CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 17, 1998

• 1005

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): —

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty] —which means on page 2 of the original agenda when you receive it.

Is that right? Okay.

Is there any discussion on this item from the members? This is after the section on visitors visas, and the one relating, really, to the motion proposed by Mr. Réal Ménard. Unfortunately, he is not here at the moment.

Do you have any message from Mr. Ménard?

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): No.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion on this?

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Talking about (e), in particular?

The Chairman: Yes, paragraph 5(e), the one relating to the Chile issue.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, what is 5(c) doing in this document? I can't believe this.

The Chairman: Paragraph 5(c), Mr. Mahoney, has been deleted as a result of our previous meeting, and to which you have substituted something else.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Why is it here?

The Chairman: What the clerk has deemed in her report is to see the original subcommittee report, and in the final motion I will seek from the membership, it will be to seek adoption of the report as amended.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So what you're telling me is that at our last meeting, we got down to item 5(c)—

The Chairman: Finished, yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —and we approved the amended motion.

The Chairman: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Did we deal with 5(d), visitors visas?

The Chairman: The clerk has told me now that we stopped at 5(d), visitors visas. I thought she had told me 5(e).

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

• 1010

Since we are nearing the end of November and this session is expected to wrap up in two or three weeks' time, I wonder if we will have enough time remaining this year to discuss the clauses in the report or if we will have to wait until the start of the next session in February.

In other words, once the minister has tabled her bill and once we have—

[English]

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, we've lost the translation. Both channels are coming in at the same time.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's the meteorite shower that's causing the problem. The satellites are going to be knocked out—Armageddon.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That's right; it's the shooting stars.

I'm going to speak in English, if you don't mind, because otherwise we won't move forward.

We have six items here on the agenda. Considering the fact that we have only two or three weeks left of this session, by the time we begin again in February, very likely the minister will have tabled the bill on citizenship. I'm wondering whether it is worthwhile to take time to go through all this list, considering that in any case, we'll probably be giving priority to the minister's bill.

Will we have time to discuss any of these other matters? That is the question I ask.

The Chairman: Certainly the chair is at the pleasure of the membership. We are bound by our rules that we consider this report, which we've started to consider, the fifth report from the subcommittee on agenda. How we dispose of the report is at the discretion of the committee itself.

One can potentially move the tabling of all these particular subsections. One can move with speed to adopt or to defeat the particular sections of the report. I think it is within our discretion how to handle this given report, and that is exactly what we are doing at this point.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd be curious if someone could tell me where item (e) came from.

The Chairman: Items (e) and (f) came from the original motions that Mr. Ménard tabled during our first meeting of the committee, the organizational meeting.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So on the issue regarding the refugees from Chile, Mr. Ménard wants us to somehow ensure that if they are returned to Chile, their human rights will be protected.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't know that I necessarily have a problem with that, but is that really the role of a parliamentary committee? Or is it more the role of the department?

The Chairman: Well, I don't think it is the role of the committee. I think the committee, though, can pass a judgment on such an issue and convey that to the department. Again, it is within the discretion of the committee to so decide if it wishes to.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would assume it's fairly time-sensitive, that what Mr. Ménard wants is for us to have the NGO representatives in before the committee to tell us the problems, or what they're concerned about. I would assume the deportations are pending in the near future.

Would that be fair?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: As you pointed out, they are on the verge of being deported. We feel that the citizenship committee's role is to examine the ramifications. This is a very hot issue right now, mainly in Montreal. At a time when consideration is being given to establishing a free trade zone which would include Chile, I think it's important to get an overall understanding of the situation in Chile.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I want to follow up on Mr. Marceau's intervention. What I want to say to this is that I think this is linked to what was happening in Montreal a few weeks ago regarding the Chilean refugees in the basement of a church.

• 1015

I would suggest, if we do accept (e), that something be done immediately—and not almost immediately—and that there be part of a hearing, even for an hour, done immediately. As Mr. Marceau said, it is very time-sensitive, and if we leave it to February, the issue will have come and gone.

The Chairman: The chair would like to tell the committee that in consideration of this particular section in this report, we have to take into account whether, given a similar request from another NGO group in the country, we are prepared to establish this precedent. You have to consider that we could be deluged with requests.

It's not that we wouldn't like to address the issue, but is it really the purview of this committee to hear the request from NGOs for representations to appear before the committee? I would like to submit that for your consideration as we consider this particular paragraph of this particular report.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: A committee like ours cannot, in my opinion, operate in a vacuum, without contacting organizations that work in this field. Later on, it will be up to the committee to review each case individually, to determine if a particular group or NGO should be invited to appear before it. It would, however, be ludicrous for us to adopt a policy whereby we never invite NGOs for fear of being “overrun” by such groups. We cannot have a blanket policy in place whereby we never invite NGOs to testify before our committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, I just submitted it to you for your consideration. It is for the committee to decide on that particular issue.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay.

The Chairman: The chair's job at this point is to point out to you areas for consideration so that we can have a reasoned judgment on a particular issue.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I agree with the Bloc member, that this committee can look at anything it chooses to look at, but I personally don't see this issue as a really top priority. We haven't even got through (b) yet; we haven't had the minister before the committee. I see that as the top priority.

What I would like to see immediately is a date so that we know if the minister is going to come this week or next week. I'd like to know that so I can get it on the schedule and be prepared for it.

The Chairman: Okay, but the point, if we can first focus on (e), is that we will revisit that particular motion. Because if we keep jumping from one paragraph to the other, we will never finish this particular report.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In terms of this motion itself, or this section (e), was it in the original agenda we saw? I didn't remember it there. But I certainly don't see it as a top priority for right now.

The Chairman: Is there any more discussion on this particular paragraph (e)? Do we accept this or not?

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I just need some help understanding it a little better. My question is, is the purpose of (e) for the committee to perhaps understand and in some way make a recommendation in relation to the problem in Chile, or is the purpose for this committee to somehow review the decision to deport these individuals and change that decision or recommend that the decision be changed?

Because if we're going to now start, at the parliamentary committee level, reviewing deportation orders on an individual or group basis, I have some real difficulty with that. I think it's highly inappropriate. I'm sure there would be sensitive information, and we'd have to go in camera. I mean, I just see it as a mess.

If it is really for us to review the potential for human rights abuses in Chile and to do what it is—and I'm not quite sure what that is—at the end of the day Mr. Ménard wants us to do here, then I need some clarification. Is the purpose to examine the problem in Chile or is it for us somehow to examine a perceived problem within the refugee board and the decision-making process?

The Chairman: Mr. Martin, please, then Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): In the interests of answering the last intervention by Steve, I think the only thing this committee could do would be to review which countries would be on the list of where we would not send people.

• 1020

For instance, if Chile should be under the category of one of those countries that is known for human rights violations, or if we have a reason to believe these people wouldn't be safe or would have their human rights violated by being sent back to Chile, then Chile should go on that list, like other countries where we know there's the death penalty or torture or abuse. Chile has that reputation certainly for some people.

I agree; I don't think this committee can start to entertain the individual appeals of people who are up for deportation. But what this committee could do is review that list and say we will not deport people to Chile until we're satisfied that human rights violations aren't taking place on a regular basis.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Marceau, and then Ms. Folco.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Chair, there is certainly an interesting situation going on in Chile. You have a war criminal who has been made a senator, and there's no question that there have been all sorts of human rights abuses.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile, maybe, to put this off until Mr. Ménard happens to be around, and deal with the rest of the stuff.

An hon. member: No. We have to move on.

The Chairman: That's one approach to consider.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Obviously, for many reasons, I'm not Réal Ménard.

I rarely agree with Liberal Party members. However, I have to agree this time around with Mrs. Folco. She has underscored clearly the importance of examining this issue as quickly as possible. I tend to agree with you that we cannot examine each person or group individually or act as an appeals court which review the department's decision to proceed with deportation or not.

This being said, if we examine a case, we could observe what procedure was followed and what the outcome was. Such a case could become a leading case or a point of comparison. When we've reached the point where an archbishop is saying that certain people should not be deported, where all community agencies are mobilizing, not just small groups, and where an organization like the Catholic Church takes a stand—something it doesn't always do in cases like this—this should set off some warning bells. This should tell us that here is an issue that needs to be considered. Let us consider it thoroughly. Then, in future, we could compare different cases to our leading case. I think that this would be worthwhile for a committee like ours. First of all, we should look at procedure, and secondly, as you mentioned during the second part of your argument, after— as Pat was saying, should Chile fall into the category of countries to which people claiming refugees status should not be deported? As Andrew was saying, it's true that a war criminal became a senator. Perhaps we should examine the situation in Chile as well.

Your two arguments are far from contradictory.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Folco and then Ms. Augustine. After that, I think we have to put the matter to a vote or consensus.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: I have a suggestion, but before I share it with you, I would just like to say that Mr. Marceau's suggestion that we examine the procedure followed to establish a leading case is quite interesting. However, last year, we examined the whole question of extraditing and deporting people like this, that is Chilean refugees. Therefore, I have no desire to rehash an issue that we discussed at great length last year.

• 1025

However, I suggest that we look at 5(f). It's clear from this provision that we could hear from persons who have knowledge of conflicts in certain countries which may well cause an increase in the number of people seeking refuge in Canada. In most cases, but not all, these countries tend to have poor human rights records.

I'd like to propose something. Paragraph 5(f) states the following: “— where there are conflicts which may well cause an increase in the numbers of political refugees”. I propose that we add to this: “and where human rights are violated”. Then, we could hear from witnesses who have knowledge of specific cases. That's the proposal I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, the chair has heard that.

I would like to call Ms. Augustine to focus on (e) so that we can dispose of this matter and come back to (f).

Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd allow you to dispose of the matter, but I am just wondering whether we shouldn't try to bring closure to this as quickly as we possibly can. If you think of the number of meetings we've had and what we've accomplished so far, and the fact that we only have a couple of weeks left before we break, it seems to me that we need to move on.

So if facilitating Madam Folco's motion will help us move on—

The Chairman: Having heard all the arguments and presentations—

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I'd like to suggest in (e), that rather than hear from Canadian NGOs involved, we hear from the staff at the refugee board on the issue, and have them come before us.

I mean, I'm interested in knowing what the problem is, and I share the concerns, perhaps, that Mr. Ménard and Marcel have put forward, but I'm concerned about us opening the floodgates to all kinds of different appeals. So why don't we get the staff before us, whoever they are, so that we can enquire about the potential violation of human rights in Chile?

The Chairman: Steve, the researcher has advised me that it may be more appropriate, perhaps, or in addition to, to invite the protocol officer from Foreign Affairs.

Correct?

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): Foreign Affairs, yes—the political people.

The Chairman: So would that be in your amendment?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: To do what?

The Chairman: To invite—

Margaret, can you speak to the issue?

Ms. Margaret Young: I was just responding to your suggestion about the staff at the refugee board. The staff at the refugee board generally work with secondary sources. The people who normally would be the government—and be on the spot, as well, for a Canadian viewpoint about Chile—would be the political people at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

For example, I don't think there would be any staff at the refugee board who would be designated. They don't work that way. They don't have a Chile desk. They collect documents, that kind of thing.

The Chairman: So receiving that information, are you prepared to change the wording?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That would be fine, sure.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: On a point of order, I made a suggestion a few minutes ago, and I have a strong suspicion it hasn't been heard. Perhaps I've not made it in the correct way. If so, I would like to get advice on this.

I did make a suggestion that (e) would be amalgamated into (f), and I've not heard your ruling on this. I've not had any comeback on this.

The Chairman: The reason I didn't is that I'd like us to focus on (e). Mr. Mahoney approached the (e) problem by a specific amendment.

Now, may I ask the two of you, is the amendment by Mr. Mahoney in conflict with what you are suggesting may be proposed as an amendment?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Well, it needn't be, Mr. Chair, in the sense that what Mr. Mahoney suggests in asking the members of Foreign Affairs to come could very well be incorporated into (f) when we decide on who the witnesses are that we're going to call. And I have no objection to this, at all.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: But I wouldn't like (e) to stand as it is for the reasons that several members have already mentioned.

• 1030

The Chairman: All right.

Having heard you, the chair would like to suggest this. Let us approach (e) on its own, now unamended—if Steve would like to withdraw his amendment—and then go to (f).

Do I have the agreement of the committee?

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, regarding Mrs. Folco's motion, regardless of how it is worded, I would like us to combine (e) and (f) by adding one sentence. That would solve the problem and it would be a good compromise.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, but the way we are to proceed with that is to handle (e) as you've stated, and, say, defeat it, and then go to (f) and incorporate the ideas we have heard.

I would like us now to make a decision on paragraph 5(e). Are we in agreement that we have paragraph 5(e) as it stands now?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chairman: Let's now go to paragraph 5(f).

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chair,

[Translation]

to add, at the end of paragraph 5(f), after “may well cause an increase in the number of political refugees” the following “and where human rights are possibly violated”. This is important to get across and that's what I'm proposing for (f).

[English]

The Chairman: Those in favour of the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Are members in favour of the amended (f)?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I suggest that paragraph 6 is moot. We have heard the briefing. Therefore, at this point I suggest that we forego consideration of paragraph 6. It is now moot.

Do I have the consent of the committee on paragraph 6?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay. So adopted.

Now I would like to entertain a motion to adopt the report as amended.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I so move.

The Chairman: Seconded by—

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, no; I had a question on that.

The Chairman: But the motion can be moved, and then we can have debate on the motion.

The motion has been moved, seconded by Ms. Folco, and now we can have debate on the motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like to nail down a date, and get it in here, for the minister to appear before this committee. I've brought this up at every meeting we've had so far, and we still don't seem to be any closer to having a date nailed down for the minister. So I would like us to get a date right in the agenda here so that we have something nailed down.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, we can't say to the minister, “You will appear on this date”. It has to coincide with her schedule. The request has gone through, and I'm sure she will appear sooner rather than later.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, Mr. Chair, with all due respect, it's been two months now since the first request went in. I think it's about two months. We haven't got any date yet.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: We haven't done anything.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It seems it will be later rather than sooner.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Well, you know, it took us—

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, please refer to the chair so that we can have order.

My suggestion to you is this. I would like us to follow more or less strict procedures. There is a motion now to adopt the report. There is a consideration of an item during debate that putting the appearance of the minister is a precondition, as I hear it, for his support of the motion.

To proceed properly, with speed, on the procedure, Mr. Benoit could propose it as an amendment, which I would suggest is an appropriate avenue, and we could debate the amendment and then go to the main motion. Otherwise, we will be going in a circle, as Ms. Augustine was saying earlier.

So perhaps I could just focus us on the completion of the particular task ahead of us.

Mr. Benoit.

• 1035

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would propose that as an amendment to paragraph 5(b), to do with the performance reports, we put in there a guideline that says the minister will appear before this committee by the end of next week.

The Chairman: Are you putting it as an amendment?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

The Chairman: So moved.

Any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'm not going to support it. The minister's not going to be here next week.

I think what we do is put the request through, and the minister will come in due time.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): I know the minister's a very busy person, and it's hard to pin her down for a particular time. Perhaps we could ask that she come before the Christmas break. That adds another couple of weeks.

An hon. member: No, they break early for Christmas.

Mr. Grant McNally: Well, I think the minister would be willing to do that.

The Chairman: So are you proposing an amendment to the amendment?

I like to follow procedure. Otherwise, we keep going around.

Mr. Grant McNally: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. So amended. We'll make the date as before the Christmas break.

Mr. Grant McNally: Before we break.

An hon. member: December 2.

Mr. Grant McNally: If the situation happens that we break early, and then we don't get to it—

So before the House breaks, or whatever the technical term is.

The Chairman: Before the end of this year. Okay.

You have heard the amendment to the amendment, the subamendment. Is there any further debate on that period?

Are you in agreement with the proposed subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Now we'll deal with the amended amendment. How many are in agreement with the amended amendment?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Would you please tell us what the amended amendment is, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Madam Clerk.

The Clerk of the Committee: It was moved by Mr. Benoit that the minister appear before the end of next week on the report. I didn't get quite the exact wording.

The Chairman: That now has been amended.

The Clerk: It has been amended that the minister appear before the committee before the Christmas break, before the end of—

The Chairman: So I think you have the gist of the amended amendment.

Are we in agreement with that amended amendment?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Now we will move to consideration of of the main motion, adoption of the report. Is there any further debate on that?

Shall we adopt the report?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: The report is adopted.

Is there any further business, Madam Clerk?

The Clerk: There is one here, that the chair be authorized to submit the budget to the liaison committee.

The Chairman: There is another motion the clerk is proposing, that the chair be authorized to submit the budget to the liaison committee.

Mr. Pat Martin: I so move.

The Chairman: Is there any debate on the motion? Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The researcher has just advised me that after we hear the minister and the IRB on their performance report, what would be some of the priorities you would like to consider for other matters. It's basically revised paragraph (c) and the new (e) and (f).

Do we have time for that?

Ms. Folco.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: Getting back to the idea I had at the very start of this meeting, by the time we meet with the minister responsible for the Immigration and Refugee Board, Christmas will be upon us. After that, we will be on holidays during the month of January. Then February rolls around. I think it's entirely appropriate that we start working on the minister's bill. I don't think we're going to have enough time to— that's obvious.

• 1040

[English]

The Chairman: But we adopted the motion of paragraph (c). I think it was Steve Mahoney, during the last meeting, on the business immigrant as a study—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, no.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What is this, revisionist history? What's going on here? I made an amendment to (c).

The Chairman: Yes, which was just adopted now.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Could we hear the amendment? I thought (c) was lost.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Maybe you could just read the amendment.

The Clerk: Paragraph (c) was gone; it was (e)—

The Chairman: No, (c) was not gone; it was amended. So the original (c) is gone, but paragraph (c) remains because of the amendment.

The Clerk: I have it here. It says, as moved by Mr. Mahoney:

Business visas, economic immigrants, investor immigrants and the U.S. visas issues.

This is what was adopted.

The Chairman: Okay. I think we've solved the problem.

The research staff has suggested that I ask you the question of what do we do next. My response would be that we'd call a meeting of the steering committee, and at that point consider any of these particular matters.

I shall share with you immediately an observation. Henceforth, the steering committee will report on the items one by one. Otherwise, we will not consider a major report of the steering committee because of the many debates on the many items under a given report. It can stall a particular priority—for example, the budget. We're almost late in submission to the budget committee.

I think you have a suggestion, Madam Clerk.

The Clerk: The budget subcommittee will be meeting on November 24, and that's when the chairman—and I will accompany him—will defend our budget. That's how the budget will go through. Right now, we don't have any money for our operations.

The Chairman: Anyway, that will be for the steering committee to report later on.

Is there any other business we should discuss?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What is it you're taking to the steering committee? I'm just a little confused.

The Chairman: The matters we have approved on this, to now put a schedule to this.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay. But not to discuss the items.

The Chairman: No. They have been adopted.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Fine.

The Chairman: They're a given. It's only a matter of logistics.

Are there any other discussions or burning issues? None?

The meeting is adjourned.