CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 2, 1999

• 1543

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.)): Perhaps we can get started. It looks like we have a quorum. Today we have witnesses from the IRB.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we shall proceed to consideration of the subject matter of the report on plans and priorities for 1999-2000 relating to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This afternoon I would like to welcome as witnesses the chair of the board, Ms. Mawani; the executive director, Nicole Senécal; and the senior general counsel, Philip Palmer.

Do you have a presentation to make, or will you just be continuing from the last meeting?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani (Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board): Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I have a very brief opening comment. May I start?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): Yes.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Thank you. Bonjour and good afternoon.

We are back again at the committee's request. I'm sure all of you will remember the fire alarm, thankfully a false one, that led to the adjournment of the committee's proceedings last week.

[Translation]

We are preparing additional material that addresses the questions raised by some of the committee members during those proceedings. This information includes information on consistency and the list of major source countries from 1989 to 1998. This information will be forwarded as soon as available.

At this time I would like to make a few comments to clarify some points of interest expressed by the committee.

[English]

One of the elements the IRB takes pride in, and a subject that was discussed during our appearance last week, is the board's increased levels of efficiency. The committee heard about shorter processing time, reduced caseload inventories, lower costs per case, and other such efficiency indicators.

I would like to point out to the committee that the numbers are merely indicators. The real story concerning the board's increased efficiency has more to do with highly motivated personnel focusing daily on the board's mission. This has resulted in innovative measures, which we like to call leading-edge, that have been devised to meet the challenges that arise in dealing efficiently and fairly with immigration and refugee matters.

In short, our increased efficiency comes down to the motivation and innovation of people. It's not just about working harder; it's also about working smarter.

Our emphasis on people arises from our commitment to the clients of the IRB, namely the women, men and children who appear before the board, and the Canadian public. However, while we take pride in the performance gains achieved by the IRB, I want to remind the committee that the work of the IRB and the mission of the board requires that we maintain an appropriate balance in what we do.

The need to maintain balance arises in many facets of the board's responsibilities. For example, the board is independent of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, yet we are partners with the department in portfolio management.

• 1545

The board was established as an administrative tribunal in order to avoid the complexities associated with formal legal processes, yet we must continuously deal with immigration and protection legislation and a complex body of jurisprudence.

[Translation]

The Board's members are independent decision-makers, and yet a degree of guidance is required to assist them in dealing with difficult categories of refugee claims, and in order to ensure consistency.

Moreover, the Board is frequently involved in balancing the rights of the individual with the safety and good order of Canadian society.

[English]

Balance also means achieving the highest levels of efficiency possible, without jeopardizing fairness. Fairness is a fundamental principle for the board for obvious reasons. Our mission is to make well-reasoned decisions on immigration matters in accordance with the law, efficiently and fairly. That is why the case management initiatives developed by the board pay particular attention to both efficiency and quality.

As we reflect on the 10th anniversary of the IRB, we within the organization believe we have come of age. The IRB has matured into an expert tribunal. In fact, in its comments to the Immigration Legislative Review Advisory Group, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:

the quality of refugee status determination in Canada and policy development have benefited greatly from the professionalism and depth of experience that many IRB members bring from their earlier careers. Moreover, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has appreciated the leadership and jurisprudence of the IRB in refugee status determination, particularly with respect to training, documentation and dealing with the specific protection needs of women, children and other vulnerable refugees.

Other countries and systems are interested in our expertise. Permit me to give you some examples. The United States has recently invited us to provide training for their decision-makers on the guidelines on child refugee claimants. We have been assisting the Russians with respect to setting up their system. The delegation from the Netherlands, which was headed by their minister of justice, was here recently talking with us about our system. We are expecting a delegation from Switzerland, South Africa and Hungary imminently, again to discuss and share best practices and learn about how we each approach this very challenging responsibility. The list is endless.

[Translation]

In closing I want to say again that the Board continues to be committed to sustaining productivity and enhancing the quality and consistency of its practices, procedures and decisions.

We will also continue to develop policies and other initiatives that will enable us to fulfil our mission as a leading- edge administrative tribunal and an effective partner in Canada's immigration and refugee program.

[English]

We wish to continue to be an effective partner in Canada's immigration and refugee program.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Mawani.

The first round of questions begins with the official opposition, Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a motion I would like to introduce before we go ahead.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Grant McNally: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee shall report to the House that it has considered the question of the right-of-landing fee and the fee for an application for permanent residence in relation to refugees, and recommends that the government should immediately eliminate these fees for refugees, as currently applied under the regulations of the Immigration Act.

I did serve notice of this motion, Mr. Chair, and I think we were interrupted a bit in the last meeting. I would like to introduce this motion now.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): Okay. Is there any debate on the motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): We're pleased to support the motion. I think our colleague from the Reform Party would like to have a vote as soon as possible.

• 1550

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): If you'd like to go straight to the vote—

Mr. Grant McNally: I think it's an issue that there's wide support for. We've talked about it with the minister here in committee. I think we'd be basically just repeating ourselves once again on that. So perhaps we can have a vote on that right away, if there's no debate. I don't see anybody jumping in.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): As I count it, there's no quorum.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We have a quorum.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: There's a quorum in the room.

Mr. John McKay: No, you need nine, as I understand it. There's also one government member here.

Mr. Grant McNally: There are two. She's right there.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we had a quorum at the beginning of the meeting.

[English]

Mr. John McKay: This involves money, and any time money's involved these become issues of significance. I'm not prepared to argue the merits of the motion. On the face of it, there is a certain level of merit. But what is involved here is a sum of money that will affect this particular group—the refugees—and the department's budget generally. I am not prepared to speak on it. I'm quite prepared to consider deferring the motion, but at this point I am not prepared to deal with the motion as such, and I am certainly not prepared to vote. I'm happy to hear argument on the motion, but I'm not prepared to vote on it. If necessary, we'll break quorum.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): I see that we do have quorum.

Yes, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, there is a quorum and there was a quorum at the beginning of this meeting. I demand an immediate vote on the motion.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): I'm just trying to determine whether we have a quorum here. We did have one. A couple of members are standing there. I'm not sure if they're here or not.

Mr. John McKay: I've made my point. We will not—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): I guess we don't have a quorum.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order. I would like to suggest that this committee consider that we are in presence of a quorum and that it is able to deal with all motions brought to its attention. I hope that this committee will agree that we are in the presence of a quorum, that there was a quorum at the beginning of the meeting and that the government majority deliberately compromised our continuing our work.

I'm asking you to put this motion to a vote.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): The clerk has informed me we can't take a vote on this matter unless we have a quorum. It seems we are being denied a quorum.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There is a precedent. You remember that during a video conference we didn't have the French translation and we tabled a motion for the meeting to continue even though I had withdrawn from the meeting. I believe the committee carried on with its work at the time.

We had a quorum at the beginning of this meeting and the government majority deliberately chose to compromise our carrying on with our work. I remind you that in the Human Rights Commission's report, there was concern about imposing right-of- landing fees on the refugees. I think we should behave as though we actually had a quorum. Anyway, your colleague is here now and we must consider that we have a quorum.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): Mr. Ménard, we don't have a quorum, therefore we can't take a vote.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Chairman, with due respect, I think Mr. Ménard is absolutely correct. You can't sit at the table when there's a quorum at the committee and suddenly get up from the table and no longer have a quorum. When you sit at the table and a motion is put forward with all members here and the members decide to walk out of the room, you still have a quorum. Otherwise we would never vote on one single issue at any committee in the House of Commons; we'd simply do that all the time, whether it was the government side or the opposition side.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We have a quorum, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Leon E. Benoit): Just a minute.

• 1555

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Chair, I was wondering if we could just expand a little bit on the motion and why I tabled it and give some reasons for that.

I thought there was some clear understanding among committee members as to why this motion was being brought forward by me, considering that my colleague from the NDP, Libby Davies, who was here last time when the minister was here, asked some very pertinent questions about the head tax, or the right-of-landing fee, which I also followed up on and asked a number of questions about. Of course the minister did not like to hear that terminology, the head tax, because of the implications it has.

The reason the motion is being brought forward... and it's a very straightforward motion that I think there is obviously wide support on from the opposition side and, surprisingly, a lack of support, it would seem to me, due to the number of members here from the government side. I'm very surprised that there isn't support for this motion.

I'd like to mention a couple of things. The former parliamentary secretary who was on this committee last year, Maria Minna, herself an immigrant, is on record as saying in reference to refugees, and I quote:

When they get here, they're not exactly flush with money.

When you come as a refugee you're traumatized, you've left your family behind, parts of your family may have been killed—you don't bring any resources with you quite often.

That was a Liberal member who said that.

Also, Liberal member Derek Lee, a member of Parliament representing the Liberal Party, says the government should re-examine the landing fee. He's on record as saying that, as are other Liberal members of Parliament, including the Minister of Revenue, the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, and many others as well.

That's why the motion is being brought forward, Mr. Chairman, and the reason for that is that here we have individuals who are fleeing their country, coming to Canada for the protection of Canada, seeking protection here in this country, and the current government imposes this fee, this head tax, on these individuals who come to our country, many of them destitute, as Liberal members have pointed out. And what we're asking for is that this committee recommend to the minister that these fees be removed.

Obviously if someone is a genuine refugee... Of course the picture that jumps to mind is that of the Kosovo refugees. Those are not folks who are coming over here with a suitcase full of money; they're fleeing for their lives. Yet we have the current government, who put this in place in 1995 due to fiscal concerns—there is now a budget surplus—going on with this fee. Why not simply remove this head tax, now that the financial climate is better in the country, rather than continuing to tax, through this head tax, refugees who are coming here and fleeing for their lives from other parts of the world?

How appropriate it is that we have the chairperson of the IRB here today, who knows the plight of many of these individuals and the situations they come from. The IRB is intimately involved with these cases every single day. These refugees are individuals we're asking to pay this head tax.

I can't understand why there would be opposition to this motion. It's a straightforward motion that clearly defines what the intent of the motion is and the action that opposition members are calling for from the government. I think it's a very clear, succinct motion that should have the support of all members of this committee. I'm surprised that it doesn't.

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): The chairperson would like to thank the vice-chair for taking over the place. I apologize. I was called to another committee, but I thank my staff for reminding me that this committee is to proceed.

Who is first? Mr. Benoit and then Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Chair, I think we've seen that this motion is supported. Even the Liberal who spoke to it before he left said that in fact he... He didn't want to say whether he supported it or not, but clearly he had no strong opposition to it.

I can't imagine anyone objecting to this motion that would eliminate this head tax for refugees. We're just talking about eliminating it for refugees. I can't imagine how anyone would oppose this. And if the Liberals, the government members, do oppose it, then I suggest they should have the guts to sit there and say why they oppose it and vote against it, instead of leaving.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we have a short two- or three-minute recess while the chair talks to the government members to see if they're going to come back to the meeting. If they are not, we should disband this committee until such time as we have a committee that functions.

• 1600

The Chair: The chair prefers not to talk to the government members. They have been notified—

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Just to make it clear, Mr. Chair, so do we.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Réal Ménard: Everybody can understand that. If you refuse to speak with the government side, we will applaud that.

The Chair: But they have known of the meeting as well, and unless they have other commitments, it's for them to decide—

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: They're waiting around the corner here.

The Chair: —and I think the clerk can be advised to advise the members if need be. I don't think we should impute as a basis for argument, if I may caution, that the non-attendance is indicative of their position on the issue.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have two points of order. First, of course, I would like everyone to be aware of the fact that the Liberals are cowards and lack courage and of the fact that apart from a few notable exceptions, we hope we'll see them coming back in and sitting down. We must understand that this shows contempt for the work of this committee. If ever this attitude persists, you won't have the co-operation of the opposition parties when we come back in September.

I would ask you to adjourn our meeting for the next five minutes. You should go have a word with your colleagues and convince them to come back here to do their work as parliamentarians. We had a quorum when the motion was tabled. Actually, I think there's jurisprudence in Beauchesne in this respect and you should consult it. When the question has been put in the presence of a quorum, you must consider that the process is then underway as is the case in the House of Commons. When the Speaker of the House reads a motion, you can't call for a quorum as the process is underway.

I request you consider my two points of order and see to it that we vote as we should.

[English]

The Chair: It was not interpreted, the last part.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I will repeat myself, Mr. Chairman. I have two points of order. When we started the voting process, we did have a quorum and I believe you must see to it that the vote proceeds accordingly.

I say that there is jurisprudence in Beauchesne according to which when a vote is underway you can't call for a quorum; you have to continue with the process until the end as is done in the House. I believe we should consider that we still have a quorum as when the question was put, we had a quorum.

You could suspend our proceedings for five minutes to go and get your colleagues, Mr. Chairman, who are cowards lacking in courage and honesty and who have left this room. Mr. Chairman, they are showing contempt for the work of this committee. If you persist in your attitude, we will remember this when we come back in September and the government tables its legislation on immigration.

[English]

The Chair: It is a point of order, and I have to make a ruling on a point of order before I entertain any other debate on the motion. There is a point of order...

[Editor's Note: Technical Difficulties]

...when the committee was in quorum.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It was a point of procedure.

The Chair: Well, he was using the point of order expression to raise a question of procedure. That is understood. The chair has to be flexible in the use of language, because we all fall into these commonalities of language. But we understood. So the point of order being raised, as I understood it, is since the vote was called at the time the quorum still existed, then has the vote commenced?

The Clerk of the Committee: No.

The Chair: The vote has not commenced. I want to know the facts. I'm not an expert on procedure, but I would be prepared to search Beauchesne's and to seek the guidance of those who are more knowledgeable on the issue. And our initial point of reference of course is the clerk.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that when I asked the Chairman to put the motion to a vote we had a quorum in this room. When the vote begins, it cannot be interrupted as is the case in the House. When the Speaker of the House calls for a vote, the doors are shut. The House is transformed, in a great and solemn moment, and all parliamentarians are called upon to vote. We were in the presence of a quorum and, thus, we must consider we are still in presence of a quorum and you must call for the vote on the motion tabled by the Reform Party. This is a solemn moment, Mr. Chairman, when we will show our true colours.

• 1605

[English]

The Chair: I'll go to the others.

Mr. Ménard, the chair is in difficulty, because it was not a first-hand experience. I would rely of course on the report of the clerk. The clerk gave advice to the acting chair, pointing out the need for quorum, and at that point the acting chair followed the advice of the clerk.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. We have quorum now, so it's not an issue any more. Let's have the vote.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: The clerk will confirm we have quorum.

The Clerk: Yes, we do.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: We do.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We are ready for the vote, Mr. Chairman. Call for the vote.

[English]

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I think we're out of order. I'd like to continue the debate.

First of all, I don't agree we should use the term... what was the term you guys used?

An hon. member: It's right-of-landing fees. It's in the motion.

Ms. Sophia Leung: No, you say it's a head tax. I'd like to call to your attention that we do not want to use this term. It's an incorrect term. To me, it reflects a discriminatory piece of history. You all know that in the past we have imposed upon the Chinese immigrants a $50 head tax. Then they increased this to a $500 head tax, which is a very shameful piece of history in our immigration history. So I want all my colleagues to understand that. Do not use terms that do not apply. Also, you are insulting our history to try to reflect the bad history.

So I do not wish any of you to use that term. Agreed? If you don't understand the history, look it up in the history book. So no term such as “head tax” should be used.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Ms. Sophia Leung: I suggest this as my own idea.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, please, call for the vote.

[English]

Ms. Sophia Leung: As a matter of fact, the proper term is “landing fee”, applying whenever a new immigrant comes. I've been told this and we discussed it. So head tax, number one, is incorrect.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to record that. We have to understand what we are talking about in the first place. If we have a different definition, we have to correct that.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): On a point of order. You were asked to call for the vote and I want you to grant this request.

[English]

The Chair: The acting chair followed the advice of the clerk. The vote has been suspended—

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: Yes, but I asked—

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, would you allow the chair to respond to your question of order?

Mr. Réal Ménard: We want to vote, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: When somebody is debating, the debate must continue.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's out of order.

The Chair: The members can debate, I have been advised, and I take the advice correctly. That is the decision of the chair.

Please proceed, Ms. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung: According to our plan, our agenda today, I especially cut down my other obligations to come here out of respect for our two witnesses. I came here to listen to what they have to say. I did not anticipate any motion or voting at this point. So I do not wish to have that. And unless I misunderstood the intention, the intention is very clearly defined here. This is not the French, it's the English. You can read both.

Do I have a different agenda, colleagues?

An hon. member: Any member should give a motion—

Ms. Sophia Leung: I just came in, so I don't know—

An hon. member: It's not a matter of—

Ms. Sophia Leung: I do not wish to enter voting.

Mr. Chairman, I know you and I both entered a little bit late, so I just want to continue.

The Chair: Go ahead, please.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I'm quite confused at this point.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order.

[English]

Ms. Sophia Leung: I am not finished.

[Translation]

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

[English]

The Chair: A point of order, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order.

[English]

The Chair: No. You first, and then you.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, I think maybe we should give a quick explanation for the member opposite of what has happened here. I hear the call for a point of order, but I think this might prevent that.

• 1610

In relation to what Mr. Ménard said, I'm not trying to be an expert on procedure, but this is getting to be a little bit of a farce. The fact remains taht there was a notice of motion given prior to the meeting, as I understand it. It's incumbent, when you give a notice of motion, for the government, if they're not supporting the motion, to come and vote the motion down. You cannot ignore the motion. You cannot come to the table, sit there, see the motion on the table and then get up and leave the room so there's no quorum. That is procedurally incorrect. That's not how this Parliament is supposed to work. There was a notice of motion given prior to the meeting. If the government is not satisfied with that notice of motion, it's their position to vote it down, as I understand it.

The Chair: For the clarification of the chair, how many hours' notice was given of the notice of motion?

Mr. Grant McNally: I talked to the clerk last week, I believe it was. I don't remember the exact day.

The Clerk: I received a letter from Mr. McNally last week, and I sent a copy to the chair. So this happened last week, and we don't have a motion for 48 hours' notice. We don't have it in this context.

The Chair: Was the notice of motion circulated to all the members?

The Clerk: No.

An hon. member: A motion doesn't have to be before us at any time.

The Chair: I realize that. I'm just trying to clarify the message of notice of motion.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Question.

The Chair: No, she's still debating. Ms. Leung is still on debate.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Maybe I overlooked it, but I have never seen this question.

The Chair: Okay, a point of order, Mr. Ménard.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I have not seen this motion before.

The Chair: Madame Leung. A point of order, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we don't want to waste our time. A motion was tabled and we're ready for the vote. There is no rule concerning any kind of notice. If the Liberal members want to vote, they just have to come in and vote. Your duty as Chairman is to call for the vote on the motion and that's what I'm asking you to do immediately. We're ready to vote and we will vote. If the government wants to defeat the motion, it will defeat it but we will do our work as parliamentarians. A colleague from the Reform Party has tabled a motion and we're ready for the vote.

If you don't want to co-operate and if you wish us to cause trouble, you can count on us for this till the year 2001. But you won't be bad losers because there is no majority. We are ready to vote. There was a quorum when the meeting began. During the last meeting, this colleague advised us of his intent to table a motion along the lines you are now familiar with. We're asking you to call for the vote on this motion because we are ready to vote.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, the opposition of course has called for the vote, but the government side wants to debate. I have been advised by the clerk that this is completely in order. Therefore, the chair rules that in fact the member, Ms. Leung, could debate. In fact, to rule otherwise would be out of order.

Madam Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Chairman, I also do not have enough information. I'd like to know—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order.

[English]

The Chair: Is this on the same point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you are unjust and unfair. You know full well that we have the right to ask for the vote and you must call for the vote.

[English]

The Chair: The chair is guided by the rules of order. The rules of order have been put in place precisely to protect the minority. In this instance, it appears that the government side is in the minority. Are you telling me that at all times the majority must overpower the minority? The rules of order have been placed precisely for the rule itself.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you're right to be worried about the majority and this honours you. The majority wishes for you to call for the vote and I am asking you to call for the vote immediately. Let us vote immediately. Three speakers have—

[English]

The Chair: The chair has made a ruling already to allow the member to debate, and we should allow it to prosper. Unless the point of order is questioning the right of the member to debate, I will rule it out of order.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chair, I have a different point of order on procedure. My understanding is that if the question is called and there's disagreement, then the question should be put to a vote as to whether or not we take a vote on the motion. Now that the question has been called, I would ask that we test the floor to see if the room is ready for the vote on the motion. That would be my request.

• 1615

The Chair: Let me read to you the citation:

The form of the motion is “That the question be now put.”

This was indicated by both opposition sides. According to procedure number 525:

A motion for the previous question

—which was just done—

is not admitted in a Committee of the Whole or in any committee of the House. Bourinot, p. 328.

The chair is guided, and the committee ought to be guided.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Please repeat, Mr. Chairman. We did not understand.

[English]

The Chair: Section 525 of Beauchesne indicates that:

A motion for the previous question is not admitted in a Committee of the Whole or in any committee of the House.

That's the end.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, yourself, as chairman, have many times granted the request of members asking you to call for a vote. Many speakers have expressed themselves. It's not our fault if the Liberal members are not here. Your role is to see whether the people are ready to vote or not. Ask the members how many of them are ready to vote and you'll see that my colleagues around this table are ready to vote.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Ménard, I—

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: I'll comment on this point of order first, and then I'll allow Mr. Hanger to speak.

Even if I accept for the sake of argument that in the past a ruling had been made to allow a vote when it was called, two mistakes will not make one right. Now that this has been called to my attention, then the chair must rule according to procedure.

Mr. Hanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you can't interpret the Standing Orders depending on whether the provisions are agreeable or not to the Liberal majority. You've already allowed that and our hands are tied by the jurisprudence.

[English]

The Chair: Can we call for some guidance from the Clerk of the House of Commons? Is it possible?

Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Chairman, may I address the point of order that I would like to raise?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: My understanding of the operation of a committee is that basically we're masters of our own destiny. We can decide here what the issue and the vote should be. I think you're obliged basically to honour that motion put forward by my colleague from the NDP.

The Chair: I think we can be master if the rules are silent and not written and we have nothing to go by.

Mr. Art Hanger: The rules are not silent.

The Chair: The rule in fact is clear here. You're right, it's not silent. It prohibits us from allowing the previous motion to be put to a vote at this point.

Mr. Art Hanger: Under “Order and Decorum”, if you would refer to section 821:

(1) All rulings of the Chairman may be appealed to the committee.

(2) There is no appeal to the House from the Chairman's ruling except by way of a report from the committee.

So it still falls back on the shoulders and the lap of the committee to make a decision.

A voice: Right.

The Chair: Well, in fact, I was noticing too that the section you were quoting, section 821, falls under the heading of “Order and Decorum”.

Mr. Art Hanger: Absolutely.

The Chair: It has nothing to do with the calling of a vote to a motion.

Mr. Art Hanger: It has everything to do with the motion before us when it comes to decisions by the chair. The committee, again—I'll make the same reference—is master of its own destiny, and that's the point in question that we're talking about right here. So the motion from the NDP member is very much in order and should be voted upon.

The Chair: In regard to the motion, I would suggest to the members that the committee is master of itself when there are no rules to guide us, and at that point we can make the rules. When the rules exist, we cannot disregard the rules or there would be no need for the rules to exist.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There's a rule, Mr. Chairman. I would invite you to consult the decisions you have made in this committee when Liberal members asked for the vote on a motion. You allowed the vote to proceed. Mr. Chairman, we wish for a vote at this point in time and that is the wish of the majority of the members. You can undeniably always find a member wishing to express thoughts at length, but I believe we are guided by the rule of the majority. The precedents you created yourself lead us to see this whole thing under that light, Mr. Chairman.

• 1620

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Perhaps if we had not raised points of order at the time, Ms. Leung would have concluded her debate. I do not know. I cannot prejudge.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I have many questions.

The Chair: So I would like her to proceed and see. After that, if there is no more debate, then the chair would like to make a brief comment, and then the—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we don't accept your decision because we find it is self-serving. It is inequitable and leads us to believe that you wish to delay the possibility for this committee to express its will which is to go ahead with the vote. I remind you that the majority here wishes to vote and that you must call for the vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me. The assistant to the whip is here. Where are the government members? Are they occupied or what?

An hon. member: They sleep well.

A voice: At the moment there are three draft reports sitting in three committees. A lot of our members are double booked. That is why we are concerned, as you know, Mr. Pagtakhan. You were also at the subcommittee on taxation fairness. You are the chair of this committee. You were there. You're trying to split your time—

An hon. member: It's not our problem. We have quorum—

Mr. Art Hanger: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This committee is speaking directly to you, Mr. Chairman. Referring to section 821 of Beauchesne, under “Order and Decorum”, it says: “All rulings of the Chairman may be appealed to the committee”. It's the decision you're ruling on that we're seeking to appeal back to the committee. It's the decision of this committee; it's not your decision. It's in light of the ruling under section 821 of Beauchesne.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger, in the face of a very clear provision cited previously, I stand by the advice given by the clerk. If you so wish, as earlier suggested by Mr. Benoit, we can recess for three or five minutes and I will call the House.

An hon. member: No, not now.

An hon. member: We want the vote.

The Chair: Why the change of heart?

Mr. Art Hanger: We're calling the vote. You are obliged to follow through on this.

The Chair: I am not obliged.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Chair, I welcome a debate. You have so many people, and I will try—

Mr. Art Hanger: The chairman has no choice but to deal with the question.

An hon. member: I have a point of order—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you must make a decision on the fact that there was a call for a vote on the motion. I would advise you to think of the future.

[English]

An hon. member: We have a motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I came late, so I'd like to hear your rationale. This motion is new. I do not know—

The Chair: Please speak one at a time. Until I recognize, I will not have anybody intervening. The chair is finding it difficult to understand and comprehend.

Who has the floor, Madam Clerk?

The Clerk: I think it's Mr. Hanger. As far as I understand it, what you're trying to say is that—

The Chair: Do not interpret what he's trying to say. If he has the floor...

Continue, please, Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Chairman, you are obliged to take the motion from the NDP member. That is on the floor. It has been the subject of some debate. The question has been called.

The Chair: Was the question of the NDP to now put the question?

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. The chair has made a ruling that it may not be put. The debate was ongoing when it was put, and therefore the debate must be allowed. The chair has made a ruling, and out of respect to the chair, you must respect that.

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman—

Mr. René Canuel: I have a point of order.

The Chair: The chair has made a ruling on the debate. Mr. Benoit has the floor.

Mr. René Canuel: I want mine heard after that.

The Chair: This is a point of order, too. After that we will hear from Mr. Canuel and then Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Chair, what I would like to do is refer to decisions you've made before. You've determined on several occasions that there has been enough debate under the circumstances, and you've certainly shut debate down on this side of the floor. Why the difference in procedure now?

The Chair: I hear a point of clarification. It's not a point of order. But certainly I would like to indicate to the committee that I have not shut down debate. With regard to your argument that enough debate has taken place, if I were to accept that argument, enough debate has not taken place because she is trying to debate. She has not debated yet on the issue. Using your very own argument, she has the right to debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Canuel.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: Mr. Chairman, I know that you're in a difficult situation. I simply wanted to ask you an innocuous question.

• 1625

If the Liberals on the other side were in a majority, if they had asked for the vote and you had called for the vote and there had been a quorum, at that point, what would your decision then be, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Is there a quorum? I will put it to a vote if at that time debate has ceased, or enough debate has taken place and there is repetition.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: I think your decision would have been different if the members on the other side had asked for the vote. I have sat on many committees and, generally speaking, when the government asks for the question to be put on a motion, the Chairman accepts this and calls for the vote without delay. The situation here is a turnaround. Mr. Chairman, let your conscience be your guide in answering me. What would have happened? Be careful because this is a very delicate situation.

[English]

The Chair: No. In fact, it is on record—my memory is still good—that there have been occasions when the government members in the past have called for the vote and I have not allowed it because the debate on the opposition side had not concluded. It is on record in the proceedings of this committee.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of co-operation that has always been the characteristic of how we do things in this committee, I would say that you have handed down a decision we don't accept. This is a breach of the privilege of each one of the members of this committee. I'll quote you Beauchesne in this respect, Mr. Chairman. I would invite you to consult paragraph 821 on page 232 of the English version of the book.

[English]

I would like to speak with your mother tongue when we read: “All rulings of the Chairman may be appealed to the committee.” And that's what I'm trying to do.

[Translation]

We don't accept your decision. We're asking you to call for the vote otherwise, Mr. Chairman, we will have to leave this committee, go to the House of Commons and ask the Speaker to intervene because you will have shown a lack of impartiality by making this kind of decision. You are here to serve the majority of the committee and that majority wishes to vote. In a spirit of cooperation, I am asking you to please accede to this wish.

You know that our colleague is using dilatory tactics to prevent this vote being held, Mr. Chairman. We have debated these matters, the Minister came before us, we put our questions and we will proceed according to the wish of the majority. I'm asking you to call for the vote on this motion at this very moment, Mr. Chairman. That is the wish of the majority.

[English]

The Chair: Can I hold on this single one? I will make a ruling on that one.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a point of order or a point of procedure. This is an attempt to move this debate along. Listening to your decisions, I am understanding that you are of the belief that the government has not been heard, that Ms. Leung has not had a chance to debate the motion put forward. I would be happy, as a representative of the Conservative Party, to listen to five minutes of Ms. Leung's comments on this and move to vote after that, if that would move this along.

The Chair: It's up to Ms. Leung to decide how long it will take her to debate. I hope it is shorter.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Then I'll—

The Chair: No, no. I don't think we can make a precedent.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Then I'll leave the time off.

The Chair: If she agrees to five minutes, I will allow that. But I cannot allow a precedent from your suggestion, which is good, that the majority on your side will say “If you debate for five minutes we will allow you; if not, we won't allow you.” It cannot be. However, with the consent of the person involved, if she gives consent, I will say yes.

Do you consent to a five-minute debate only?

Ms. Sophia Leung: No. I'm a slow learner, so I take time to understand—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon member: You don't want to work with the majority—

The Chair: I am making a ruling on your point of order.

An hon. member: We will not accept your ruling.

The Chair: Threats to the chair cannot be accepted by the chair.

An hon. member: We will not accept this, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I am making a ruling on your point of order.

An hon. member: We will not accept that, because are are not fair, and you know that.

The Chair: I'm sorry, if I say that I will allow my ruling to be appealed to the committee, you will not accept it?

An hon. member: We want to vote; that's what we want.

The Chair: If I make a ruling... I will call a five-minute recess, just to cool off.

• 1629

• 1633

The Chair: I resume the meeting of the committee.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: On a point of order, I would like to call for a vote on the main motion, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: At this point I cannot allow a vote as there is no quorum.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: We had a quorum just a minute ago. What's happened?

The Chair: I cannot speak for Ms. Leung, but the fact remains there is no quorum.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: If this committee is going to continue to operate like this, I suggest we close this committee down indefinitely, Mr. Chair, including next fall, until we can work out some arrangement that will allow this committee to work.

It is absolutely dysfunctional when the Liberals leave the table because they don't want to vote on an issue. They're cowards. They're afraid to deal with an issue like this. I think it shows there's no reason to continue this committee. I suggest we close it down indefinitely, unless we can reach some method of making this committee functional, because it is dysfunctional.

The Chair: I will make an undertaking as chair. I do not like a dysfunctional committee. You have not asked me to speak to the whip and the members of the committee on exactly why they're not here. I would like that report.

• 1635

Two, I will seek clarification of some of the points of order you've raised and give a report to the committee, for our better guidance in the future.

Is there any discussion on the agenda of the day? Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: When the Liberal members aren't here, do you usually ask the whip of your party to make sure that there's a majority? You know very well it's unacceptable to have none of our colleagues from the government side here. When the time comes to debate motions, you must make sure that there is a quorum and that your colleagues are present. The way you are acting is not acceptable in a democracy. If the government wants to defeat the motion, it will defeat it and we will accept the decision made by the Committee. I myself have sometimes voted with the government and I have sometimes voted against the Reform Party. That is how democracy plays.

As Parliamentarians, we cannot accept to have you decide to compromise the quorum and use your majority. That is the source of this problem, Mr. Chairman. If we wind up our work in this state of mind, you will not have the cooperation of the opposition parties in September or October. You should call in your colleagues so we can hold this vote.

[English]

The Chair: I will request the clerk to call the whip's office to see if we can get the government members. Perhaps we should recess until we get the information.

A good suggestion has been made to us. If we cannot get the members, we can table the motion and have it debated, or continue the debate next Wednesday, at the first opportunity next week, if we can get the members in time.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We wish to vote today, immediately, Mr. Chairman. This is an important debate. Mr. Chairman, I believe the government side must live with the empty chair policy.

Mr. René Canuel: How long will we have to wait?

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, I believe the rules have been violated. Things have been breached here, and I don't believe we should validate that by putting it off for one more week and doing the whole thing one week later, as if everything that has happened here today was okay.

It wasn't okay. There's been a serious breach and violation here. I frankly believe that at the time the motion was put we had a quorum, and the only thing that stopped us from voting at that time was a bunch of interference. I believe we should carry on as if that original motion had been put and finish the job, whether they choose to attend on that side or not.

I will point out for the record that there are people outside of this room as we speak. They've left their purses, coats and bags on their chairs. It's not as though they're difficult to round up. I don't think we need the whip's office, frankly. We can step right outside this room and pull one person in to finish the job.

Speaking for the NDP, I would disagree on putting this off for one more week. It has to be resolved today, because it really jeopardizes the long-term functioning of this committee at any level, or any hope of cooperation in this committee for the coming session.

The Chair: Well, I would not like to put it off. As soon as we had a quorum, I was to rule in order of that motion challenging the ruling of the chair. I was to allow it to prosper. Unfortunately, I guess in the passion of debate, Mr. Ménard was not listening to my entreaty to calm down. I can understand it.

I did convey my message to Mr. Hanger that I would allow the ruling of the chair to be challenged or appealed by the committee. At that time we had a quorum and I would have allowed it to prosper. Unfortunately—and I'm not blaming Mr. Ménard—in the passion of debate sometimes we can lose our cool. It has happened to me as well and to everybody.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's not my case.

The Chair: In terms of wanting to go on now, as soon as there is a quorum, if somebody will move to challenge the ruling of the chair so it is in process, it will be appealed to the committee. It is a non-debatable motion. The committee will so proceed. Then the vote shall be placed by the chair. The chair is the servant of the committee, but at the same time I have to be careful we do not create a wrong precedent. If from time to time we have created the wrong precedent in the past, it ought not to be the beginning of a decision in the future.

• 1640

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you know how much friendship we have for you. We know that you have a very engaging personality, but I hope you will recognize that, today, you have manoeuvred in a way that will prevent us from voting. You knew the will of the majority, the voting process had already begun when you showed up and were accommodating to a degree we didn't know you were capable of, to the government's will just so we would not be able to vote.

If we can't count on you to be the impartial guardian of the will of this committee, it will be very difficult for us to work together in the future. You know me well, you know how nice a guy I am and how cooperative I can be, Mr. Chairman, but I can't really accept that the will of one person should prevail and prevent the majority of the members of this committee from doing what they wish to do which is to vote.

Mr. Chairman, I will ask you to make sure that this never happens again because we won't be able to work together. You have the majority, you are the government. We are not responsible for the fact that your colleagues are not here. A motion is tabled and we must vote now, Mr. Chairman. As a sign of your cooperation, you should call for the vote.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I think you have to acknowledge in fact that when I came in, the acting chair... And my apologies that I was late for the meeting. I was in another committee drafting a report. That is why we have a vice-chair. From time to time it may happen, and I am grateful that the vice-chair took over.

From my understanding, when those issues were happening, the acting chair was still here. When I came in, of course I had to seek a briefing from the clerk as to exactly what had transpired. It was only proper that I be briefed, at least very briefly, to get the sense. That is why I tend to seek her advice more frequently at this point. I want to be sure that we are guided by procedure. Most of the time I will make my ruling. But in the heat or passion of the situation and debate, I would defer to the clerk in terms of the procedure, to point out the particulars.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you accept the interpretation of the NDP, the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois according to whom you should make a decision to put an end to the situation we are in? The vote was called on the motion, we were in presence of a quorum and there is a jurisprudence to that effect. So you must call for the vote on this motion.

[English]

The Chair: As I said, I was prepared to seek the guidance of the House on that, from the Clerk of the House. Barring that, you have another tool in your hand, a procedural tool, and that is, as you quoted, the right to appeal the decision of the chair to the committee itself. But you did not permit me to make a ruling on that because, in the passion of debate, you were not hearing me when I was trying to calm you down. Ms. Leung was still here at that time. If you had given me the opportunity to make that ruling—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman—

[English]

The Chair: As I told Mr. Hanger... Mr. Hanger was still here. Mr. Hanger is a witness.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You're too quiet, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hanger, did I not say it to you?

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in fact you did say that to me. Unfortunately, many of the members had risen by that time and there was such a state of confusion in the room.

The Chair: You stayed. That's right.

Mr. Art Hanger: So I would have to suggest that probably most of the members here would not have heard you.

The Chair: No, but I was telling him... and of course, I agree that he may not have heard it at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you want us to vote, Mr. Chairman? That's the best sign of friendship that could happen between us. We're ready to vote. If ever you want to consider that we're still in the presence of a quorum, we can vote.

[English]

The Chair: No, we cannot allow it now.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We had a quorum when we began. I think you'll find that the jurisprudence—

[English]

The Chair: As soon as the quorum is convened today, okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Whether or not it is a majority of the government matters not as soon as the quorum is convened.

I will allow you to put your point of order appealing the decision of the chair to the committee as a whole. Then the committee will make a decision setting aside the ruling of the chair. So they're not creating a precedent; they're following the procedure. At the point when the decision of the committee as a whole stands, then the chair will be obliged to put it to a vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I think you should understand. I'm going to try to be very clear on the matter between us. I will remind you that your predecessor had granted my request that the matter be put to a vote and that we were in the process of voting. When the voting process has begun, you must consider that the process is irreversible.

• 1645

Close your eyes and imagine that the Speaker of the House puts a matter to a vote and that a member rises and interrupts the vote. The vote cannot be interrupted once the process is under way; it can be before, but it can't be once it's under way. If you consult our colleague, he will confirm that we were in the process of voting. You never should have allowed the vote to be interrupted. There is the mistake you're going to have to live with, Mr. Chairman. You should consider that we are still in the presence of a quorum.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, the clerk was just advising me that in terms of very recent history, the permanent chair was not occupying the chair; it was still the acting chair who was here when that issue was being raised. I was just told this by the clerk.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes?

The clerk: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But, Mr. Chairman, you are bound. You show up, quite naturally, at the very moment the voting process has begun. We're engaged in a very solemn process from which our function derives its full nobility. We are in the process of voting and you show up, Mr. Chairman, in a rather cavalier fashion—

[English]

The Chair: Are you telling me that the acting chair allowed the vote to proceed?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I had asked the vice- chairman to call for the vote. He had given me the floor and was getting ready to call for the vote and you showed up without any warning. You should have ensured continuity. That's where the problem lies, Mr. Chairman. There was a quorum at the beginning, when the vote was called for on the motion. All the Members could swear to this.

[English]

An hon. member: We had it twice.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's really unbelievable. What a crazy world!

Mr. René Canuel: Mr. Chairman, how long do we have to wait for a quorum? Will we have to wait until midnight?

[English]

An hon. member: Cromwell is out looking for his troops.

The Chair: I will resume the meeting of the committee just to keep you informed that we are in a quandary. We cannot even have a ruling on the point of order that was raised by Mr. Ménard at this point, because we have no quorum.

Before I proceed to further discussion, with the permission of everybody, can we formally excuse the witnesses. Of course they are welcome to stay. Or would you like to pose questions to them while we wait for the government members? What is the pleasure of the committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I think we can ask the witnesses to leave. We want to assure them of our friendship and will to work for the refugees and tell them that today's discussions are not representative of the usual meetings this Immigration Committee holds.

[English]

The Chair: So do we have consensus to excuse the witnesses? Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: I have a point of order. Given the fact that so much time has gone by without an adequate debate on the topic, it would have been very beneficial, in my estimation at least, if the witnesses here could have been questioned further. Now it looks as though even half of the opposition side has left.

But I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, I haven't really seen a whole lot of change in the immigration committee and its happenings, given the fact that I sat on that committee for two years four years ago. It was still a struggle of putting matters before the chair and before the committee for a vote. It wasn't unusual to see the entire Liberal caucus stand up and walk right out of the room. It's unfortunate, but it shows you the ineffectiveness, really, of the committee when you're dealing with topics of substantial importance. It just doesn't seem that the committee system is designed to deal with motions like that. It's unfortunate, but it's true.

The Chair: Your observations are well taken. I think it must also be pointed out for completeness that from time to time members of the opposition—and I will not say which members of the opposition—have also left the committee to perhaps... I cannot impute motives, but in any event, it resulted in the loss of quorum. But that happens; it's part of the parliamentary expertise. I'm not saying this in regard to any particular thing, and I'm not saying it was done deliberately.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you really hope we will have a quorum within a reasonable time frame?

[English]

The Chair: Would you like to question the witnesses on the issue of the motion?

• 1650

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, the witnesses may leave. We don't want to waste our time. Do you really hope that the Liberals will come back to their seats and that we'll soon have a quorum, Mr. Chairman? Should we simply adjourn the meeting? Do you really hope that the Liberals, whatever resembles them most, will show up so that we can carry on with our work? Otherwise, we can adjourn and not waste our time any further, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: I can only be optimistic. Mr. Benoit would like to make a comment.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Yes, I actually would like just to take a few minutes to ask some questions of the witnesses. They've come and they've been patient. It's really unfortunate that we don't have a committee that's really functional. That's extremely unfortunate. But I still would like to put some questions to the witnesses.

The Chair: Then Mr. Benoit has the floor.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

In the media, I think it was last week, we had a departmental official say that the department would eliminate the head tax for refugees, or at least for the refugees from Kosovo. I would just like you to comment about what you heard on that, whether someone from the department talked to you about that. What kind of progress has been made on that promise that was made by a departmental official to the media?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Mr. Chairman, in fact nobody from the department has discussed this matter with the IRB. In fact, it would not be something they would discuss with the IRB. As you know, we are in a quasi-judicial tribunal, and this is a matter of policy for the government. So we would not, in the normal course of events, be consulted on this.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: You haven't, then, had anyone discuss this with you in an informal way?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: No.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Are you aware that a member of the department did make the pledge to the media that they would remove the head tax for the refugees from Kosovo?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I'm not aware of that, Mr. Member.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: If that happens, if that pledge is followed through, wouldn't it be rather difficult for the department to then decide that they would leave the head tax on for other refugees and only remove it for the refugees from Kosovo? It seems that this kind of inequity, unequal treatment, would be a very hard position to justify.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Really, I don't have any comment on this. I think it's something you should perhaps put to the department.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: I do understand that it's the responsibility of the minister and of the department. Our reason for bringing this motion to the committee was to force that to happen. What more can I say? With what's happened here today at this committee, I really do question whether it's any use letting this go on.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to everyone from the IRB for appearing in front of the committee. It's been a long time, actually, since I sat on the immigration committee too, and I can recall, of course, many exchanges in the past. Obviously things were a little bit different, not so much on the committee setting but within the IRB itself.

I wanted to ask a couple of questions in reference to the hearing process. I know it has maybe changed from 1994-95, and now it's supposedly a little more efficient. But there's a recurring problem that I hear about often, and that is in regard to information that the immigration department and enforcement officers often have. When a decision is to be made on a particular case, often that information does not appear to be before the tribunal for decision. I'm curious about why that might be the case.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: It's very difficult for me to comment generally, because you don't have a specific case here. But I can say to you that it is always open for the department to present any information and evidence that it wishes to before the IRB in the determination of the claim. That's really a decision of the department. Now, from time to time the board can also, if it's a case that may involve exclusion, ask the minister to intervene in specific situations.

• 1655

Mr. Art Hanger: Do you mean to say that basically it's the hearing officer who makes the decision as to what information comes before him or her—or not so much the hearing officer, but the IRB member? I thought it would be a matter of course to hear all and request and seek all information pertaining to a particular case going before a tribunal.

Mr. Philip Palmer (Senior General Counsel and Director, Legal Services, Immigration and Refugee Board): Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could address that question.

Mr. Hanger, you're perfectly right that the IRB seeks to have before it all relevant and credible information with respect to any claim or other immigration matter that is referred to it. Information systems aren't perfect, and we don't always have before us the records created by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I can, however, report that in the last year, over the last several years in fact, the IRB has made considerable efforts to improve the flow of information from Citizenship and Immigration to us, and as recently as about two months ago we concluded a subagreement under an administrative framework agreement that we have with the department whereby the department will, as resources become available, systematically send to us copies of records that are in their possession that are relevant to specific claims.

We're trying to improve and make more systematic that information gathering, so that our hearings are as rich as possible. It's not working perfectly, but it's now working better than it was. And from our end, we are systematically trying to obtain that information.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. I know the matter was addressed at one point in time by the Auditor General too, probably in 1997. It was a matter of rule, if you want to put it that way, that the claims for ineligibility were being heard without information being obtained from various sources, and that includes the RCMP. And often when that information did come—and I still have some cases on my desk—the case had already been heard. And some of the information was quite pertinent to the case.

I guess my next question would be, given that fact, if the information was a clear violation of policy and rule, what would the board do about it if the decision had already been made? It could have been a matter of safety, or it could have been an outright lie or false information.

Mr. Philip Palmer: It is. Mr. Chairman, the question raised is a very serious one and one that we have long studied. We appreciate the concerns of the honourable member, as well as Canadian citizens at large. The fact is that we do operate in a system where there are pockets of information. It's sometimes not in the country at the time; that is, the information is someplace abroad and then comes in later from another police service or intelligence agency of some kind, and it comes to light only after the board has dealt with the matter.

There are a number of provisions in the law that do allow, if you like, second kicks at the can, in the sense that if the matter is still before the board, even if it has been referred and it's a serious security issue, it can be removed under provisions of the legislation from our jurisdiction.

Secondly, if our decision has been made, two things are possible. One is that if the information the claimant presented was fraudulent, then our decision can be reviewed. The minister can seek a vacation of the refugee status.

Mr. Art Hanger: Have you known any of those cases to happen?

• 1700

Mr. Philip Palmer: Yes, they have happened. They're rare, but there are a handful a year.

The third thing is that there are security checks associated with the landing procedures, so that even if the person has been found to be a refugee they may not be landed on security grounds, and then there are other procedures to remove them if the person is deemed to be a threat to the Canadian public.

So there are a number of fail-safes there. It's not perfect, but I think you can appreciate that from the board's perspective, in order to deal fairly, equitably, and expediently with what are the huge majority of refugee cases, we have to get on.

We know that the information we have at our disposal is not perfect, and that's just the reality in which we have to live. But it's not because we're not cognizant, it's not because we don't desire more information, it's that it's not usually available in a timely way.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is this board, the IRB, presently hearing the cases of the Kosovars who are being brought into the country? Is there some review mechanism?

Mr. Philip Palmer: No. We had an opportunity to explain that last week, and the situation is that there are a small number of Kosovar cases before the board. At least they seem to be Kosovar cases; we don't keep it by the provinces of the former Yugoslavia. But they're Yugoslavs who have identified themselves as seeking Albanian interpreters, and so we loosely assume that these would be Kosovars.

We have perhaps 200 cases before the board, or slightly less, and we're trying to accelerate their processing. But with reference to the 5,000 who were brought in under ministerial permits, it is not expected that we will see those before the board, because the conditions under which they are staying provide them with such assurances and such opportunities that it will have legally the same effect as having refugee status. We don't expect to see many of them before us.

The Chair: I want to piggyback one question on that.

How long before the crisis or in relation to the bombing did these 200 presumed Kosovars seize the attention of the board?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: The claims of the Kosovars, or who we believe are Kosovars, in our system were referred to us about 6 to 12 months ago.

The Chair: Before the NATO bombing.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Yes. So these have already been in our system for that amount of time. About 60% of them have been in our system for under 6 months, and another 26% between 6 and 12 months.

Mr. Philip Palmer: That was as of March 31, so it's going back to between October and the end of March, the 60%.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: In fact, if I may, Mr. Chairman, we probably have 170 or so cases in our system who could be Kosovars.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hanger, you may proceed.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'll just defer to my colleague here for one moment, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: As we all know, the refugees from Kosovar are here under ministerial permits. As you've indicated, we know these refugees are clearly genuine refugees.

If there are some who are found to either have been involved in criminal activity and have come here and indeed had found their way into the camps, for example, from Albania and weren't refugees, or if there are some who have been involved in crime here, what's the process? I know this isn't actually in your area, but what's the process? Can a ministerial permit be revoked, and if so, what type of process is involved in that?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: The refugees would be screened. If they were going to come into our system, the refugee claims would be screened by the senior immigration officer before they came to the IRB. And as we said last time, it's possible that a handful of cases from this group of 5,000 might end up at the IRB. If it was found by the IRB that they had been engaged in any acts that were contrary to the principles of the United Nations or been involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity, then they could be and would be excluded. Through our system, they would in fact be found not to be refugees.

• 1705

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Then the department would refer these particular people to the IRB.

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: They could. If they were to decide that they had enough information with respect to their criminal activity, then they could in fact declare them ineligible, so they would not even come into our system. However, if the department had some information and they believed these claims needed to be more carefully assessed, rather than putting them through the fast-track program, then they would put them through our system. It would be then for the IRB to assess the claims. So there are in fact two elements: the department could simply declare them to be ineligible and get them out of the system completely, or they could put them through the system for a thorough assessment of the claim.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: If they're already in the country, and then they're found to be involved in inappropriate activities of some kind, is there any circumstance by which they might find their way to the IRB then?

Mr. Philip Palmer: The situation you're addressing would be one in which the ministers, the department, would have the authority to revoke the ministerial permit, which is the basis for their being here. At that time they would be removable from Canada. It's possible that we would see them in our adjudication division. They may seek inquiry as to their status and confirmation that they are inadmissible to Canada due to the alleged activities in their country of origin. And that would probably be the extent of the involvement of the board—finding, yes or no, that they are eligible or not to remain in Canada. Assuming the evidence sustained that they were guilty of the kind of activity you described, then they'd be removable from Canada.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: If these refugees choose to have other family members come over and want to sponsor, then of course that process would go to...

Mr. Philip Palmer: That would go in the first instance through the department, and if they had been granted permanent resident status already, then a refusal of that sponsorship would be subject to an appeal before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: So the IRB may see appeals down the road resulting from sponsorship requests that have been denied.

Mr. Philip Palmer: Yes, it could.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Put the Kosovo refugees aside. Under normal procedure, the procedure, say, of the last year or two, what percentage of refugee claimants would be fingerprinted, photographed, that type of thing, so that there's a positive identification of these individuals in place?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Our understanding is that all refugee claimants are in fact fingerprinted, but I would have to come back to you to give you the date from which that procedure has started.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Why would they not have done that for the refugees from Kosovo? The RCMP in fact said that they are not fingerprinting the refugees from Kosovo. Why the difference in process?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: Again, I think it's a question really best put to the people who made the decision not to. But it would seem to me that one of the issues here is that they're being selected by the Red Cross and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in the refugee camps. That may be one of the reasons the procedure is different. But quite frankly, I think it's a question better put to the authorities who have made that decision.

• 1710

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Surely we wouldn't trust the security of Canada to officials from the UN or the Red Cross. It's fine that the selection is taking place. I think that's reasonable. That process has happened before and is accepted. Again, I recognize that a vast majority of these people, of course, will come and be completely law-abiding citizens—and have been at home, no doubt.

But surely this government would see fit to at least take that precaution. I don't think it in any way infers that these people are criminals. It's just saying, in the name of reasonable security of our country, why aren't we taking fingerprints and photographs, so if there is a problem down the road, at least we'll have identified who's come in?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: I really don't have a comment on that. It's a policy decision again, and it needs to be addressed to the authorities that made that decision. Our job is to make sure that once the claim gets to the IRB, we do a thorough job of making an assessment of the claim.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: I understand that and I don't mean to ask questions; I just don't seem to get answers other places. I don't want to put you in an awkward situation, but being responsible for refugees coming to this country, even though you're not responsible for these particular refugees, I can't imagine that you could sit there and not pass some kind of judgment in your own mind on this process. I can't imagine that you wouldn't be concerned about this process, sitting there as someone who isn't involved and watching it take place.

The Chair: Can I just make one clarification? We have been using the word “refugee”, and I would like to be a purist at this time for greater clarity, in the absence of purity in the use of the terminology.

In fact, the difference may explain the apparent difference in approach that has been taken—I do not know; I did not make the decision. So I would like to seek a clarification from the board. In the true definition of refugee, under the laws of Canada, is one a refugee when one files a claim for refugee status?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: One is a refugee claimant at that point. You're absolutely right, there are different regulations and requirements for a refugee claimant than for somebody who is found to be a refugee and is then called a refugee. I think there is confusion between the two.

The Chair: So the 5,000 people from Kosovo who came here, although they were seeking refuge in the generic sense from a very disastrous situation, are not really refugee claimants in the strict sense of the law. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: I have just the one question—maybe one and a half questions. What is the average length of time now that a board member will serve?

Ms. Nurjehan Mawani: It varies. It's between two and five years. The terms vary between two and five years, but of course members can be reappointed, so there are some renewals. The renewals vary from between three and five years.

Mr. Art Hanger: So it's a longer period of time.

That's my only question. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you. If there are no other questions, I thank you on behalf of the committee. I'm sure you understood the portion of parliamentary debate that took place earlier. Thank you.

The committee is adjourned to the call of the chair.