CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 2, 2001

• 1532

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee, I see a quorum.

In conformity with Standing Order 106(1) and (2), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

[Translation]

Members of the committee, we have a quorum. I'm ready to entertain motions for the election of a chairman.

[English]

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): I move that Joe Fontana be chair.

The Clerk: Are there any other motions?

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): I move that Paul Forseth be chair.

The Clerk: We'll proceed with the first motion. It's been moved by Mr. Price that Mr. Fontana be elected as chair of this committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

[Translation]

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare Mr. Fontana duly elected chair of this committee and invite him to take the chair.

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Okay. First of all, thank you all for your vote, for your confidence, and hopefully for your continued confidence in the future. We have a lot of work to do as a committee, and I want to thank the previous members of the committee and welcome those new members of the committee who are here.

I think we've demonstrated over at least the past year, if not two years, a spirit of working together and non-partisanship. There's no doubt that September 11 raises some interesting challenges for this particular committee, and I hope we can conduct ourselves in a very professional manner and with one objective, and that's to do what's right for Canada and the world. I know from previous experience that when we put our collective minds together, sometimes having to take off our political colours, that we come up with the best public policy, one this country needs.

So I want to welcome you. It's going to be a very, very busy committee. I think we're going to have an awful lot to do in the course of the year, so I want to welcome each and every one of you.

I'll go now to the second part of the business, which is the election of the vice-chair. I will accept motions.

Mark Assad.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Steve Mahoney.

• 1535

The Chair: Are there any others?

Bob.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Forseth.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth as first vice-chair.

We'll move on the first motion, which was the motion for Steve Mahoney as first vice-chair.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Congratulations, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Do I get to make a speech too?

The Chair: Mr. Mills, you moved it for the first vice-chair, but I take it that you are also putting the name of Paul Forseth forward for the second vice-chair. Are there any other motions? None.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Congratulations, Paul.

What I would like to do briefly is talk a little bit about.... As you know, Tuesdays and Thursdays have been our regular days for meeting. Unless there's some serious objection to that, I think we'll carry on with that established schedule. We might want to talk about procedural matters at the Thursday meeting. If it's all right, we would then reconvene again on Thursday morning at 9 o'clock.

Jacques, is that okay? Are there any difficulties with reconvening?

There is an awful lot of work for us to do. There's no doubt that the earlier we can get started, the better. That's why I think we should have a meeting on Thursday in order to go over some procedural items and perhaps then discuss what our work plan should be for the next number of months, and in fact even further.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Nine until when?

The Chair: Nine until eleven, usually.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are there any afternoon meetings?

The Chair: No afternoon meetings. Tuesday mornings from nine till eleven.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CA): I wonder about the past practice of this committee. Have we had a steering committee to work out scheduling or discuss witness lists? Of course, the steering committee has no authority to make any decisions, but it's a communication link between the parties represented. In the past, have you had a functioning steering committee?

The Chair: We have had a steering committee, but essentially the steering committee has been a committee of the whole. So everyone has had an opportunity to share their ideas and thoughts on what the work plan should be. If that's acceptable to everyone, I would propose we do the same, unless you want to go back to a traditional steering committee, which is usually made up of the chair, two vice-chairs, and committee members from the other parties.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Basically, my question was what was the past practice.

The Chair: Committee of the whole.

Mr. Paul Forseth: All right. I just want to give notice that once other things are out of the way I would like to mention this motion I brought forward about the minister. Will we deal with that in a minute or two?

The Chair: Yes. We're constituted now, but we haven't set forward the procedural items, such as how we put motions, give notice of motions. I think we can deal with those on Thursday. However, I want to be in a position to accept some motions on Thursday, if you want to put some forward, as well as to discuss the work plan.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I think the normal process at committee is for there to be 48 hours' notice for motions, unless it's agreed to waive that notice. Maybe it would be appropriate to put something on the table today for discussion on Thursday. It's not quite 48 hours, but it's close enough.

I don't know whether or not you want to discuss this today. But obviously the issues that have come out of September 11, such as the situation at the border, the relationship with the United States, their policies surrounding immigration, refugees, and how they relate to ours—the whole thing—need discussing. One of the first casualties of any war is always the truth. I'd like to see whether we can't find out where we do some things right, where they do some things right, and then see whether or not we can't at least communicate. It might involve this committee travelling to some border sites for meetings, perhaps into the United States, to see whether we can deal with all of the issues that seem certainly to be not only on the minds of members of Parliament, but also on the minds of the public as well.

• 1540

I don't know whether it's appropriate for you to have that discussion here today, or whether you want to do it on Thursday. I'm happy to do it either way.

The Chair: I'd like to deal on Thursday with some pretty substantive matters as they relate to our work plan. What you've talked about is perhaps something that we, as a committee, may want to look at in a particular motion as to where we go. Some of the things you've indicated obviously would be part of a work plan.

Paul, perhaps you can telescope without putting forward a motion at this time, because I don't think we're at that stage yet. Perhaps you can let us know what you might be thinking of putting forward on Thursday by way of a motion.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, just very simply, on September 17 I put forward a motion that I sent to the clerk of the committee, and it simply said:

With respect to the tragic events of September 11 in New York City, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 108, that this committee send for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to appear before the committee at the earliest possible opportunity.

Fairly simple, straightforward, and, of course, that's left to negotiations.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So I suppose you can take that as notice.

The Chair: Yes, we'll take that as notice and as part of the work plan discussion for Thursday. To tell you the truth, one of the first things we might want to do on the first Tuesday back after the break week next week is to have the minister come before this committee to talk a little bit about what happened September 11—Bill C-11, and so on.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Just along the same lines, as part of the kind of discussion that Steve is suggesting, and the way in which you, Mr. Chair, are responding to the proposed motion before us, I think it would be useful for us to actually inquire as to the role this committee might play in responding or in analyzing or in reviewing the specific references to refugee policy and immigration under the UN Security Council resolution that was just adopted. That might be a useful role for our committee given the short timelines around it.

The Chair: I don't see why not. That's a very good suggestion, Judy. As part of the initial meetings and for our own information and education, we may want to have not only the minister but also perhaps the Commissioner of the RCMP and the head of CSIS come before us in private session to talk briefly about what they've been doing before and obviously since September 11, as it relates to some new government directives. But that's all part and parcel of it. Your suggestion as to how that UN resolution impacts on the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada is a good one.

Are there any other comments with regard to...?

Art.

Mr. Art Hanger: In light of something that Judy actually brought up, I think it's incumbent upon the committee to examine this whole process of refugee determination overall and have the Immigration and Refugee Board member, and maybe other members of the board, come before us—particularly in light of what has happened, for instance, at the border crossing with Ressam. He was a failed refugee claimant. We should certainly examine what happens after the claimant has failed to pass that test.

I think it's a case study in itself, just to look at one case, let alone go through the whole process, because there's a major deficiency in the process.

The other thing I'm wondering about, and this has always been a problem in the past when it comes to ministers appearing before any committee, is the length of time they sit in that chair. Since our committee runs from nine to eleven, is there some possible way of extending that time by one hour, from nine to twelve? It would give the committee members an opportunity at least to question the minister. These are very important times we're facing, and immigration matters are certainly going to be in the forefront from here on in.

• 1545

The Chair: Thank you for those suggestions.

First, I don't think there will be any problems with the latter in terms of the availability of the minister. The minister has demonstrated her willingness in the past. I can't remember how many times she came before our committee in the past year or two, but it was a substantive number of times. Those points are well taken. We as a committee need as much time as possible to discuss this with the minister and any other official. While nine to eleven is essentially the timeline we might want to stick to, the fact is that sometimes we've gone beyond, and I'll make sure that when we plan for the minister and significant members of the government or the administration, we have the time necessary.

Secondly, with regard to refugee determination, even before Bill C-11, two years ago this committee did some very substantive work on the refugee determination system. We started to bring in experts from across the country, including the refugee board, to look at that. Some of you might have been part of that process. But in doing all that work on Bill C-11, which I would think is really a reflection of some of the work that had been done by previous committees on refugee determination, there's no doubt that September 11 is now a new prism. There's a new dynamic there that we must test against. So from that standpoint, Art, I think that suggestion is in keeping with what we might want to look at as we put everything we're doing as a government—present legislation and future legislation—through the prism of September 11, 2001.

As far as case studies are concerned, when we do have substantive witnesses such as the Commissioner of the RCMP or the head of CSIS, obviously those kinds of case studies would be relevant for us as a committee to understand how the system is working or not working.

David.

Mr. David Price: Two things, Mr. Chair. You mentioned that in the last Parliament, the last group here did have a chance to sit in on refugee hearings, and I think it would be important for new members to go through that process. Granted, we have to get permission from the particular refugees in order that they accept that somebody sit in, because it is a private hearing, but it's a very interesting process and it gives us a good idea of the reasons behind the length of time it takes. I think that's one of the main points.

The other thing I want to bring up is the possibility of having somebody come from Immigration Quebec so we can get a little clearer picture. I think a lot of people aren't aware of the differences in the Quebec immigration system as compared to Canada's. There are some nuances there. As far as the refugee part of it is concerned, that part is the same for Quebec as is done throughout Canada.

The Chair: Thank you, David. As you know, when this committee did travel across the country for Bill C-11, we had an opportunity to talk to a number of people from various different provinces, obviously, and where there was a federal-provincial accord, there's no doubt that there was a big difference, where in fact both levels of government were working together towards a common objective. Again, we may want to do that.

That brings up an important point for the new members of this committee—and I'm sure Paul is the new critic. If you want an orientation session from the administration, we will have one. As a committee, I don't think we want to go through an orientation session, because most of us have already been here. If, though, on an individual basis, you in fact have requirements or a need for additional briefings from Immigration Canada, I will make sure you can get that as quickly as possible.

If there is a collective view that we have an orientation session again for the new members—for the most part, I think most of them have been here before—you tell me and we'll arrange for something like that. If not, we'll arrange for individual ones.

Paul, is your side going to be doing all the briefings for your members, so I can count on you to...?

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm already in contact with the minister's office. I've already had one minor briefing a few weeks ago, and something is set up for tomorrow afternoon.

The Chair: Okay.

Madeleine, welcome back.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Lava -Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on your appointment. Congratulations as well to Mr. Forseth and to my friend Steve for being elected Vice-Chairs.

• 1550

Obviously, the events that transpired three weeks ago will affect in a very unique way the work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I think all of us are committed to seeing this committee serve Canadians and Quebeckers by providing judicious advice to the government.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether this is the right moment - in any event, you'll let me know if it's not - but since we are certainly likely to hear from witnesses, and certain requirements have been stated clearly, would it be possible to consider adopting a motion next Thursday to facilitate the order in which they would appear?

We encountered a few minor problems last year when hearings were held outside the House. You organized everything beautifully and everyone was pleased. However, it might be a good idea to adopt a motion reflecting the wishes of the opposition, bur respecting as well the important role of government members.

Mr. Chairman, I will take it upon myself to table such a motion with our clerk.

[English]

The Chair: I don't have any problem whatsoever, Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I was sure about that.

The Chair: Not a problem, not a problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm new to this committee and it's a pleasure for me to join the team.

However, if I'm to work alongside my colleagues, I will certainly need to be briefed. You asked a question and I would certainly like to know what the committee currently has on its agenda and also get some basic information about the committee's mandate or about relevant legislation, so that I have some basic work tools. Right now, all I have is this information sheet.

I'd also just like to say that I represent a riding in which 30 per cent of residents are non-Francophones, that is immigrants and their families. My constituency office spends a great deal of time making representations to the Minister of Immigration about matters such as visitors' visas, immigration files, lost or otherwise, and refugee claims. There is much work to be done in this area and we are continuing to make more and more inquiries in an effort to understand how the system works and to ensure that cases are dealt with properly.

I'm happy to be on this committee and I hope to gain a better understanding of the system's workings and to help it run efficiently. The need is great indeed.

[English]

The Chair: Welcome to the club.

I've just spoken with the clerk. He will make sure that there is a full briefing book available to all members of this committee that will in fact answer some of your questions as to what this committee's mandate is, what we have being doing in the past year, and some of those issues that you've raised. Obviously you will continue to raise them when the minister is here or as a committee when we try to put together, as I said, a work plan and possible legislation to better our system.

You're right, there are an awful lot of issues. I think each and every one of us could second your comments in terms of some frustrations, some degree of satisfaction, obviously, because immigration, to all of our constituencies, is a very big piece of our work. There's no doubt about it. I don't know of any member I've talk to who doesn't have immigration as a very big part of their workload. That's part of it. So we have become immigration officers in a way, also.

Steve, did you have something?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, in terms of the witnesses, maybe the clerk can help us on Thursday by providing a list of possible witnesses who could come. I'm assuming everyone is saying the same thing here, but maybe I shouldn't assume that what we're talking about is more or less internal witnesses. We're not talking about going out to the public or NGOs, or anything of that nature; we're talking about how the system works, whether it's the RCMP, whether it's CSIS, whether it's immigration, whether it's the refugee section.

I also think that a briefing and an update, considering that it's going through the Senate at the present time, on Bill C-11, particularly highlighting the differences, would be something that would be good to do.

So if we can get sort of a list of people who could be helpful in giving us the information, I see it as us seeking information on how it's working or not working, as opposed to us going out and holding hearings at this stage on how we might change it. Presumably that will come out of those meetings.

• 1555

The Chair: You're right on. I think the first meetings would be with the minister, and then with the department. And we could review Bill C-11 as well and then bring in the IRB, CSIS, RCMP, anybody internally. From that point we could then discuss, as we discussed on Thursday, the possible work program, which might entail a little further detail: obviously work on security border issues; perhaps this committee travelling to the United States and meeting our counterparts and having a session with them so that we can understand where they are coming from and they can understand where we are coming from, sharing some ideas, sharing each other's legislation and finding out where the pros and cons are. In the short term, I think that would lead to some very productive meetings.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What room will that be in on Thursday? Do we know?

The Clerk: I don't know at this time.

The Chair: It's just a planning meeting for Thursday; it will probably be around here. I would suggest that our regular meetings.... Well, we'll get that in.

We'll reconvene on Thursday at 9 a.m. The clerk will let you know which room.

With regard to Thursday's meeting, is it the view that it be a public meeting or in camera, or does it matter? The rule around here is it is going to be in public unless we collectively agree that it's going to be in camera. Okay?

Thank you very much. We'll see you on Thursday morning.