to sneak around the proper system to get in and they're tying up our resources. This broken system won't even meet the government's own targets when it comes to economic immigrants. That's a system that's badly broken. You're not going to fix that system until you take this aspect out of it, until you stop people from circumventing the normal system. That's why I think we have to focus on this first before we get into the other. Otherwise, we're wasting our time.

Mr. John McKay: It's cart and horse.

Mr. Leon Benoit: As I said, otherwise it's wasting our time. If we don't take that out of it, the system will never work and will remain completely non-functional, as it is now.

The Chairman: The motion has been heard and the debate has been heard. Obviously there has been very passionate debate on both sides. Many arguments have been used. I am now prepared to put the motion to a vote.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3)

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, is it now an appropriate time for me to put my motion?

The Chairman: Yes, it is appropriate to put that motion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I move that item (c) under section 5, which reads “immigration, criminality and security issues”, be deleted and be replaced with the words “business visas, economic immigrants, investor immigrants and the United States visa issue”.

The Chairman: Does the group feel this is a substantive motion? If so, I will invoke a minimum of 24-hour notice.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The clerk is saying no, Mr. Chairman.

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to the subcommittee—

The Chairman: The process of amendment does not make it substantive or non-substantive. That's the decision of the chair. So I'd like your consensus. Is this a substantive motion or not?

• 1625

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have to leave at 4:30 p.m. because the committee is examining Bill C-40 on justice. I hope that the committee will take a positive approach to the task at hand. If Mr. Mahoney wishes to table a motion on visas and immigrants, I have no problem with that because this is a subject that also interests me.

You're not listening to me!

How can I hold that against you, Mrs. Folco?

In any event, I have to leave at 4:30 p.m. for consideration of Bill C-40. Don't be too eager to see me go, Mr. Assad. Your colleagues like me. I blame your attitude on the fact that you don't know me. Before we adjourn, could we possibly agree on our future agenda? I have no objections to examining visas, if that's what the committee wants.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, first, on the process—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you want to discuss it?

The Chairman: Are we agreed, by consensus, that this is a substantive motion or not, or shall we allow it to be debated now? Is there any objection?

Yes, Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chair, it is an amendment. It is not a substantive motion. It's an amendment that I'm placing to this existing report that has been moved and it is on the floor.

The Chairman: So you're moving it as an amendment to the motion?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm moving it as an amendment by taking subsection 5.(c) of the steering committee's report and replacing the words “immigration, criminality and security issues” with the following: “business visas, economic immigrants, investor immigrants and the United States visa issue”. That's my amendment to this report.

Everybody is under time constraints here, and I'm afraid I didn't understand what Mr. Ménard was asking, whether I I wanted to discuss visa issues in the future.

The Chairman: Okay, the chair accepts that as an amendment to the given fifth report.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I want to discuss all of these issues.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: Is there any more discussion on the items before I ask the question on the fifth report?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We just had most of the work done by the subcommittee thrown out at committee here. I assume that the same thing is going to happen when it comes to choosing witnesses. I have a list of witnesses I would like to come before this committee. I assume the same nonsense—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Anne McLellan is coming at about 4.30, and I'm responsible for that for the Bloc Québécois. I have no choice.

The Clerk: We need a quorum.

The Chairman: Are we losing the quorum in about five minutes?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are there any more votes, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Can we just approve the budget, Réal?

Let's go to the budget, first.

Steve, would you just yield the bulk of the amendments, please?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You already took the vote on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and it carried.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, yes, okay.

Are you prepared to hold in abeyance subsections (e) and (f)? It came from you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We have another motion, though.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I was not recognized, Mr. Chair; I had my hand raised.

The Chairman: Yes, okay. Can we have a motion to adopt the fifth report and then we can deal with the other item at a later date?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. We have an amendment to this report that we want to bring forward.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have to leave.

• 1630

The Chairman: There will be no quorum anyway. Let's be practical. We can have that motion later on added on as a new motion, and we can approve the big report.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Can I introduce the motion when the member is here, so it will be with the committee?

The Chairman: We need the quorum. If we lose the quorum.... Do we have an agreement or not? We just lost one member.

We have no quorum.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.