CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 10, 1999

• 0913

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): Seeing a quorum, I call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to order.

The chair would like to make a statement following the meeting of the subcommittee on agenda yesterday. In a nutshell, we had no consensus, so in a sense we have no report. However, the group has agreed that I make a statement. That was the consensus.

The statement I shall make is that before the committee is a motion that was introduced at the last meeting of the mother committee on June 2—the motion on the issue I think you have in front of you by way of notice from the clerk. Second, we also have a notice of motion, in a sense active right away upon receipt because of the standing order, to study the motion.

Mr. Ménard also had a motion of the agenda subcommittee, received by the clerk. I suppose, although it was signed only by one, it is not active, but it is movable today.

So you have those three points.

Yes, Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Do we have a copy of Mr. Ménard's motion? I don't.

The Clerk of the Committee: It's on the agenda.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Where? You have a separate copy. We don't have the actual motion. I have Mr. McNally's motion but I don't have Mr. Ménard's.

• 0915

The Chair: By way of procedure, before we even begin to debate this motion, I will just indicate to you that the last meeting was suspended to deal with the motion because the quorum was lost. About four minutes later we resumed the meeting to hear the witnesses before the committee—the IRB. That's where we were the last time.

So what is the pleasure of the committee on how we dispose with this? We have two motions, both from Mr. McNally.

Can you read the first one, Madam Clerk?

The Clerk: We are resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Grant McNally that:

the Committee 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.

The Chair: Then there is the second motion.

The Clerk: The second one Mr. McNally has called under Standing Order 106(3) is that:

the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration shall be convened within ten sitting days for the purpose of examining the government's $975 right of landing fee that is currently applied to refugees when they apply for permanent resident status.

The Chair: And there is the notice of motion from Mr. Ménard.

The Clerk: It is proposed by Mr. Ménard that;

the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration study the impact on those affected of all the fees required for landing, applications for permanent residence and so on. The Committee shall study the impact of these costs having regard to: (1) the ability of newcomers to integrate with the society of the host country; (2) related migratory movements; and (3) budgetary consequences for the government.

The Chair: So we have three items—two motions and one proposal. What is the pleasure of the committee in terms of how we proceed?

Mr. Mahoney, on procedures.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think what Mr. Ménard has proposed is a reasonable way to go. It does not make a judgment prior to having the opportunity to gather the data and the information. I think Mr. McNally's motion calls for the committee to make that judgment without having all the pertinent data before us. So it seems to me that it's quite a reasonable thing to require. I'm assuming it would be done when the House returns in the fall and would be perhaps the first order of business. It might be a new committee.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): It's my understanding we have a motion on the floor that was introduced in the last committee meeting. That takes order of precedence. This is an irrelevant discussion as to how we should proceed. We have a motion on the floor for debate. We should then vote and move on to other issues.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Call the question, Mr. Chairman, on motion one.

The Chair: Which one is motion one?

The Clerk: It is the one that was on the agenda at the last committee meeting.

The Chair: Before I put that to a vote, is there any further debate on this motion?

Mr. Grant McNally: Yes.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Call the question and we'll see.

The Chair: Do you want the question or debate?

Mr. Grant McNally: Debate.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I explained the reason I brought this motion forward earlier, and I'll explain it again. This is a perfect opportunity for us to take some action as a committee to right something that many people have said is something that should be righted.

• 0920

In fact the term “head tax” has been used. I know the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration doesn't like that phrase. This is a fee that was introduced by the government in 1995 as a way to bring down the deficit. That's how it was explained by the finance minister. He said in 1995:

In this budget, we're bringing government's size and its structure into line with what we can afford

...

As a second example, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship has made clear our commitment to a fair, affordable—and well-enforced—immigration policy. ... A form of financial guarantee will be developed to ensure that sponsors of immigrants meet their sponsorship obligations.

In addition...a $975 fee will be charged to all adults immigrating to Canada to offset the costs of immigrant services.

That was from February 27, 1995. That was the reason this head tax was brought in.

Now, it's obvious that the government has balanced the budget, and we applaud them for that. Of course we think our prodding has helped them along the way in that. So why does this head tax remain in place?

There are certainly people on this committee who have spoken out on the issue. There have been questions asked in the House of Commons. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said she's considering it. Let's go one step further. Let's take some action as a committee. We can talk and talk and study and study and do this, that and the other thing, but here we have an opportunity to do something positive—to remove the tax on perhaps the poorest people coming to our country, genuine refugees who are coming to seek the protection of our country.

Other people have said other things about the head tax, and I'd like to just read some of those things into the record.

The Minister of Revenue, Herb Dhaliwal, is also an opponent of the right of landing fee. He was asked recently about it and said, “My views are well known on that subject, from before I was in cabinet, and my views don't change”. He was certainly stating that he was against the right of landing fee, this head tax.

Our former parliamentary secretary, Maria Minna, said:

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.

Why do we have this tax in place? We can get rid of it here today. We can make a positive change here today. We can do something together as a committee to get rid of this tax on refugees.

Others have said similar things. I see Mr. Lee is here today as well from the Liberal side. He was quoted in the May 14, 1999 Globe and Mail. I'll just summarize what he said. He might have the direct quote himself. Basically the gist of the article was that the government should re-examine the landing fee. He mentioned it can be a substantial amount of money for a refugee or an immigrant who may be just trying to get on his or her feet. He said the government should consider cutting the fee, possibly eliminating it in time. Others have said similar things.

A Toronto immigration lawyer, Mr. Ben Trister, said, “If you're a refugee and without means, how are you going to pay for it? It's expensive and it doesn't really make sense.”

I have a couple of other things I want to say, Mr. Chair, from other sources. I want this to be a reasoned debate with strong arguments as to why we should go ahead and pass this motion. That's why I'm stating these into the record. I believe this is a reasoned argument for why we should remove this head tax.

Questions have been raised about the amount of money the government would lose in revenues. I asked the minister about two weeks ago in committee how much money that would be. To quote from the committee record, I asked her, “Do you have figures as to how many [refugees] would apply and how many get it?” She said, “Yes, we will give you these answers. The average revenue of these landing fees for refugees is around $15 million a year.”

In terms of the overall budget of this government, $15 million is not a huge amount of money. Surely we can look at removing that.

• 0925

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has said on the head tax, the right of landing fee, “For our part, we believe at a minimum that, loan or no loan, a landing fee for refugees is not a good idea.” This is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In fact, they've also said in the report:

Ever since the Right of Landing Fee was put in place...the Commission has expressed concern about requiring refugees to pay it. ... Refugees often arrive with minimal resources, given the situations they are fleeing. The Right of Landing Fee makes it more difficult for them to apply for permanent resident status, and without this status, it is often difficult if not impossible for them to be reunited with family members who remain behind.

Even the Liberal Party of Canada—and I brought this up when the minister was here—in a resolution adopted at its October 1996 convention called on the federal government, and I quote: “to re-examine the entry fee of $975 with a view to its reduction or abolishment”. This is the Liberal Party of Canada saying the very same thing.

The Canadian Council for Refugees president, Francisco Rico-Martinez, on the right of landing fee, on the head tax, said:

It is unconscionable that Canada should be charging refugees. We think of ourselves as a generous country, but we are busy taking money out of the empty pockets of some of the most vulnerable members of society. The impact of the fees on refugees' lives is very real: they may have to wait longer to be reunited with their spouses and children; in some cases they may be forced to turn to loan sharks...

Also, Andrew Brouwer, who's a program manager at the Maytree Foundation and who I believe was here not long ago before the committee, said:

Today, a refugee family of four (a couple with two children) must pay $3,150 in fees alone to gain permanent residence here. For refugees who arrive in Canada with little more than clothes on their back, this cost represents a very significant obstacle, and may result in refugees delaying landing for however long it takes to raise the required money.

And on the loan program he said:

A loan program established by the federal government to assist refugees who cannot afford the fees is fraught with problems. The most serious is the requirement that borrowers prove their ability to repay the loan—an onerous expectation for a single mother with a child, for example, who comes to Canada with little or no cash and no Canadian job history.

So we can see that there is a number independent sources, apart from members of the opposition or just members of the government, other credible people out there in this debate who have said, let's get rid of the right of landing fee, let's get rid of the head tax. Let's do that today. We can do that as a committee today. Why don't we just do that?

The Chair: Mr. Obhrai, I hope you will not repeat the points, but you may debate.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I won't repeat the points. My colleague here has said it very well.

But what I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that the urgency on the motion that my colleague has made is there. Refugees are coming into the country all the time. If you're going to on to the study that my colleague Mr. Ménard brought in here, I can see this being delayed for over a year. In the process the refugees are in this country.

Of course the issue came to the forefront because of Kosovo; nevertheless there are constant streams of refugees coming and we need to address this issue now. Why do we have to delay following Mr. Ménard's motion while Mr. Ménard's motion can very well take the other fees into account in addressing this right now, as my colleague has said? I mentioned yesterday, and I'm mentioning it today for the record, that I had a private member's bill that originated in 1997 asking for the abolition of the right of landing fee for refugees. That private member's bill is still there.

So our point of view is that this is calling for action now. I can understand Mr. Ménard's point of view, but I think the urgency for action is now.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I must say it's almost like a conversion on the road to Damascus. This is certainly not the Reform Party that I have grown to know and understand, sitting across from them and listening to them in the House. As a matter of fact, it's quite opposite. The Reform Party I know has continuously tried to make the link between refugees and immigrants and criminality, and all one has to do is look at the record of their numerous interjections over time.

I really take exception to the fact they would use the term “head tax”. To me, to use the term “head tax” to deal with the right of landing fees is to call a common assault a holocaust. And I think members of the Reform Party, particularly based in the west, should very well recognize that the head tax referred specifically to Chinese Canadians coming to this country. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that is a very sad part of this country's history—

Mr. Grant McNally: We've heard this before.

• 0930

The Chair: No interruptions, please. Go ahead.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. McNally, I don't interrupt you when you talk, so I would expect some courtesy. I know it's hard to find in the Reform Party, but I would really expect to have some of it.

But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the Chinese people in this country suffered terribly, and for the Reform Party to try to exploit it the way they are trying to do it here today is, I think, totally despicable.

Let me further say that I have never seen in any of literature of the Reform Party talk about getting rid of the right of landing fee. I haven't seen that. As a matter of fact, what I have seen from the Reform Party is that there are too many immigrants coming to this country, there are too many refugees coming to this country, and we haven't got enough checks on the people coming into this country.

Mr. Chairman, in this debate the head tax has been called racist and I suggest to you that when somebody says it's a racist head tax, they are being racist calling it that. In this debate it has been called a right of landing fee, revenue enhancement. Let me point out very clearly that with the Kosovars, whom the focus seems to be on, this government so far has put forward $100 million that we're going to be spending on the 5,000 Kosovars. So to call it revenue enhancement, where we spend $20,000 to somehow, down the road, realize $1,000, is totally ludicrous.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at the budget for the department, we have user fees. And if you look at the budget of the department, we still spend a half a billion dollars in the department. I think for a party that believes itself to be at all fiscally responsible, they very much would want to look at the context of what they're proposing within the whole fiscal framework.

We as a government have said that we'll be reviewing the whole issue come next fall, and that is exactly what we're going to be reviewing. We will be reviewing the right of landing fee not just for people who are refugees but we'll be reviewing them for the immigrants as well.

Mr. Chairman, my family came to this country with virtually not two cents to rub together, and we came as refugees. I can tell you we did not expect that at the end of the day we would not be able to build a good life in this country. And somehow to suggest, as the Reform Party has done, that the right of landing fee is any kind of head tax, Mr. Chairman, is just the height of irresponsibility, it's the height of political exploitation, and I think it ignores a very sad part of this country's history.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

First of all, I want to take perhaps a little different approach. I happen to think Mr. McNally is one of the more moderate, positive members, at least in his role in this committee. I think I understand his arguments, and I think he's put them forward clearly and succinctly. He has definitely quoted some individual members of our party who are in favour of eliminating the right of landing fee. In fact, members of this party all know that at our policy conventions this often is a discussion. You can appreciate the fact that immigrants to this country traditionally have aligned themselves with the Liberal Party in many instances. I know that's a generalization, but I think it's been true. Therefore our debates in policy and our debates at our riding levels....

I have a riding that's in Mississauga. You can appreciate that it's where Pearson is, and we get a lot of immigrants in our community and they make up a pretty large percentage of my constituency. So I don't quite share the angst about the issue being put forward; I'm more interested, I think, in the process here and the terminology. I do reject the words “head tax”, but frankly, if I were in opposition, that's what I'd call it. It's not what it is; it's a right of landing fee.

• 0935

There is one thing that does disturb me, though. The Kosovo refugees must be somewhat upset at the moment. They've arrived in this country, and they've been given shelter and food. They even had a basketball game with the Prime Minister.

An hon. member: Not all of them.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, not all of them. He might have lost if he had played all of them.

They've been treated extremely well. I've heard comments from them that they're truly amazed at how warm the reception has been. I think there are even some who are now considering becoming landed immigrants.

They must be a little bit nervous when they see the Toronto Star editorial that says to ban the tax on refugees. When you have 5,000 of them and you multiply that by the $975, that's a lot of money. That's almost $5 million. So they must be scrambling around saying, where are we going to find $5 million? While these Canadians are being so wonderful to us, they're about to bring the hammer down and slam us with a bill for $5 million.

Now, we know that doesn't happen. We know that's not true. We know there is not one dollar, not one loonie, not one red cent charged to a refugee who arrives on our shores.

An hon. member: Exactly, and this is where the confusion arises.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's absolutely where the confusion arises.

In this committee we've gone through the process of how you become a refugee.

Don't worry, if we don't have enough, we'll just keep talking. Don't worry about us.

But I think it's important that if we want to deal with this in the spirit of perhaps a little less partisanship, in a spirit to get at the issue, let's deal with the facts as they are. There is a right of landing fee. That right of landing fee is due and payable if and only if, when and only when, an approval for landed immigrant status has been granted. It is not due and payable when you arrive as a refugee.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): And that's what is misunderstood.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It is not due and payable when you apply for landed immigrant status. It is due and payable only when the paper is stamped and you are now a landed immigrant in the country of Canada. That will then allow you to proceed to the next step in the order of immigration and citizenship, which is to indeed apply for Canadian citizenship.

This myth that there is some kind of tax has been absorbed by the media and is being portrayed and perceived by members of the opposition. I find it interesting, actually, that this battle is led by the Reform Party, because it was really the New Democrats who brought it up in the House of Commons, when their leader asked—

An hon. member: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I stand corrected, if that's the case.

But the one I recall was Ms. McDonough standing up in question period asking that the government waive what she called a head tax on the refugees from Kosovo. Now, she would know full well that there is no head tax on refugees from Kosovo or anywhere else, but she chose to portray it in that fashion because it led to a little more drama and a little more interest in question period. It led to and perhaps unintentionally misled—I would not call into question her integrity—some members of Parliament, some members of the media, and clearly some members of the public into thinking that this mean government was asking these poor, war-strifed people who had been torn away from their families and traumatized to pay $975 before they could declare, or when they declare, or after they declare refugee status. We just know that is not true. That's not even remotely close to the truth.

I reiterate the point: There is not one dollar, one loonie, one red cent charged to anyone from anywhere in the world who lands on our shores and declares themselves to be a refugee. No, you can't waffle on it. There is no charge for that. Nothing.

In fact, the contrary is what I've had complaints about. The contrary position is that someone arrives—and this committee has dealt with this—on our shores without identification. They get off an aircraft at Pearson or in Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, or somewhere else and they have no ID. They claim refugee status. They are asked, “How did you get on the airplane without ID?” Then what happens? We have worldwide obligations under the Geneva Convention and the United Nations, so we take them in as refugees.

• 0940

What do we do? Do we charge them? Mr. Chairman, we provide them with shelter, food, and health care. We put their kids in school, we help them with advice, and we give them work permits. We let them enter into the mainstream of society to work while the refugee board is adjudicating their position. We hear every day stories of refugees who are ordered to be removed from Canada because they have not met the criteria. Then we hear the story that they've been here for two or three years.

I remember one young student from Mr. McKay's riding, or at least from Scarborough, who was doing extremely well. He was an A student, an athlete, and a good community volunteer, an upstanding young man. The decision came down to send him back to his former country where he had no family and no connections. It was a terrible thing. That process took about three years. I don't know the result of that particular situation. That young man may have been allowed to stay or he may have had to go back and then reapply to come in as a landed immigrant.

I'm all for discussing whether or not the Government of Canada should be charging any kind of fee to people who choose to reside in this country as a landed immigrant.

I know we're not debating Mr. Ménard's motion, but I think it's fair to say that the concept is a reasonable approach.

Let me just say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that I was unable to be here last week due to some surgery. It was not a frontal lobotomy, although they might appreciate that it could be; it was a knee. I had to be back in my riding, and I had informed the whip of that. Otherwise, I would have been quite prepared to deal with this had I been able to be here.

Mr. Grant McNally: We thought you were out campaigning.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I was not, as a matter of fact. I was on a hospital gurney in some pain and not enjoying myself at all.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I hope the committee sent flowers to our colleague.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Absolutely. I give you gifts on your birthday, and I expect a little bit of recognition and recompensation.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you saying nobody sent flowers?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Nobody sent flowers, not even a card in both official languages.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, you're getting impatient, I think—

The Chair: I want us to focus—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: When I read the Toronto Star coverage of this—and I understand that quorum was broken because this seemed to come from out of nowhere—it disturbed me, and in fact I wrote a letter to the editor, which I don't know if they'll print, because it is absolutely outrageous that the media would be sucked in by this so-called head tax on refugees that is non-existent.

It would be like, Mr. Chairman, if we were to put a motion at the finance committee that the government eliminate the VAT. We don't have one. We have a GST. So you cannot ask the government to eliminate something we don't have. We do not have a head tax. We do not have a right of refugee tax. You cannot eliminate something that does not exist.

Even though the debate and the language Mr. McNally uses is somewhat different, his motion is proper. His motion refers to a right of landing fee. However, it then goes on to say “that is currently applied to refugees when they apply for permanent residence status”. It would be absolutely truthful if it said “that is currently applied to anyone who applies for permanent residence status”. Then you would take away this attempt to create the myth that we're somehow discriminating against refugees. We're not doing that.

• 0945

Mr. Grant McNally: You could amend the motion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If you would consider that a friendly amendment, I'm sure you would.

What I would consider a more appropriate amendment, in light of the fact that Mr. McNally is much more reasonable than.... I hope, actually, that you've replaced the other critic on this committee, because the tone of things around here would be dramatically improved. I would think that you would accept Mr. Ménard's motion, which will lead to a full examination to study the impact of the cost, which is something I would have thought your party was in support of, and to study the ability of newcomers to integrate within society. I suspect I see a little bit of Bloc Québécois in here, where it says “related migratory movements”. I always try to read between the lines when Mr. Ménard and his compatriots in the Bloc put motions. I suspect there may be a little Quebec bias there, but I would expect nothing else.

I don't really have a problem. I think it's a reasonable...and the budgetary consequences may not be great. You may be correct in assuming that this is a minor amount. There are people within our party who would support eliminating the right—

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Grant McNally: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd have to make the comment that you hurried me along in my comments. You interrupted me twice to bring me to conclusion, and I think I spoke for perhaps half the time that Mr. Mahoney has already spoken.

The Chair: That's not a point of order. The chair was giving a sign to Mr. Mahoney, as you may have noticed. I try to be judicious.

Mr. Mahoney, you may proceed if you want to debate this.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I'll wrap up. But I really do think it's important to stress that.... Let's deal with the facts as they are. The facts are that when anyone in Canada, whether they arrived on our shores and declared refugee status, whether they arrived on our shores having gone through a process of applying for landed immigration status from their country of origin, or whether they came here on a visitor's visa and applied for landed immigrant status.... However they arrived here, the $975 ROL is only due and payable at the point of applying for landed immigrant status. There is no fee charged to refugees. Quite the contrary, we roll out the carpet and we treat them as best and as humanely as we possibly can.

As a result of that, I think it's unfortunate that Mr. McNally would put his motion for political purposes, and it has had some resonance in that regard. It's unfortunate that he will insist on letting it stand, because I believe we must vote it down. Once we've done that, I think we should then adopt Mr. Ménard's motion to study this matter as soon as the committee reconvenes in the fall.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to offer Mr. Mahoney my best wishes for a swift recovery. Everyone can clearly appreciate that he didn't have a tongue operation. So, our best wishes to him for a speedy recovery.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the Reform party's motion and I would be inclined to vote in favour of it, but I know quite well that the government is not going to proceed to eliminate the right of landing fees. Mr. Mahoney must recognize that the right of landing fees are there and that the Canadian Commission on Human Rights expressed concerns about them. I think that the best we can do in favour of the refugees is to consider that issue, to document our views on it and to convince the minister that she must go ahead in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, you know that we will have a vote at 10:45 a.m. and that the bells are going to start ringing at 10:15. I think we should hasten to put that motion so that we can address that issue without delay. I believe that Mr. McNally is a sincere man, that he worked in good faith, and that his motion is reasonable, but I think that he has just no chance of success at this point in time, because, as it was confirmed by the minister in the House, the government has no intention of going ahead in that direction. Even though the committee is at arms' length with the minister, I believe that we can assume that motion would be defeated by government members. We would be better off working strategically and documenting our views on that issue. It's basically the reason why I introduced my motion.

Mr. Chairman, I would not like to see Mr. McNally's good faith put into question, because he is an extremely attaching man, as everybody knows.

[English]

The Chair: The question to put it to a vote was raised earlier. I did not allow it to proceed because there was interest in debate. I still have three names; however, if the committee should by consensus agree that I put it to a vote, I will put it to a vote. Is there any need for debate?

Mr. Grant McNally: I think I've indicated I would like to say one last thing. I don't know if my colleague wants to as well.

I'd appreciate just a couple of minutes at the end. I won't be long.

The Chair: Yes.

• 0950

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I won't be long either, although I appreciated the remarks of some of the members who did speak at length.

As you know, I don't often sit on this committee, but I would observe that surely what we need to consider here today is what is best for the people involved. I think everyone knows that the money surely is not the issue here. It's a minuscule amount of money in the scheme of things, given some of the other expenditures of government. I think certainly we are at liberty to make a good judgment about whether this is a fair and reasonable application. I can only imagine, if we were sitting on the government side, and some members here on the government side were sitting where we're sitting—

An hon. member: Hopefully next election.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: —what the remarks and allegations would be. In fact, my imagination would probably underestimate the heat of the arguments that you folks would be making if the positions were reversed. I don't think we have made heated remarks, but we've tried to bring reason to this debate. It's a matter, I think, of perception, of comfort, for people who have enough anxiety in their circumstances, and I think it would be appropriate for us to make this recommendation.

It doesn't change anything. Government would still have to consider the recommendation. But surely as people here in the House who are considering the best interests of Canadians and future Canadians in this position, we have a duty and obligation to make a recommendation in their best interests. I think it's clear that it is in the best interest that this right of landing fee not go ahead. It was a deficit-fighting matter. The deficit does not need to be fought any more, fortunately, and we're all pleased about that. I think we should release these vulnerable people from the obligation that was temporarily placed on them.

So I do urge you to support this motion, make the recommendation, and hope that government will see things the way we do as a committee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I spoke yesterday to the Subcommittee on agenda and procedure, Mr. Chairman. I told them two things, the first one being about the wording of Mr. McNally's motion, namely where it says that this committee has “considered the question of the right of landing fee” and that it “recommends that the government...”. I told the subcommittee that we didn't actually had an opportunity to consider that question and, therefore, that the very wording of the motion disturbed me.

As for the content of the motion, I told yesterday the Subcommittee on agenda and procedure, and I want to repeat it today, that it seems to me that Mr. Ménard's motion goes further, since it concerns not just a particular class of people who are required to pay the right of landing fee, but anyone who is expected to pay that tax.

I think that if we are to study the issue of the right of landing fee, we should, as a committee, study it as it applies to all classes of people who are likely to be required to pay that tax. So, Mr. Ménard's motion, which refers to the capacity to integrate migratory movements—and I have some idea of what he means by that—and to the fiscal impact of that measure, is much more comprehensive.

I wanted to speak on that this morning. I will certainly vote against Mr. McNally's motion, and he knows it, but it's not because I am against the idea of addressing that issue nor that I am against the elimination of the right of landing fee. On the contrary, I am in favour of its abolition, but I would prefer that we make a decision on that matter only after having carefully studied that whole issue, considering not only a small category of people, but all those who are affected by that tax. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the debate. I particularly appreciate the reasoned debate offered by Mr. Mahoney, who is no longer in the room. I'll give him a compliment, though he can't hear it.

An hon. member: He's back. Keep quiet now.

• 0955

Mr. Grant McNally: Let the record show, Mr. Mahoney—seeing as we're throwing bouquets around—that while I don't agree with much of your debate, I appreciate the fashion in which you put it forward. You tend to take a reasoned attempt at rebutting points, and I appreciate that.

I've been at this committee for two years now, as have other members, and we have other new members here. What I don't appreciate is the rhetorical level of debate initiated by the parliamentary secretary. I want to state that on the record. This member, the parliamentary secretary, the minister's representative here in committee, is uttering forth words such as “this is some kind of crass political motion to bring forward” and “some kind of despicable motion trying to exploit people”. I will not accept that from him any more in this committee.

I'm a patient man but I have a breaking point, and he's pushed that button. I'm not going to sit here and take it from him any more. This is a member who uttered this phrase. This is a member who said, to bring this motion forward perhaps, that if you say this is a racist motion you're a racist yourself. In fact, he has called the Canadian Council for Refugees racist, because they're the ones who said that, not me. I haven't used that word in reference to this issue.

I've been reasoned in this debate. I have brought forth arguments. Your colleagues seem to be able to rebut those points in a rational way, but you raise the level of rhetorical battle to new levels. If that's what you represent and what you want, you can get some of that back.

This is a motion brought forward with good intentions and for a good reason. If you want to justify it and give a rationale as to why you're voting against it, that's fine; that's your position. The government can go ahead and do that. We've given our position on that. I don't appreciate that and I hope it ends today here and now.

We've been on the record since 1995 for removing this head tax, and our policy has been a positive one since day one. To misrepresent another party's position is the lowest form of debate. That's bullying and name-calling, and it's unacceptable.

The Chair: Okay. I allowed you to say your sentiments. To have a fair hearing, I would just caution members to please focus on the debate and avoid imputation of motive. It is not within our parliamentary tradition.

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for being late and having missed some of the discussion. After listening to the debate, I thought I had to make at least a couple of comments.

Mr. Mahoney made reference to the use of the terminology “head tax” being wrong and said that the proper terminology was “right of landing fee”. I'll concede that is the terminology currently being used, but a rose by any other name is still a rose. I guess we're saying this imposition upon people coming to this country is a very serious one.

Mr. Mahoney also made the point that it's not charged on refugees, but it's charged when people apply for landed immigrant status. He's quite right, but those are the same people. They may start out as refugees, but they're still the same individuals. In most cases not a lot changes between the point when they are refugees and the point when they apply for landed immigrant status, in terms of their actual financial ability to pay this amount of money. So I think that has to be clearly stated.

We can play with the terminology and the technicalities of it, but the reality of the situation is that this is an imposition upon these people, and that's why we would certainly support the abolition of this particular...

[Translation]

In French, it has been referred to as being a tax.

[English]

So again we have a different word coming in there. I would say we certainly oppose the imposition of this right of landing fee.

The Chair: Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I would like to add a few words to this debate, Mr. Chairman. I do a lot of listening on this committee, and I sometimes choose not to repeat sentiments expressed. But as we've come to the end of the session, I want to assure Mr. McNally that we've had good working relationships and we'd like to continue to do so.

I understand the intent of this motion and have also, at various times, expressed my dissatisfaction or non-support of this $975 landing fee. In the motion he has put forward, he says we have considered the question of the landing fee and we should immediately eliminate it. But the wording of that motion creates some difficulty for me, and on that basis I will vote against it. I tend to support, although it's not under discussion right now, the other motion that's before us.

• 1000

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, very briefly, please.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Let me first of all say that when the head tax was applied over 100 years ago, the fee was $500. That was a head tax. I think it's important that I put this in context. I am sensitive to the issue because I have experienced discrimination, I have seen people around me experience discrimination, and it came from very reasoned people. If you were to translate the $500 head tax of 100 years ago into today's dollars, you would be talking about $100,000 to $200,000 dollars.

Anybody can say what they want to say, but the fact of the matter is we had a situation in the House where one of the opposition members stood up and referred to the head tax as racist. That was an attack on the generosity of the Canadian people, this government, and the kind of society we have developed. That is on the record in the minutes in the House. I can oppose that, and that is exactly what I have done. If Mr. McNally has trouble with that, it's his problem.

The Chair: Ms. Leung and then Mr. McKay. I think then we should conclude.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say a couple of words.

In the last session I took part in quite an extensive debate on the so-called head tax and the landing fee. I'm sure by now all of us know we mustn't use the wrong term to apply to what we have today, so we must just use landing fee, not head tax. I do not wish to hear any leader or honourable member from any party mention that. If we have any problem, we should clarify that.

I think this is a very fine working committee. I like to see us working well. I welcome rational debate, and in the meantime let's go back to our purpose. We're trying to solve some of the questions and concerns here. We should finish what we set out to do. Mr. McNally's motion is not really applicable to our policy. I think we should reconsider that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I will not be supporting Mr. McNally's motion, not because I don't think he raises a significant issue. I think he does raise a significant issue, but I'm much more attracted to Mr. Ménard's motion than to Mr. McNally's motion. So for the purposes of the record, I want to state that and call for the vote.

The Chair: We'll just wait for Mr. McNally for medical reasons, if I may say so.

Seeing no further debate, I shall put the motion to a vote.

Mr. Grant McNally: Can we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

Mr. John McKay: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe Mr. Brison can vote, if the vote had already started. He may register for the committee, but I think it's out of order for him to vote.

Mr. Grant McNally: On a point of order, I think two members of the Liberal Party left the table when the vote was called last week.

Mr. John McKay: We're talking about being in the middle of a vote.

• 1005

The Chair: The vote has already started. The parliamentary procedures say that you may not be...so please count the votes.

Mr. Grant McNally: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd like to see from the standing orders where that is a relevant issue.

The Chair: The votes shall be counted and the point of order shall be raised thereafter.

The Clerk: Okay, from those who were present I have six nays, five yeas, and Mr. Grose came in after the vote.

The Chair: The vote is closed. What is the point of order?

Mr. Réal Ménard: What is the result of the vote?

The Chair: There are six opposed and five in favour.

Mr. Grant McNally: Well, Mr. Chair, we had another member here at the committee with his form, who handed the form in and voted, and you disallowed that vote. I'd like some explanation for that.

The Chair: No, Mr. Grose has been disallowed to vote—

Mr. Grant McNally: He was here in the room, he gave his paper, Mr. Chair. He's here, he was a signed-in member of the committee; of course he's able to vote.

He was entering the room as the words “call for the vote” were being mentioned, and he came in with his form, gave his form. The opposition side hadn't given their response as yet, and that doesn't make sense.

The Chair: He didn't know what we were voting on.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, it wouldn't be the first time a member voted without knowing what the issue was. We also have a member who arrived at the same time, who was accredited as a member and has a right to vote. So I would seek unanimous consent to count both Mr. Brison's vote and Mr. Grose's vote. I would ask unanimous consent to that.

The Chair: The committee is master of itself. I have ruled out of order, but the committee, on unanimous consent, can agree to allow—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I am asking for unanimous consent.

The Chair: Do I see unanimous consent? Yes, unanimous consent has been granted. Both votes shall be counted. Can you indicate what vote he is taking?

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): In favour.

The Clerk: And Mr. Grose?

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Opposed.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 6)

The Chair: We have no more motions.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: And what about my motion, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

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

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I think that you will have unanimous consent so that we can herewith call the vote on my motion. Given the fact that my motion was indirectly debated extensively and that time goes fast, I propose that you put it immediately.

[English]

The Chair: So you move your motion formally?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Oui.

The Chair: The motion has been moved formally by Mr. Ménard, as indicated earlier, and we have had ample debate on the same subject matter. I have unanimous consent to proceed to a vote.

Are all agreed for the motion? It is unanimous.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could we have a recorded vote?

(Motion agreed to: yeas, 13)

The Chair: The motion has carried unanimously.

Do you want to formally move your motion then...?

Mr. Grant McNally: No, we can't do that; it'll have to be in the fall.

• 1010

The Clerk: But then a meeting has to be convened within 10 days. Maybe you could withdraw it now.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's sitting days. But if we're not sitting, we don't have to be—

The Clerk: Yes, but the letter that I received was on June 2. Therefore, 10 sitting days would be comprised within this period.

Mr. Grant McNally: It wouldn't be until next Tuesday, though, I believe.

The Clerk: No.

Mr. Grant McNally: Let's count the days. I think I worked it out to be next Tuesday.

The Clerk: I have it right here.

An hon. member: What are you talking about?

The Chairman: His written notice of—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we do not understand very well what it is all about.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: I'll let it stand, and if we end up sitting next week until Tuesday, then I'll consider withdrawing it. Okay?

The Clerk: Okay.

Mr. Grant McNally: I don't want to come back just for that meeting. I think that will—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You should.

The Clerk: But then a meeting will have to be called; that's standing orders.

Mr. Grant McNally: It'll be in the fall, if it comes, I believe.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's just another motion.

The Chair: But this is a request under another section, Standing Order 106, but on the same subject matter.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are you withdrawing that?

The Clerk: But if the House is not sitting, then what happens?

Mr. Grant McNally: Well, if the House isn't sitting it goes to the next sitting, and then we pick up the counting from the next sitting day of the House, so it wouldn't be until the fall. All indications are that we're going to wrap up—

Ms. Jean Augustine: By then you would—

The Chair: We have no other agenda.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I would like to have explained to me how, when the House reconvenes, we are still being....

[Translation]

How come do we have to count the number of days even though Mr. McNally's motion has already been defeated? Could you explain me why we have to start the countdown again? It seems to me that, since Mr. McNally's motion was defeated, anything that is tied to it is ipso facto defeated too. Could you explain that to me, please?

[English]

The Chair: Well, the chair is in a predicament, and let me tell you why. Under Standing Order 106(3), the chair is obliged to convene a meeting within 10 sitting days following receipt of a notice of motion invoking this particular order.

Secondly, I have placed this matter on the agenda of the committee; in fact it was also on the agenda of the subcommittee. Somehow we have to dispose of this. We have just approved a motion that definitely relates to the very issue itself. So I would like to have the assistance of the committee—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the second part of the comments you just made. In fact, the letter which was signed by Mr. McNally said, in its French version: “afin d'examiner les droits d'établissement de 975 $ actuellement exigés des réfugiés”.

The motion that we just adopted and which Mr. Ménard had accepted refers not to the right of landing fees that are required from refugees, but to those that are required from any immigrant to Canada. It's not exactly the same thing. It is not Mr. McNally's motion, but Mr. Ménard's. It's not the same motion.

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. McNally's letter as well as his request concerning the 10 sitting days do not apply to Mr. Ménard's motion which was just adopted by this committee.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. You have a point of order, Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I think most of this debate is irrelevant. I think the standing orders are very clear that when four members bring forward an issue, under Standing Order 106(3) a meeting must be convened within 10 sitting days of the House. Now, it's my understanding that we're going to be out of here before those 10 sitting days kick in, so that we would just continue counting the sitting days when we come back in the fall. Then we must have a meeting to discuss this issue.

I've been asked to withdraw the motion. I'm not willing to do that at this point, but will reconsider that at a later time. But I don't think it's anything this committee can debate at this point, because the standing orders clearly indicate that a meeting must be held to discuss this issue.

Madam Folco makes the point that the two motions were related, not exactly the same. The motion that was just defeated by the government stated that the committee reports 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.

• 1015

The Standing Order 106(3) meeting, the one I've called for, asked us to consider the right of landing fee. So that's a little broader, a little more general. It goes partway along the way with Mr. Ménard's motion but is also more focused, more specific than Mr. Ménard's motion. So we'll have to have a meeting is my understanding.

The Chair: I would like to allow one more intervention on the point of order. Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, perhaps a ruling, Mr. Chair, from our clerk. If it is in Standing Order 106(3), then it will happen. Is that fair?

The Clerk: It has to happen within 10 sitting days.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right, and so why would we need a motion to reinforce what is already in the standing order?

Mr. Grant McNally: We don't need anything.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We don't need anything.

The Clerk: You don't need anything.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Then I don't understand why you're putting the motion.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm not putting the motion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Oh, then what are we talking about?

Mr. Grant McNally: Well, the chair has raised the issue as to what we're going to do with it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Then you don't have a problem.

Mr. Grant McNally: No, I mean, it's just—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, you could have a nice summer.

Mr. Grant McNally: There we go. So that's it.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.