CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 20, 2001

• 0913

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: The election of the committee chair is the first order of business.

I'm ready to receive a motion to elect a chairman.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): I move that Mr. Joe Fontana be elected chairman of the committee.

[English]

The Clerk: Ms. Yolande Thibeault moves that Mr. Fontana be elected chairman of this committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): I have a point of order.

The Clerk: I cannot, unfortunately, entertain a point of order. Right now we are dealing with the motion, which is adopted.

I declare Mr. Joe Fontana duly elected as chairman of this committee.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Thank you, members, for your vote of confidence. I look forward to working with each and every one of you.

As a committee, I hope we'll be able to work as one in terms of looking for the best of ideas and the best possible pieces of legislation and policies that we can recommend to the government. I think most of the members here were here before.

At any rate, we'll have time to discuss all of those matters a little later. We're going to move immediately to the election of our vice-chairs.

I recognize Steve Mahoney and then Lynne.

• 0915

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I'd like to nominate my good friend John McCallum. It's a tough job, because he's following an excellent vice-chair from the last time.

The Chair: On division, but yes.

I have John McCallum nominated as a vice-chair.

Lynne.

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to nominate Inky Mark.

The Chair: Inky Mark has been nominated as the second vice-chair.

Are there any further nominations? Seeing none, we will vote on the motion to elect the two as vice-chairs.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Under routine matters, as you know, the motion to establish a subcommittee to review agenda and procedure matters is the same motion we had before. It takes into account having not only the chair, the two vice-chairs, and the parliamentary secretary but also one member from each of the parties.

May I have a motion to adopt.

Mr. Inky Mark: I so move.

The Chair: This is with regard to establishing the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Welcome, Mark, and thank you. From here on in, if you're ever late for a meeting you buy coffee or drinks afterwards.

The second item is for Library of Parliament research officers. I have a motion that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work at the discretion of the chair.

May I have a motion to adopt that one.

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Here's the parliamentary secretary.

Welcome, Mark. I want to tell you that as the parliamentary secretary, if you're ever late again you get to buy us all dinner.

I want to move to routine matters. Maybe we can deal with these right off the bat. That's the second sheet. These essentially are all the same as this committee had before.

The first one is the hearing of evidence and the publication of same when a quorum is not present. Let's face it, when we ask witnesses to come before a committee and they travel sometimes great distances, and take a lot of time and effort to give us their best experience and advice, I think it's incumbent on all of us to be here. But we all know what kind of busy schedule there is in the House of Commons. Therefore, I think as a matter of respect we should have at least three members present for the hearing of witnesses. We essentially should also make sure that one member of the opposition is in that complement.

Again, I would encourage each and every one of us to be here. I think it's important to do so. But in the event that certain things happen, we don't want to waste their time and effort spent coming to Ottawa, so we've established a minimum of three.

Can I have a motion, or is there any discussion on this particular matter?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Next is the allocation of time for questioning. This is based on, I think, a precedent and an agreement among the parties that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statements and that during the questioning of witnesses they be allocated, in terms of each party, ten minutes for the first questions and answers, and that thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner at the discretion of the chair.

I think it has worked really well. We want to make sure there's an equal opportunity for both sides to ask the questions. Again, I would hope that this committee could work as one to a certain extent. I think that's the best way. This has worked in the past.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me congratulate you on being re-elected as chair. I'm sure you and the opposition will work very closely on this committee.

On the issue of questioning, I would suggest that, because the official opposition has 50% of the membership, we do the rotation such that the Alliance does ten minutes, then the Liberal Party does ten, then the Alliance does ten, and then the Bloc does ten on the first four questioners, and then the remaining other members, alternating with the Liberals, five and five. On the second round we'd do five minutes for everyone.

• 0920

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm a little puzzled by that. Did I understand you to say that you'll get 20 minutes in the first round, and the Liberals, who are the majority, will get only 10? Is that how that would work? I don't think I'm quite in agreement with that. If anything, the reverse is probably appropriate.

I think we want to ensure that all members on all sides have a good and equal opportunity to ask questions. We do have to recognize the fact that there are more members on this side and people who will want to ask questions, so we want to have some flexibility on that. But I certainly can't agree to giving up that kind of time to one party on the opposition benches.

The Chair: Thank you, Steve.

I'm just conferring with the clerk, because this is a little different from what the practice at this committee had been last time. I think it had reflected a combination of what both Steve and Inky were talking about. Perhaps you would give me just two seconds while we try to work this out.

Correct me if I'm wrong—we don't have the historical notes here—but I think last year this is how it started. We went to ten-minute rounds, and the ten-minute rounds started with the Alliance. Then ten minutes went to the Liberals. Then we went five minutes to the other parties. This meant that each party would get into the five-minute rounds. So we'd have five, five, and five, and then we'd go back to the Liberals and Alliance and so on and so forth.

Sometimes I think we complicate things a lot. In the past I've had to juggle things around so that everybody.... As we work together, you'll find that there will be plenty of opportunity for people to ask as many questions as possible.

I think that's what we used before—ten, ten, and then we go five, five, five, and then we go back. So it's a little different...and that's why I thought this one was a little....

Can we amend it on that basis?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Say again?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I so move.

The Chair: Thanks, Judy.

She was listening, Steve.

Here's what it is—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are you going to go on for our entire term, Mr. Chairman, or do we have to revisit the chair?

The Chair: Oh, oh. Of course not.

An hon. member: Ten, ten, five, five, five.

The Chair: Yes. It would start with ten for the Alliance, ten for the Liberals, and then it would be five for the Bloc, five for the NDP, and five for the Conservatives. Then we would do it again, but in five-minute rounds.

All right, members? Is that agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you for your cooperation.

With regard to 48 hours' notice, the usual practice is that 48 hours' notice be submitted to the clerk for any substantive motion that may be presented to the committee.

Again, I think that's being respectful to each and every one of us. From time to time there will be, I'm sure, emergent motions that might come up, and we may have a motion to dispense with the rule, but I think the rule should be 48 hours' notice.

Is that okay with everybody?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Next is witness expenses. I think that's just a routine matter.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: With regard to Order in Council appointments, pursuant to Standing Order 111(4), whenever an Order in Council appointment or a certificate of nomination is referred to the committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of the resumé of each of the appointees. Then we can do whatever we want with those Order in Council appointments.

May I have a motion that the clerk be authorized to do that.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I so move.

The Chair: Thank you, Jean.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: With regard to distribution of papers, it's another routine motion.

May I have a motion to adopt this one.

Mr. Inky Mark: I so move.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Here's one that we should all like, working lunches—except no pizza, please. Time is very important to all of us, and from time to time we may have to either have lunch during working sessions or do work during lunches.

May I have a motion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I so move.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: The next motion addresses transcripts, that one transcript of all in camera meetings be produced and kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

• 0925

The Chair: With regard to committee meetings, I think last time it worked out really well—Tuesdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. and Thursdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. From time to time we may have to have other meetings, but I think this should be our routine time. It's been booked so that everybody can plan their schedules accordingly.

Can I have a motion to that effect, or is there any discussion?

Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine: You're saying two meetings a week?

The Chair: If required, yes.

Ms. Jean Augustine: So what would be the preferable day, Tuesday?

The Chair: Both Tuesday and Thursday. I think in the past we've needed at least the two days. But there will be plenty of notice if we have to cancel. I'll make sure you get notice if for some reason or other it will have to be a Tuesday or a Thursday. I think there's going to be a lot of work in the next year or two with this committee, and I think we'll need both days.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, will the time be standardized for the morning hours? Is that a past precedent?

The Clerk: We are trying to have each committee stay within the block system to allow each committee to have a priority time—that is, this is the priority, this is the committee's block of time. If the committee goes with the block system it has no danger of being bumped by another committee that sits.

Mr. Inky Mark: So we will meet at the same time on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

The Clerk: Yes.

An hon. member: Those are good times, too.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John McCallum: What happens if one is on another committee—finance, let's say—that has meetings at the same time?

The Chair: Then you have a big problem, because you have a choice to make. Now that you're vice-chair there's going to be even more pressure.

But yes, that happens from time to time when certain members have more than one committee, but I think this time around, everyone...and some don't have any.

So you'll have to find a replacement, or we will, but you have a big responsibility now, John. You'll have to choose between finance and immigration. But that shouldn't be too hard. Immigration is a much better committee to work with.

Yolande.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: If I may, I was thinking that maybe 9 o'clock in the morning is a bit tight for us after Wednesday, which is an extremely long day. Could we possibly start at 9:30 a.m. to give us a little breathing time?

The Chair: I wouldn't have a problem with that, but the moment you say 9:30 a.m. it means members won't arrive here until 10 a.m. That's why if I say 9 a.m., I think if we get started by 9:15 a.m. we'll be fine.

I guess you'll just have to party a little less on Wednesday night, Yolande. This is standardized for all committees. I think we should stick with it.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Okay.

The Chair: Any further discussion on this, Tuesdays and Thursdays, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., and other meetings if required?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: While we're on the topic of committee meetings, I wonder if I might mention a couple of things.

In my opinion, there's no doubt that the immigration bill, when it is presented to the House and we receive it as a committee, will be one of the most significant bills this Parliament will pass. Canadians really want to be very much involved in the process. I think it could be very informative and I also think we need their input. I've asked the clerk to make sure the immigration bill will be heard and televised at all of its sessions, because I think it's important. Therefore, we have to reserve room 253-D as quickly as possibly, especially before finance gets dibs on it.

I would ask for a motion that, in view of the importance of the immigration bill to be referred to the committee, all meetings in Ottawa be televised in room 253-D of Centre Block.

Mr. John McCallum: I so move.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: I second the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

There's only one other issue. It came up last time. I would hope that we could operate on this basis. From time to time there will need to be some confidential matters, and there's the issue of when does a report become public. In order to be respectful to all of our members, colleagues in the House of Commons who can't all be members of this particular committee, I think it's incumbent upon all of us that if in fact we are dealing with certain in camera matters, especially when we get into clause-by-clause or there's an awful lot of negotiations between members here and the parties...and sometimes it will be done on a confidential basis. I would hope, first and foremost, that all of our meetings would be as open to the public as possible—I think that's essential—but as you know, from time to time there are certain issues or certain sensitivities that may have to be brought in camera, especially if the witnesses in fact want it to be done in camera to protect whatever.

• 0930

I'm only saying that at no time should we make something public from here before at least members of the House of Commons have had an opportunity to receive a report. I hope we can operate on that basis and not have to go through what I think we did last time around, which embarrassed not only our committee but also in fact some of our members of the House of Commons who didn't have the opportunity to even take a look at something before they read it in the newspaper.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Certainly, Mr. Chair, speaking for this part of the new official opposition representation, we will certainly respect the will and the consensus of this committee. Certainly what you alluded to did occur, and it certainly will never happen with our bodies here, with these representatives.

The Chair: Thank you.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would just like to add a comment. I believe what Mr. Mark has said to be absolutely true. I'm sure it won't happen. But for new members particularly the Speaker actually had to sanction a member in the House upon a complaint being filed. You know, everyone wants to talk about parliamentary reform, but the way to reform Parliament is not to destroy the committee system. It's very important that we all understand that this committee reports to Parliament. We don't report to the general public. We report to Parliament, and Parliament then deals with it.

I just want to put those comments on the record. I look forward to us being a really important and vital committee as we deal with these issues and deal with them properly.

The Chair: Thank you, Steve.

Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, again, as someone who's been on this committee for a long time, I must say to you that there were times I considered the work that was happening in the last Parliament to be absolutely dysfunctional. I found that I left this room really feeling that we were not doing the work as parliamentarians.

So I like the mood in which we're starting here. I wish that everyone would commit to ensuring that we have the best possible pieces of legislation and that we work together. There will be times when we somehow or another differ for ideological and other reasons, but I think the respect we ought to have for each other and the manner in which we conduct our work should be such that we leave this room feeling that we've done the best we can for Canadians.

I'd like to see us work not in the partisan and dysfunctional fashion in which I think we worked the last session, so I'm really pleased that we're starting off on the right foot.

The Chair: Me too. I think for the most part last time worked fairly well as compared with the years before, but you're absolutely right. I can feel the new energy and the spirit of cooperation already, so thank you.

We might as well take this opportunity to go over a couple of things. First of all, with regard to orientation I know that some of the members are new to this committee, but I'm sure you're well versed on what this committee had begun to do in the last session. I would encourage each and every one of you to get your own briefings directly from the department, I think, one on one. I think those sometimes work a little bit better. If it is the wish of the committee, we will have an orientation and briefing session with the department if you think that's absolutely necessary, but I leave that up to you.

There is no doubt that this committee should be looking at a number of things already. One of them is the performance report that has been tabled, or the immigration numbers...as well as can get to the estimates. But I think it's no secret that probably on Friday the new immigration bill will be reintroduced in the House of Commons, or at least on Monday the House will receive it and after second reading it will come here.

Just before the election, of course, we had started and had advised the public on how important this bill was, and we sought their input. I want to just let you know that we had planned for more than 34 witnesses to be heard in Ottawa. So for those people who had already advised us that they had wanted to come before the committee on the last bill, it would require two weeks of hearings in Ottawa.

• 0935

As you know, the committee had agreed to travel last time. We were going to go to western Canada, central Canada, and eastern Canada to hear from Canadians from sea to sea. I think that's still the plan. I'd like to probably resurrect that plan in terms of how it would work, because we had a lot of people from, for example, Vancouver. I think we were going to visit each of the capitals, if I'm not mistaken, in every province and be as close to the people as possible.

Just tentatively, I think we're probably going to take the majority of March after the break to hear witnesses in Ottawa and then that first week in April move to western Canada for four days. There's an Easter break, as we know. Right after the Easter break we'll start hearings in eastern Canada for one week, and then in May start our clause-by-clause consideration.

That would take the better part of May, practically the first half, or all of May, which means that we can report to the House, hopefully, before we adjourn in June. I think it would be an absolutely fantastic feat to celebrate Canada Day, July 1, with a new immigration bill. That would be our timetable, hopefully, to get it done before we leave here. Tentatively speaking, I think that's what had been planned from before.

The witnesses should be told as quickly as possible when they can come and when we will be travelling so that everybody can get prepared to meet with the committee, but tentatively I think that should be the schedule.

Next week, as soon as it's introduced in the House, we're going to have second reading by all parties. I think we're probably going to receive it fairly quickly in this committee, which means that the following week, I don't know whether or not we want to invite the minister. Maybe even next week—Thursday, for example—we might invite the minister to come and talk a little bit about the bill or have the department come in and give us a full briefing on the bill and do the technical matters. Then, as you know, the following week is a break week for us and when we return we may do some technical matters.

I know Inky won't be here for that week, but I think we can do some technical matters or have some witnesses. But we can get into that once we know exactly what's happening with the bill.

I thought I'd just share that information. I don't know when you might want to talk about performance. We may talk about the performance report when the minister is here and also talk a little bit about even estimates or the immigration numbers, and the document that was made public. We could have the minister for two or three hours and maybe even invite her back for another meeting. I want to make sure that everybody has a good sense of what's happening with immigration before we get into the new immigration bill.

John.

Mr. John McCallum: Speaking as a new person, I'd like to say that I would like to have some sort of a briefing from the department. Whether it's one on one or the whole group, I don't know. You may or may not want that, because many of you have heard it before. It doesn't matter to me, but one way or another I'd like to learn as early as possible.

The Chair: Sure. If I'm not mistaken, our briefing meeting is planned by the department with all parties inside of next week.

Lynne.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: I would like to be in on that one, if it's two on one or one or one. I don't think you'll all want to go through that.

The Chair: No.

John and Lynne, are you asking for briefings on immigration in general or the immigration bill? There are two things there.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: On the bill.

Mr. John McCallum: On the bill.

The Chair: Oh, no, on the bill we'll make sure that we have the briefing.

An hon. member: We'll all want that.

The Chair: Everybody will want that. I'm just talking about the immigration department and so on and so forth and the other things that immigration does, including citizenship. The bill that we passed, as you know, got hung up and died in the Senate because of the election.

Mr. John McCallum: Actually, I wouldn't mind having a broader briefing as well.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): I would like the broader briefing as well.

The Chair: I wonder if we couldn't arrange that for those members who are interested in having a broader, less formal briefing from the department. You could go to the department and really get into some of the nuts and bolts with regard to the whole immigration department—what immigration is, what citizenship does, and so on.

Lynne.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: We've had kind of a small briefing on that, haven't we?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: But it probably is good to meet and to see these people. I would go along with that.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do you have any indication as to when the first meeting might be to deal with the legislation?

• 0940

The Chair: If I'm not mistaken, I think the introduction may happen as early as Friday, which means that we get into second reading discussions on Monday. As I understand it, we would probably have a couple of people on our side speaking to it. I'm sure all the parties would want to do that.

I would hope that because the committee last session was already going to get into it, and there was second reading discussion in the House of Commons, we can get it here and not 20 or 30 members would want to discuss it at second reading. Because if that's the case—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So we'd start Thursday?

The Chair: —we could probably start Thursday, either having the briefing by the department or having the minister here.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The reason I ask is that if we're not going to have a scheduled meeting on Tuesday—we all know the schedule now, and we have 9 to 11 Tuesday and Thursday mornings—it might make sense to have an informal briefing on Tuesday morning for whoever wants to come. It never hurts for those of us who have been on the committee for awhile to get updated or whatever. You could take Tuesday's time slot and have the department in to give an overall briefing.

The Chair: Good. Everybody agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: So we'll have an informal meeting on Tuesday at 9 o'clock for the purposes of a briefing. That briefing might be departmental as well as some of the aspects of the bill, perhaps. We'll take the full couple of hours. Is that fine?

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, because the report is already out on the immigration numbers, perhaps Thursday would be a good time for the minister to appear before the committee.

The Chair: Let's also maybe advise the minister that we may want to have her here on Thursday for the purposes of talking about the new immigration bill. Perhaps she also will be able to answer some of the questions on the reports on the numbers. We might as well get started on those two particular issues as soon as possible.

Mark, I think you could probably discuss that with the minister, too.

John.

Mr. John McCallum: Is that Thursday of next week or this coming Thursday?

The Chair: No, not this week, unless you want to have a meeting on Thursday morning.

Mr. John McCallum: No. I'm just getting clarification.

The Chair: Okay.

I have no other issues. Does anyone have anything else?

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, we may get an opportunity during the actual work on the bill to deal with the issue, but I was quite concerned when I read this morning that people from CSIS were complaining about the immigrant investor file, saying that it's opening up criminals' access to Canada.

Maybe I could seek your guidance on this. Are we going to have the CSIS people here as part of reviewing that bill or do we want to do that separately? My concern is that if they're saying there are problems, it could mean either they're not doing their job or somehow something is falling down within the department. It concerns me.

Obviously, if someone is coming in as an immigrant investor it should not be rocket science to have them checked out by CSIS. If CSIS does their homework, then they would find out they're coming in with dirty money, or whatever the problem might be, and therefore give a recommendation that they not be allowed in, or, if they're found afterwards, that they be deported.

I really found the comments disturbing. They opened up more questions than answers to that whole issue.

The Chair: First, the investor immigrant program is part of the new immigration bill. Therefore, we'll discuss that aspect of it. Second, CSIS will be a witness to this committee, as they were a witness when we were considering the refugee report we did. That might very well be one of those meetings where in fact, as you know, it may want to be kept in confidence, only because, let's face it, CSIS, in terms of how it deals and operates and wants to find out those not very bona fide people who want to come here—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: [Inaudible—Editor]...so that's no problem.

The Chair: Well, this is being transmitted publicly, so it's not a problem.

But yes, when we do that portion—and CSIS may want to talk to us as well as the RCMP—we may want to go in camera. I'm not going to suppose anything at this stage of the game. Again, I think we want to be as informative and educational to the Canadian public as possible, and they also may want to know and hear CSIS or RCMP concerns, but there are certain matters that I think may need to be dealt with in camera. We'll deal with that.

• 0945

But I think that is an important aspect of the bill, yes, and I think CSIS will have something to say about it.

If you want a separate briefing, Steve, we could arrange it for the Thursday, if you wanted to deal specifically with that issue. I know you thought it was important. I think we could probably arrange something specifically on that issue, if you want, for this Thursday. We could try.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wouldn't mind. When it's out in the public the way it is, I think it's important that we find out what the problem is, if indeed there is a problem.

Mr. Inky Mark: I have no problem getting to the bottom of this. It's important, very important.

The Chair: Then why don't we see if we can make arrangements for there to be a briefing here with CSIS on an in camera, confidential basis for Thursday morning at 9 o'clock to deal specifically with that issue.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have no problem with it being in camera, but it's interesting it's already in the press. I don't know what in camera does for us, but if we feel we might get more honest answers....

The Chair: Some of the questions that we may want to pose might want to be.... After all, you don't want to let the so-called enemy know what the plans are.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Who is that?

The Chair: Well, the people who want to come here in a very—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Oh, they're the enemy.

The Chair: Yes. You know, it's like laying out your military plan when you're going to invade someone, for God's sake.

Any other discussions? If not, we'll adjourn until Thursday morning at 9 o'clock, if we can arrange it. If we can't arrange the meeting I'll let you all know.

Thank you very much. I'm looking forward to working with you.

The meeting is adjourned.