CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 30, 2000

• 0910

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. The committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, and we are resuming consideration of clause 2.

This morning we have a couple of witnesses, the first being the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, and the next one being the Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law relating to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity including those of the Holocaust.

What we'd like to do in the committee, Mr. Czolij, Mr. Boyko, and Mr. Doody, is have you make approximately a ten-minute presentation to the committee, leaving about another twenty minutes or so for questions and answers.

First of all, I want to thank you very much for coming to our committee. As you know, Bill C-63, the previous bill to this, was studied extensively. I believe you didn't have the opportunity to speak to the committee before, and the committee wanted to hear from those who hadn't appeared before. I want to thank you for taking the time and making the effort, and I look forward to your presentation.

Mr. Eugene Czolij (President, Ukrainian Canadian Congress): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Eugene Czolij and I'm the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Joining me this morning are Mr. Adrian Boyko, first vice-president and chair of our Canadian issues committee, and Mr. Peter Doody, of the law firm Borden Ladner Gervais. Mr. Doody has provided legal advice related to our presentation today.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, also known as the UCC, is the national coordinating body of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Since its incorporation in 1940, the UCC has played an active role in the development of national policies and programs that not only impact on Ukrainian-Canadians, but also on Canadian society as a whole. Through this proactive approach, we have been able to ensure that the voice of our community is heard in areas such as multiculturalism, immigration, justice matters, constitutional development, and foreign affairs.

Since the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-63 in the last session of Parliament, the UCC has monitored its progress. The UCC has gathered information and feedback concerning this draft legislation in order to communicate effectively the view of our community to members of Parliament and to this committee.

One of the primary concerns that the UCC had with Bill C-63 was found in subclause 16(4), which would have introduced the concept of guilt by association. The UCC was opposed to this concept, and is pleased to see that this subclause was removed in Bill C-16.

Another provision of concern to us is clause 17. The revocation of citizenship and deportation are very serious issues that have a tremendous impact on an individual and his or her family. In some cases, the loss of citizenship could lead to a loss of freedom. Therefore, clause 17 needs to stipulate that an onerous standard of proof applies in revocation-of-citizenship proceedings. In addition, clause 17 should include a limitation period similar to that stipulated in subclause 18(5) of the bill, especially if the standard of proof of a balance of probabilities regarding violations of the Citizenship of Canada Act is maintained in subclause 17(1). This would also ensure that the government could not use denaturalization and deportation proceedings against Canadian citizens who have lived in Canada for a substantial number of years, even though government employees had already destroyed immigration files, as is consistent with the government's policy for disposal of unnecessary records after a fixed time.

Furthermore, this clause should provide a right of appeal from decisions rendered by the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, to ensure that uncertainties in this important field of our law that result from contradictory first-instance judgments could be clarified by appellate courts.

• 0915

Therefore, we would recommend to the committee the following changes to clause 17: first, strike out the words “on a balance of probabilities” in paragraph 17(1)(b), and replace them with the words “beyond a reasonable doubt”; second, modify subclause 17(3) by providing a right of appeal from a decision of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, to the Federal Court of Appeal, and ultimately on leave to the Supreme Court of Canada; and third, add a subclause 17(4) that provides that:

The Minister may not make a report under subsection (1) more than five years after the day on which the citizenship was granted, retained, renounced, or resumed, as the case may be.

Clause 18 is also problematic. As members of the committee are aware, a notice of intent to seek a revocation order under clauses 16 and 17 against an individual who is suspected of having obtained citizenship “by false representation or fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances” entitles the accused to a hearing before the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division.

An annulment order under clause 18 against someone who is suspected of having obtained citizenship in “contravention of section 28, or by using a false identity” should also entitle an accused person to an impartial hearing before the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Indeed, a naturalized Canadian who has lived in Canada for almost five years should not have to make representations to the minister, who is already satisfied that the person obtained citizenship in contravention of the Citizenship of Canada Act, as to why his or her citizenship should not be revoked after all. Furthermore, and very importantly, the law should not force the minister to be a judge to a party in the same case.

We noticed that, contrary to Bill C-63, subclause 18(4) of Bill C-16 gives an individual a right to apply for a judicial review from the minister's order under the Federal Court Act. We recommend instead that clause 18 provide a referral by the minister to the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, similar to that stipulated in subclause 17(1).

In addition, clause 18 should provide a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, and with leave to the Supreme Court of Canada. It should also stipulate that a high standard of proof applies in annulment-of-citizenship proceedings—namely, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mr. Chairman, the UCC would also advance for your consideration amendments to subclauses 22(3) and 27(3) to ensure that a permanent Canadian resident who has lived in Canada for at least 1,095 days should be entitled to submit for review by our courts, including appeal courts, an order or declaration of the Governor in Council prohibiting such a person from obtaining citizenship.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are pleased that Bill C-16 does not contain the requirement found in paragraph 6(1)(d) of Bill C-63, whereby an applicant had to communicate that he or she

has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship...in one of the official languages of Canada without the assistance of an interpreter.

Citizenship is one of the fundamental tenets of any nation. Throughout our history, Canada has opened its doors to the people of the world who are looking for a tolerant and free society that is based on democratic principles. As a result, Canada stands proudly on the world stage as the best place to live, work, and raise a family. Therefore we must ensure that legislation dealing with citizenship, especially proposed legislative provisions advanced by government concerning the revocation or annulment of this right and responsibility, also reflect the core fabric of our democratic system.

• 0920

The proposals we have brought forward today attempt to strengthen the legislation, enhance the value of Canadian citizenship, and ensure that the core values of our justice system are utilized to guarantee fairness and justice for all Canadians.

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Eugene, for your submission and some suggestions for us to consider. I know you didn't provide us with a copy of your text. I'm just wondering, if you read from it, whether or not you'd be prepared to table it with us, because I think we may want to refer to it next week when we do a clause-by-clause study. If you could submit it to us, we will make sure there are copies and that it's translated. So if you wouldn't mind, we would appreciate it.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Absolutely, I will table it.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to questions. We only have about 20 or 25 minutes for questions. Perhaps we could organize ourselves in such a way that Reform can choose one set of questions, the Liberals one set of questions, and David and Bernard would do the same.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Actually, I won't have any questions, but I definitely would like the presentation that was given to have a chance to look at it.

The Chair: Okay. Let's move to Leon.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, gentlemen. I'm very pleased to see you here, of course. In my part of the country, central Alberta, we have a huge Ukrainian population, and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress is an important organization there. I do appreciate you being here and making a presentation.

It seems to me that a lot of what you said today is that you would like a higher level of proof. Rather than basing proof on the balance of probability, you want a higher level of proof on the part of the minister. You want more access to appeals, and you want the minister to not be a party and judge in the same case. That's a quick summary.

I'd just like you to tell me what you think this might do to our court system. Could you see it tying up the system more? For example, I guess the first question would be, in regard to these proposals you have brought here today, roughly how many cases are we talking about? Is it a dozen, dozens, a hundred, or thousands?

Mr. Peter K. Doody (Legal Counsel, Ukrainian Canadian Congress): Perhaps I could answer that. I've been involved in two citizenship revocation cases as counsel. I don't have the precise statistics, but I believe about a dozen have been commenced in the last four years, all relating to World War II activities. In fact, of those dozen, I think about eight are persons who were born in the Ukraine.

With respect to tying up the courts, there is a significant problem right now, in that without an appeal, parties fighting these attempts to strip them of their citizenship don't know what the law is on a very fundamental point, which is whether or not Canada had the authority to even question persons immigrating from Europe post-war about what their activities were during the war, and exclude them from Canada on that basis.

Two judges of the Federal Court have said there was no authority to do that. One judge said there was authority to do that. If the gentleman who went before the judge who said they did have authority had gone before one of the other judges, his citizenship would not be about to be revoked. It was effectively a judicial lottery depending upon what judge he drew. I think that's a significant problem. If you want to have the rule of law apply, you can't have the law vary depending on who is sitting on the bench.

• 0925

On your point of how much time will be taken by the appeals, I think time will in fact be saved. I'm now representing a gentleman whose citizenship the government is trying to strip, and if the two judges who had ruled there was no legal authority to exclude people from Canada based on what they had done during the war are correct, this case shouldn't be here, because he falls into that time period. If this case proceeds in the Federal Court, it will take about two months of a judge's time. It will take a trip to the Ukraine to hear evidence, and it will cost, I would say, the government and the citizen between them over $2 million in fees.

If there were an appeal and the two judges who had ruled that there was no authority were upheld, this case wouldn't be there. So there are not a lot of cases, and appeals actually can save time.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just because it may take the court's time, I don't think it necessarily should be pushed aside.

Do you think there's a possibility this bill or these clauses could be challenged on grounds that they might contravene the Charter of Rights or go against the Singh decision or any of that? Do you think there is a possibility that there could be a successful challenge against this bill?

Mr. Peter Doody: I haven't addressed my mind to that in any detail.

I was saying last night to these gentlemen that I think there is a potential problem, because citizens of Canada have rights under the charter, and if you can remove citizenship then you're removing their rights.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, the way the Singh decision is being interpreted—I'm not saying the decision says this—it says even people who aren't citizens or aren't even in Canada have the right to the full protection of the charter.

Mr. Peter Doody: That's right, and they have the right to a fair hearing.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

Mr. Peter Doody: There are issues there that have to be explored.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's actually a good question for me to address to the departmental officials when they're here next week in clause-by-clause.

Mr. Adrian Boyko (First Vice-President and Chair, Canadian Issues Committee, Ukrainian Canadian Congress): If I might just add to that, what we see here is having three levels of citizenship. One is where you're born here, and it's incontrovertible that you have those rights. But Canada is a country of immigrants. The country was built on immigration. The way we interpret the proposed law, if you have the law in this sense, somebody 40 years from now could be deported for some political action that was taken that we today could consider not a big issue. But 40 years from today, some future government could determine that there is a problem with what is going on in some part of the world, and there is no limitation upon the Government of Canada to come back and strip him of his citizenship.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's my point. When we see what's happened in the Balkans, we saw a situation where it was quite possible that among the refugees who were taken in there would be members who supported the KLA. And of course, as long as that group is seen to be on the same side as Canada, you view them in one way. As soon as that changes, it could be quite a different view. That's a practical example of the way things can change.

Mr. Adrian Boyko: Therefore, what we recommend is that there be some form of limitation, because administrative procedures do destroy records that could be pertinent to an individual's ability to stay in this country. So if there is at some point a destruction of records and then at some later point the government brings proceedings, what basis do we have other than “he said, she said”?

So we would strongly recommend that there be some form of limitation so that there is one standard of citizenship. The full weight of government could be brought upon investigating these individuals, but once you are a Canadian citizen, you are a Canadian citizen after that point.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just one more short question and then we can go on. You're not saying, though, just to be perfectly clear, that the minister shouldn't have the ability to revoke citizenship through proper process in certain cases.

• 0930

Mr. Adrian Boyko: Not at all. We believe they should have, because Canada is a place where we want to protect our justice system, we want to protect our citizenship, and we want to protect the fact that we are a multicultural country. But at some point all people contributing to this society must be looked upon as Canadians if they have applied for that status.

Mr. Peter Doody: I'd add that the limitation period issue actually rolls in the other issue of balance of probabilities, and an example is Mr. Oberlander's case. I wasn't counsel for him, so....

Mr. Oberlander, whose decision was just released about three weeks ago, emigrated to this country in the early 1950s. By the time his trial took place in 1998, any person from the Canadian government who interviewed him in Europe was dead. And this is the key: What was he asked in Europe? What did he say? The documents that would have recorded what he was asked and what he said had all been destroyed by the Canadian government.

It came down to effectively two witnesses alive who could say what he was asked: his wife and him. His wife testified, and the judge ruled that because she was not independent, being his wife, he ought to put no weight on her testimony. He therefore looked only at Mr. Oberlander, and because Mr. Oberlander had given a few contradictory versions of events over the last 55 years, one of which was in response to RCMP officers who walked into his home without notice and asked him what he was doing 45 years ago, he said he couldn't accept Mr. Oberlander's evidence.

Since the balance of probabilities is simply what is more likely than not—you weigh them and decide which one is more likely—he said since there are government records that say the policy was to ask everybody, and since he couldn't put any weight on Mr. Oberlander's evidence, it's more likely than not that he was asked. Therefore, at the age of 75, or whatever his age is, his citizenship should be stripped and he should be eventually deported to Ukraine.

The problem is, when you go back that far, it's not fair. You can't fairly determine what really happened. We're trying to decide what happened 55 years ago in the aftermath of the greatest cataclysmic war this world has ever seen, in a time that none of us lived through, in events that none of us lived through, and the only documents that record it have been destroyed.

At some point, it's our submission, it's too late.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I'd like a clarification on your first suggested amendment. It's to replace “on a balance of probabilities” with what exactly?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: With the criterion of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

From your testimony just now, your concern seems to revolve more around a decision that would be based on political criteria as opposed to judicial. Is that fair?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: As Mr. Boyko said earlier, we're not questioning the right of a minister to initiate or even render an order revoking citizenship. What we are saying, though, is a Canadian citizen should not have his citizenship revoked or annulled without being given the opportunity to go before our courts and to challenge such order, including the appeal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay, but the reason for my question is that clause 28 of the bill deals with very specific judicial matters that would disqualify a person from continuing to hold Canadian citizenship. For example, if at the time they took their oath of citizenship they were, as you can see, on probation, involved with an indictable offence of some kind, under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or by CSIS.... There's a long list of things.

None of these items, as I have read them, is what I would call subjective in the sense that there can be any doubt. They either are or were under investigation by the Mounties or CSIS, or at the time of receiving their citizenship they misrepresented themselves through a false identity or did not disclose the fact that indeed they were on probation or they were under some kind of judicial procedure.

• 0935

I see that in a different light. I'm not trying to prejudge it, but it seems to me those issues are more black-and-white, as opposed to what Mr. Boyko referred to about some political decision 55 years from now about what you might have been doing on October 12, 2000. Who can remember? I have trouble remembering the other day.

Concerning your request as it relates to these judicial matters, first of all, do you agree that they are more black-and-white, or would you see them in the same light as the political issues you're concerned about? If indeed these issues are there, we're then allowing someone to go through the appeal process, which Canadians tell us all the time is much too liberal in this country. I'm not saying it is, but that's what we hear from people.

So where's the balance in protecting people from being perhaps improperly judged for political motivations? I can't see that happening in today's society, but who knows what society's attitudes will be forty or fifty years from now? Where's the balance of giving the minister the right to simply say to somebody, “Look, you were under an indictable offence. You were being investigated by CSIS. You didn't disclose that when you took the oath. I'm revoking your citizenship, and there is no right of appeal, because those are the facts”?

Can you give me a sense of whether or not there should be a balance in that?

Mr. Adrian Boyko: I truly believe there should be a balance in that, and there are some components here, such as under paragraph 28(f), “is under investigation by the Minister of Justice”, as you have indicated, or the RCMP. But when is that, at what period of time?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's if at the time they took the oath of citizenship, they did not disclose the fact that they were under investigation. That's my interpretation. If you don't agree, tell me.

Mr. Peter Doody: I don't believe so. As I read the clause, it looks to me as though if somebody becomes a citizen, and then four years and six months later some member of the RCMP decides to ask some questions about whether or not he took part in some criminal offence during the Second World War, which is paragraph 28(f), then the minister can, on her own hook, revoke his citizenship, with no appeal.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't mean to be argumentative, but I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Clause 28 reads:

...no person shall be granted citizenship or take the oath of citizenship, if the person

(a) is...

It says when you take the oath of citizenship, if you are on probation, if you are involved in a trial for an indictable offence, if you are being investigated at the time you take the oath.... If that's not clear, maybe that needs to be made clear in that clause.

We're not saying you become a citizen and then four years from now, if you commit an indictable offence, we're going to punish you by revoking your citizenship. Certainly that's not the intent of the bill or this government.

Mr. Peter Doody: I don't think it's clear.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You don't think it's clear?

Mr. Peter Doody: That may be the draftsperson's intention, but I don't think it's clear.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So if we were to clarify that all of these items under clause 28 and the issue of revocation of citizenship are based on the fact that information was either withheld, as categorized in clause 28, or fraudulently put forward, then the minister should and would have the right to revoke the citizenship. And if that's the case, again, we're not talking about a subjective opinion as to whether or not that was the order of the day when the oath was taken. We're talking about the fact. Would we want to then provide some lengthy appeal process for someone who clearly committed that fraud?

Mr. Adrian Boyko: The issue is there should be some form of proof that there was a fraud. If, for example, we have a common criminal, a bank robber, caught on videotape, he has the process and the ability to go through an appeal process. Yet the person who has been in Canada for a number of years and paid taxes during that time, whether it be eight years or eleven years—he's paid taxes to this country once he's had his citizenship—now, because he has, under paragraph 28(f), “been under investigation”, the minister can revoke the citizenship.

• 0940

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I fail to see what paying taxes has to do with it. That's the responsibility of everybody who lives here, whether you're a citizen or not.

Mr. Adrian Boyko: No, I understand that, and I don't mean to be argumentative. The issue really comes down to the fact that you have a Canadian-born criminal who is potentially caught or under investigation by the RCMP and who has the capability of going all the way up to the Supreme Court on a trial—a shoplifter or whatever the case the may be. Yet by these provisions, without having a mechanism that the suspect is truly being fraudulent, you have the ability to just annul his citizenship.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But would you have any concerns under paragraph 28(d) where a person took their citizenship 10 years ago, and information comes to light that indeed they had been convicted as a war criminal? They had been convicted. This is not subject to any requirement for proof or reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities. This is a fact: they were convicted. Would you have any problem with the minister simply revoking the citizenship without allowing for some lengthy appeal process?

Mr. Adrian Boyko: I'm not a lawyer, but as a person—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Neither am I.

Mr. Adrian Boyko: I don't think I would have a problem with that.

Mr. Peter Doody: I understand your point. I think the problem is that there's really a mixture, if you look at clause 18, of those kinds of things you're talking about. Where there would be a certificate of conviction of a particular offence, you can't argue about it. But if you look at clause 18, one of the ways you could lose your citizenship is if the minister is satisfied that you obtained, renounced, or resumed your citizenship by using a false identity.

There's a Criminal Code section that's just like that. If you get some batteries at Canadian Tire by using a false identity and you're charged with that crime, you're entitled to a trial and you're entitled to appeals on the issue of whether you did in fact use a false identity. I've done some of those. There are a lot of ways to look at those issues, and there can be arguments on both sides.

I think that's a little different from—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Your concern then would be that the ministerial powers here could indeed be subjective and could be—

Mr. Peter Doody: Some of them could.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —up to the minister of the day, whereas clause 28 you might agree is a little more black and white.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Not 28(i), for instance, “has ceased to be a permanent resident”—that could be subjective.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't personally have a problem with changing the words “on a balance of probabilities” to “beyond a reasonable doubt”. What I'm trying to avoid is where we give the advantage to someone who is indeed a convicted criminal who lied to obtain citizenship and it's an open and shut case.

As I said before, we hear complaints all the time that the appeal process is so liberal in this country that it allows people to put off D-Day for years and years and years by manipulating the system—with all due respect—through the assistance of legal counsel, for which they are paid, as you have inferred, $2 million.

Mr. Peter Doody: I was going to say that they're government lawyers, you understand.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not a bad day at the office, I'll tell you.

So I want to make sure we have some balance here and that we're not opening up a situation where convicted war criminals or people who have committed crimes against humanity, whether they're even recent in Kosovo or that kind of thing, have a way to come in here, lie, get their citizenship, and then hang around for ten years while the lawyers fight it out.

Mr. Peter Doody: Just so you understand, I know you were joking, but—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I was just having some fun with you.

Mr. Peter Doody: That's fine. You're right, the question is you have to get a balance; you don't want to tilt it one way or the other. I can tell you, the way it now stands, I represent an 89-year-old man who's been in this country 55 years, and the government is now trying to remove his citizenship. The only way he can fight this is to bankrupt himself, his four children, and his grandchildren, and that's not fair.

• 0945

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wouldn't ask you to disclose the details of your case, but if he, for example, were to fall into the case of having a certificate of conviction of a war crime, then too bad whether he's been here 55 years or not—he's toast.

Mr. Peter Doody: I agree with you.

The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you so much for your presentation. I think you've given us, obviously, by the nature of the debate and questions asked, some food for thought with regard to some of your suggestions. We hope to take those into consideration when we look at the clause-by-clause study. Thank you very much for your compelling arguments and for taking the time to give us your opinion. Give our best to the Canadian Ukrainian people of this country. As Leon said, in all of our communities the Ukrainian people have made a fantastic and significant contribution, so give our best to your association and your members. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I wonder if we can move to our second witness, the Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law relating to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity including those of the Holocaust.

I'd like to introduce to the members Kenneth M. Narvey, legal researcher and chief operating officer of the organization.

Just to show you that this committee is always open to people asking to be heard, in fact Mr. Narvey was making a submission to this committee yesterday, and I asked him if he wanted to make a formal submission to the committee. He was more than grateful to do so, and we're prepared to hear from him.

Mr. Narvey, I'd like at least a ten-minute presentation, after which we will then take twenty minutes for questions and answers from all members of the committee. We're on a tight time schedule because we have some administrative matters to take care of after this witness.

Thank you very much for taking this opportunity to meet with the committee.

Mr. Kenneth M. Narvey (Legal Researcher and Chief Operating Officer, Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law relating to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity including those of the Holocaust): Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I'm just putting out my watch here so I can keep to the ten minutes.

The Chair: I'll keep the time for you; that's part of my job, although I don't get paid any more money for it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You're sitting on a trap door, in case you didn't know it.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: This nice lady is handing out copies of my letter to Ms. Sirpaul, which I also distributed yesterday.

As the chairman has stated, my name is Kenneth Narvey, I am the legal researcher and chief operating officer of a coalition of six Montreal-area synagogues whose full title is the Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law relating to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity including those of the Holocaust. A shorter version of that is the Coalition of Concerned Congregations and the shortest version is the coalition.

[Translation]

I am the legal researcher and chief operating officer of the Coalition of concerned congregations on the law relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity, including those of the Holocaust. We are in the process of translating the letter that I sent you the day before yesterday. I would be very happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.

[English]

The coalition was originally five Montreal-area synagogues in May 1994, and it is now six Montreal-area synagogues. We have been following carefully all of the cases to which Mr. Doody has referred, and we have three specific recommendations to make for changes in the bill, which we think could improve the bill. In fact I would have to say this morning that we have a fourth suggestion. Mr. Sabourin, the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship, this morning pointed out to me something that will be necessary in order to do what we are suggesting. I will provide you with specific draft wording for changes in English and French in time for clause-by-clause consideration.

• 0950

The Chair: So we're accommodating Mr. Sabourin. We'll find out whether that's true.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: We've been accommodating up to now. During questioning, if you have any critique of what I am saying, please tell me, because—

The Chair: I'm sure we will.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Thank you.

The first thing I would like to draw to your attention—let me change my glasses so that I can see the bill, which is in rather small print—

The Chair: If you are suggesting that we ought to print our stuff in bigger type, I'm sure there would be unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: It would be unanimous.

The Chair: And if we could get Bell Canada to do something about their telephone books or have something done about newspapers, that would be be great too.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: It's so nice to agree. I agree with you.

The Chair: Good.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: On page 7 of the bill, in subclause 16(1), the present wording as to what you have to have done before your citizenship could be taken away is that you obtained it “by false representation or fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances”.

In Bill C-63 the word “knowingly” was dropped. In this bill the word “knowingly” has been put back, and we have no problem with that. But then in subclause 16(3) there are two places where the word “knowingly” should be, but it's only there once. It's simply a word that has been left out. The French is perfectly all right.

It says:

For the purposes of this section, a person is deemed to have obtained or resumed citizenship by false representation or fraud or by concealing material circumstances...

It should say “knowingly concealing material circumstances”. That's on page 7 at line 19.

...if the person was admitted to Canada for permanent residence by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing...

The intent was to say “knowingly” twice, but it's only said once by mistake. Our first recommendation is to put the word “knowingly” back in there.

The Chair: When we speak to the lawyers next week, we'll find out whether it was done on purpose. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: It seems unlikely that it was done on purpose. I'll be interested to know if I'm mistaken.

The Chair: You never know about lawyers. That's why we're here.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: A little further down the same page, at line 26, clause 17 begins, which is very similar to section 18 of the present Citizenship Act. It provides that the minister may send a person a notice and say “We plan to take away your citizenship, and you have 30 days to ask that it be put before the Federal Court”. If the person does ask and it is put before the Federal Court, Trial Division, the minister may not make such a recommendation to the Governor in Council unless the Federal Court, Trial Division finds that the person has indeed obtained their citizenship by what can be called for short fraud, etc.

Subclause 17(3), on the next page, starting at line 5, says such a decision

made under subsection (1) is final and, despite any other Act of Parliament, is not subject to appeal.

You heard other people this morning saying that they disagree with it. On behalf of a significant portion of the Montreal Jewish community, I also think this is not what should be. One of the examples given was if you take something from Canadian Tire.

I'll give an example that has been used in court. Mr. Justice Noël has compared the revocation of citizenship with the revocation of an insurance policy. If I obtain an insurance policy by fraud by not mentioning that I have a heart condition, it can be revoked. However, if I lose in court on that, I have an appeal. If the insurance company loses, it has an appeal.

There's not something magic about citizenship that makes a trial division judge infallible. I think it has been mentioned, and I'll mention it again, that in two cases, the Dueck case and the Kisluk case, two very good judges came to diametrically opposite conclusions as to whether there was a legal basis for security screening before June 1950.

We do not say, as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress said, that there should be a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. We say that there should be a right to apply for leave to the Federal Court of Appeal. If they find that you have no case, they will refuse leave. If they find that you have an arguable case, they will grant leave, and then automatically one would have the right to seek leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.

• 0955

We're not asking for endless appeals. We're asking for a right to seek leave to appeal. We say that this should go both for the minister when the minister loses and for the person when the person loses.

Although it's not in my letter, I should mention that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that under the rules of equity, when there's a dispute and one side loses and could appeal but does not, an outsider may apply to the court—they may not always get it—for leave to appeal in place of the loser.

We don't say that this should be only for the future. There are cases that have just gone by, three in which the government lost and three in which the person lost. In the wording we propose for the bill we say that both the person and the minister should have the possibility of seeking leave to appeal to the Federal Court. I've given specific wording for that in English and French on page 4 of my brief. Subclause 17(3) would read:

(3) A decision of the Federal Court—Trial Division under subsection (1) and a decision of any person, body or court performing similar functions under prior legislation may be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal with the leave of the Federal Court of Appeal.

Mr. Sabourin has pointed out to me that this would require a change not only in subclause 17(3) but also in 17(1). So instead of saying unless the Federal Court says it's okay, it has to be unless the Federal Court says it's okay and appeals have been exhausted. I will bring you next week wording to that effect.

The third change we would like—and I'd like to pay tribute to your researcher from the Library of Parliament, because I would have missed this had she not mentioned it in her summary—is at page 21 and 22 of the bill. At page 21, “Regulations”, clause 43 says “The Governor in Council may make regulations”. On the next page, at line 26, paragraph 43(g) says “setting out the rules to be followed in proceedings under section 17 before the Federal Court—Trial Division”.

Now, it helps if you know how the rules are set today. Today all rules in the Federal Court, except where other legislation says differently, are set by the Federal Court rules committee, with the approval of the Governor in Council. The Federal Court rules committee consists of nine judges, the Attorney General herself or her delegate, plus five lawyers from across the country chosen for geographical and subject matter spread. That body makes the rules subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. Under this provision they would be made by the Governor in Council alone, and we say that's wrong.

In 1998 the new rules that came in changed and improved the proceedings for the revocation of citizenship. There's now what's called an actions procedure. It's a civil procedure with affidavits of documents and examinations for discovery. The most important part of it is that it forces the government to give full disclosure of not only what it intends to use, but also everything it knows, so that the other side can use it too.

At that time the Federal Court rules committee invited public input. The Department of Justice argued for a much more summary procedure without full disclosure. I and the coalition argued for what was in fact adopted by the rules committee. I don't think it's because we recommended it; I think it was their view that was the just way to do it, and we happened to be of the same view.

I'm afraid that if paragraph 43(g) is not struck out, instead of the Governor in Council being faced with something recommended by the rules committee, it will be faced with something recommended by the Departmentof Justice, which has shown, unfortunately, that it doesn't always choose the most just manner. We are for justice being done, especially to those who may themselves not have acted justly.

Those are our three recommendations. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for bringing some points to our attention and making some suggestions, which we obviously will take seriously into consideration when we're meeting next week for clause-by-clause consideration.

I'll go to questions now. Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Narvey, for your presentation.

I'll start with paragraph 43(g). You have stated your case on that. You're saying that you think the Federal Court rules committee's rules should be abided by or that the rules committee should set the rules for this. Are you saying that they should set the rules for this in the future?

• 1000

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Yes. If this is struck out, they will continue to set the rules because the Federal Court Act says so.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Right. Would you agree or disagree that another possible way to go would be to have the rules specified in this legislation before the legislation is passed?

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: I don't think that would be necessary or useful. I don't know of any legislation that sets out the rules for a court. Most courts, the supreme courts, set their own rules without any input from anybody else. The primary body to set the rules of a court is the court itself, the judges of the court.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could you just help me along with this a little bit? Clause 43 deals with the Governor in Council setting regulations. Paragraph 43(g) says: “setting out the rules to be followed in proceedings under section 17 before the Federal Court—Trial Division”. Are you saying that rather than having the Federal Court trial...?

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: What I'm saying is—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Under this the way it is now, who would set the rules?

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Under this, the Governor in Council sets the rules.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Right, with regulation.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Through regulation, yes. I say it should not be done through regulation. It should be done, as it is now and as it would be done if this clause is struck out, under the Federal Court Act, which is passed by the Parliament of Canada and which provides that the Federal Court rules committee will have such and such a composition and it will make the rules with the approval of the Governor in Council. So it doesn't have a totally free hand, but the Governor in Council is being advised by essentially a group of judges, rather than by a group of prosecutors.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Right. What would be your guess as to why this was put like this in the act? Obviously the minister and the cabinet want a lot of control over this and they don't want to spell it out in advance, it would seem.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Well, I—

The Chair: While it's cynical, they might take that view.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Yes. I don't want to be unkind to anybody, but I don't think this ought to be done.

I hope the Governor in Council, at a cabinet meeting approving amendments to be made to this bill, will realize that's not a power it ought to have. The Governor in Council is not a group of judges and is not familiar with the technical requirements, whether there should be 30 days to file a document or 60 days to file a document, which documents should be filed, whether somebody should be called, the defendant or a respondent, and so on. They would most likely be getting their advice from the justice department, whose role in this ought to be prosecutorial and not the setting of rules for the court.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Something I have expressed concern about in this legislation is that too much is really left to the Governor in Council to set somewhere down the road, through regulation. This is one section you've pointed out. I think there are several others in this bill. That really does concern me and I've expressed that concern.

As you went through this bill, did you find other places where you thought there was an awfully general statement in the legislation? An awful lot of what really happens with this legislation will depend on the regulation.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: I share your concern. I don't have any other specific concerns.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Actually, I'd be interested in talking to you later about some of the areas I have a concern in.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Certainly.

Mr. Leon Benoit: One more section I want to ask you about is subclause 17(3), which is one you talked about. Do you feel there could be a successful charter challenge on that, as it's written in this bill?

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: I feel there could be a challenge, and I have sometimes thought I would bring such a challenge myself. I say that it is irrational and it is unjust. Whether it is also unconstitutional would be something a court should decide. However, legislation doesn't come up for review every day. If the committee agrees with me and if the minister agrees with me that this is irrational and unjust, then we would not have to determine whether it is unconstitutional. It could be changed by Parliament rather than by the courts.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Precisely. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Leon.

John.

• 1005

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I hope I won't take all of the ten minutes.

Also on subclause 17(3), I just want to go through what's there and try to understand it in my own mind. The phrase “despite any other Act of Parliament” is kind of a curious one to see.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: The “other Act of Parliament” is the Federal Court Act. The Federal Court Act says that every decision in the Federal Court Trial Division is appealable to the Federal Court of Appeal. That's the “despite”.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. In your view it's limited to that act of Parliament and nothing else?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: There may be some others I'm unaware of, but that's the one I would think this phrase is primarily directed to.

Mr. John McKay: In some respects, even you, who have studied this area, don't really know what other acts of Parliament might be the applicable ones.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: What I'm saying is that there are a thousand laws, and all of them have flaws. There may well be one I don't know about, but the specific one to which this—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. John McKay: But you can't legislate out of notwithstanding. So that's not applicable.

Your phrasing is “decision of any person, body or court performing similar functions”.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: I'll tell you why I said that. The Federal Court has been the body that advises the minister since 1977, plus or minus a year or two. Before that, when the minister wanted to make a report, an individual or a court would be designated. It could be referred to the Ontario court's trial division. It could be referred to an individual, who would be a commissioner. It could be referred to a three-person body.

I remember doing research some years ago. There was a Mr. Sainte Marie in Hull, who was a retired judge brought in to deal with such cases. I say that anybody who has an arguable case, who can convince the Federal Court of Appeal that there ought to have been an appeal, should have one. I wanted that to go back to 1920. There's probably nobody alive today who had their citizenship removed in 1920 on the recommendation of a commissioner or a provincial court, but it just covers all bases. In French I made it more simple: an analogous decision under prior legislation.

Mr. John McKay: That explains your curious language as well.

Let me understand the distinction between your definition of “leave to appeal” and that of the previous witnesses. As I understand it, your position is that the appeal should only be with leave.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: That's right.

Mr. John McKay: And the previous witnesses thought—

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: It should be appeal as a right.

Mr. John McKay: Okay.

The Chair: Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Let me just continue along this line of questioning.

There is a second area where there was sort of a divergence of use. The previous delegation said it should be beyond a reasonable doubt. You're saying it's a balance of probabilities. I think it's important to frame that, because we also have Alan Borovoy, who believes it should be more than a mere balance of probabilities but not beyond a reasonable doubt. So it would be someplace in between. Burden of proof is an area where you disagree with the previous witnesses.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Yes. I think the bill is correct in making it on a balance of probabilities. I don't support the previous witnesses' desire to make it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I've read Mr. Borovoy's opinion, because you kindly gave it to me yesterday evening. I know and like Mr. Borovoy—if you weren't in such a rush, I think you ought to invite him to be a witness—but I disagree with his point of view. If you look at his letter, he refers to only two cases, the Luitjens case, which was the first case of this kind, and the Oberlander case, which is the most recent case of this kind. He leaves out six other cases in the middle, three of which were won by the government and three of which were lost by the government.

• 1010

The only one of those eight cases that set a higher degree of proof than balance of probability was the first one. In all of the others, three of which the government lost and three of which the government won, the judges said the Supreme Court of Canada said there are only two standards of proof in Canada: the civil standard, which is the balance of probabilities; and the criminal standard, which is beyond a reasonable doubt.

These are not criminal matters. These are civil matters. These are like questions of who owns a hundred acres or who owns $1 million, or whether you obtained your insurance policy by knowingly concealing material circumstances. As long as these are civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings, nobody can go to jail as a result of these proceedings. The proper standard of proof is therefore the balance of probabilities. But that doesn't mean flipping a coin. The judge has to be convinced that one side or the other is right. We do this for all other civil matters, and my view is that the bill is correct in this respect.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: In terms of the bill itself, clause 12 talks about the rights and privileges enjoyed by people who get their citizenship by choice. How does that reconcile itself with subclause 17(3)?

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: I had the wonderful privilege of discussing this question with you yesterday evening, and I will say what I'm thinking this morning.

There are several values that sometimes have to be balanced. One value is equality. Another value is the idea that we don't appreciate somebody obtaining our citizenship by fraud. There is an inequality between a naturalized citizen and a natural-born citizen that doesn't come out of anybody trying to be mean, but out of the nature of the situation. I had the good luck to be born in this country; therefore I am in no danger of having my citizenship removed for having obtained it by fraud, because I can't have obtained it by fraud.

It's unfortunate that the millions of perfectly honest naturalized citizens who have not by any stretch of the imagination obtained their citizenship by fraud might have a little insecurity because they feel somebody could falsely accuse them of it. If they were found to have done it even though they didn't, they could lose their citizenship. That's why it's important that there be a fair procedure with the possibility of rights to appeal.

I don't think the government is likely to bring a hundred or a million cases against the vast majority of honest immigrants. It has been bringing a small number of cases; it has won some, and it has lost some. There may have been some it lost but should have won, and there may be some it should have won but lost. But one cannot say—and I think the previous witnesses were saying this—that there should be a five-year limitation period. I say there should be no limitation period. It's not a home-free kind of thing, in that if you hide your fraud for five years, you're home free and you're equal to all other citizens. If you have obtained your citizenship by fraud, then that form of inequality that doesn't come from anybody being mean but from the nature of the reality is something you should worry about. That's my view.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: As a point of interest, Mr. Chair, I'm surprised that neither of the witnesses has used the example that we actually have seen recently, and that is the leave to appeal that was granted to Paul Bernardo.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: I'm not sure whether leave to appeal was granted or whether he had an appeal as a right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, it was turned down, but he had the right to apply.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Well, I'm not sure whether that was leave to appeal or whether that was an appeal. I for one don't believe that the system is infallible. Bernardo is a horrible man, but even horrible people ought to have some access to an appeal process. We don't do that for the benefit of Mr. Bernardo; we do that for our own benefit, in order to be a just society.

The Chair: Okay, Leon, one further question, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just on that same issue, on your second recommendation, that “prior legislation may be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal with leave of the Federal Court of Appeal”, is leave usually granted or decided by one judge? Is that right?

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Well, that's a good question. I believe it's decided by three judges in Federal Court.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In Federal Court it is by more than one judge?

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Yes, it's by three judges both in Federal Court and in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In most courts I know it's decided by one judge, and I've heard that it's very much a hit-and-miss thing. There aren't really any definite rules followed at all. One judge will grant leave commonly, and another one won't. Are you not concerned that this could cause a problem here?

• 1015

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: No, I don't think I am.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If there are three judges, I could see why you wouldn't be concerned.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: I believe there are three judges.

The one case I was involved in was the Rudolph case. When he was ordered deported, at that time there was an appeal with leave to the Federal Court of Appeal. They granted him leave, but he lost on the appeal and he lost on application for leave to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, thanks.

The Chair: I have one question.

Previous witnesses talked about some sort of statute of limitation of five years. You didn't address it. Is that a concern for you? Should there be a statute of limitation with regard to bringing actions or something like that?

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Definitely not. There should not be a statute of limitations, in my view. There isn't now, and there ought not to be.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much for your excellent submission, Ken, and for doing an awful lot of hard work with the committee yesterday. I was happy to accommodate you wanting to come, and I think what you've told us has given us some good food for thought. We'll ask Mr. Sabourin what he thinks of your suggestion, of course, and tell him what you thought of his suggestion. Anyway, we'll deal with that next week. Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to do that.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say that if anybody would like to speak with me personally, either by meeting or by telephone, you have my coordinates, as they say in Montreal. Please feel free to leave me a message to call you at such and such a time, or to ask if we can meet.

The Chair: Thank you.

Committee members, we're going to move to some administrative matters that are just talking about some timing. I want to deal with the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The motion is before you, and it has to do with the meeting of Thursday the 23rd and the agreement of the members who were here with regard to how we would proceed on the basis of C-16, which we now have embarked upon.

May I have a motion to adopt the fourth report, please?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I so move.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I know I'd like some discussion on that.

The Chair: Sure. I should tell you that your colleague didn't disagree with this, but that's okay.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Anders actually will be back. He said he certainly disagreed with the number of witnesses being limited to that extent. I can see that there's no mood on the part of the subcommittee—or at least on the part of the Liberal members, but possibly others too—to hear a large number of witnesses. I would therefore propose something. I have probably four more witnesses I would like to call. It's a very limited number.

The Chair: First of all, it's contrary to what we had agreed upon. Also, your colleague was here at the committee, and I offered witnesses. We have made certain decisions, so I would say that's out of order. I have a motion before us already with regard to the fourth report, which talks about how we would do it. It's all right for you to object to such a thing.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, I would like to propose an amendment to the sections on witnesses. I'd have to have a look to see how it's set up here, since I just received a copy of this right now. You're saying that—

The Chair: Two days be set aside.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —two days be set aside.

The Chair: It's number 3, precisely.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I propose instead that we set aside another day or two. Looking over their briefs and their testimony from before in some cases, if these can be scheduled quickly, it will only mean possibly another day or two so that we can accommodate the witnesses I would like to have here. With the changes that have been made, I think it would be well worth our while having the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic come here again, because they had some concerns about adoption and about residency time and physical presence issues. The Canadian Labour Congress had concerns on how the commissioners are appointed. And the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants also had concerns on that same issue, actually. On the issue of—

The Chair: They were here before, and that's why they haven't been invited.

Mr. Leon Benoit: They were, that's right, but there have been some changes.

The Chair: I know, but we had 46. To tell you the truth, you should know that, again, I hate having to go over previous business. We discussed all these matters last week. It was decided that we were going to take the opportunity to tell everybody who had made a submission under Bill C-63 that we are inviting them to give us a written submission based on the changes made in Bill C-16, and that we would take these into account. We would read not only their Bill C-63 submissions into the record for Bill C-16 again, but any letters we receive with regard to their comments on Bill C-16, so that we wouldn't have to go through 46 witnesses again. Everybody agreed to that.

• 1020

I've also taken—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm only proposing four.

The Chair: But I gave everybody an opportunity of inviting other particular—

Mr. Leon Benoit: When was this done?

The Chair: I just told you, on March 23, and you weren't here.

Mr. Leon Benoit: March 23 is when this letter was sent out inviting these groups to send in a new submission?

The Chair: No. It's a subcommittee report. Once it's adopted—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that.

The Chair: Listen, Leon. The other one, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, appeared before Bill C-63.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I know they did, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Well, again—

Mr. Leon Benoit: In exchange, I think we should have them back to discuss—

The Chair: I'm sorry. We had already decided. I have an amendment on the floor.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Fontana—

The Chair: No, no, I'm going to put your amendment. You want more witnesses.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to discuss the amendment.

The Chair: No. You've already discussed it. I'm putting the question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. I have some more comments I'd like to make.

The Chair: I'm putting the question.

All those in favour of the amendment?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like a recorded vote.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): That's the spirit.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)

The Chair: Thank you. We'll now go to the question on the main motion, with a recorded vote probably.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like time to review this. We just received this. We need a couple of minutes to go over it. These things should be sent out in advance.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chair, what is the committee referring to?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, right.

The Chair: If you hadn't left, you would have the subcommittee on agenda....

Would you give Mr. Anders a copy of what he agreed to the last time?

Mr. Leon Benoit: You agreed to one witness from each party?

Mr. Rob Anders: Oh, I don't—

The Chair: He may have disagreed, but the committee agreed to it.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, you may be putting words in my mouth now.

The Chair: Do you have any questions on this fourth report?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. I'd like time to read it.

The Chair: That's what I'm asking.

David Price.

Mr. David Price: Do you have confirmation from David Foot?

The Chair: Unfortunately he's not available. Mind you, as I said, once we get through Bill C-16, if in fact we want Mr. Foot some time after we get the study—

Mr. John McKay: He's not going to charge us his usual appearance fee, is he?

The Chair: I know he has a big appearance fee and everything else. Maybe we'll have to negotiate that. But there are other demographers that we may want to look at. I think the committee wanting to undertake this is absolutely fantastic. We'll find someone who might give us some information, even within the department and other departments, who have already done the demographics, Stats Canada and Health Canada and so on, because there are numerous reports.

Mr. John McKay: We want a cheap demographer.

The Chair: Okay. I'm going to put the—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I can see that the members of the committee just aren't willing to listen to more witnesses. I only proposed four. I'm obviously not trying to stall this.

The Chair: Of the four that you've suggested, three have already appeared before, and I said—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like them back to talk about some changes—

The Chair: Then we would have to invite the other 46 who appeared before. We've already dealt with that question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But, Mr. Chair, then you said we would consider briefs they would submit on the changes. You said, I believe, that you would put out a letter asking them for briefs, or you had done that. When was that done? When was that letter sent inviting briefs on the changes?

The Chair: We will invite those groups that have made submissions on Bill C-63 as soon as we pass the fourth report. We are advising...in fact, I signed a bunch of letters yesterday, ready, set to go. Once the fourth report is passed, the letters will go out and people will have an opportunity of doing that. We discussed that all last week.

Mr. Leon Benoit: And they're supposed to get—

The Chair: Now, listen, if you don't like it, call a news conference and get on with it again.

Mr. Leon Benoit: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: On the fourth report, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. I'm trying to make a point—

The Chair: I would like the clerk to call the question on the fourth report. I'm not debating this any more.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Boy, aren't you hot under the collar.

The Chair: All in favour of the fourth report?

• 1025

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, and I'd like a recorded vote, please.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: There's another motion. There's something else I want to deal with that should have been dealt with last time. It had to do with the motion that was put.... This relates to the unfortunate events of yesterday, or the day before, in Parliament with regard to our discussion paper, options for a report. Some of the stuff we dealt with in public and some of the things obviously should have been dealt with in conference.

I think the committee had already agreed that the evidence that was in the in camera meetings held on February 23 and 24, which was the time we were discussing not the draft confidential document but the discussion paper, or the options for a report, as it related to the refugee determination system and migrants...that they be made public and that accordingly the minutes be amended. As you remember, not only did we make the minutes of the March 2 meeting public and therefore available to the public so that they know exactly what we were discussing at that time, but we also agreed that we were going to make the minutes of the 23rd and 24th public. They have to be put together, translated, and put into Hansard form.

I think that would have solved Mr. Leon's problems. Had he stayed around for the meetings to discuss this, he would have found that we were more than willing to open up the process even more.

I would ask for that motion to be put so that we can vote on it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So moved.

Mr. John McKay: What's the motion again?

The Chair: That the in camera meetings of February 23 and 24, when we were talking about the discussion paper that Margaret prepared for us, the options for a report.... It wasn't the draft report or confidential report with recommendations. It really was a summary of what the witnesses had told us and some of the issues that we needed to decide.... We had three meetings on that, as you know, the 23rd, the 24th, and March 2, which was already in public. Remember, that's the meeting Mr. Benoit wanted to tape for himself just in case we didn't go public. But we will now make the meetings of February 23 and 24 public.

Mr. Leon Benoit: A point of order.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Isn't it a procedure agreed to by committee that a motion be tabled and there's a 24-hour waiting period, or the next day, before it is to be considered?

The Chair: This one was put forward two or three weeks ago. Unfortunately, we were never able to get to it because we were doing some work. So I think—

Mr. Leon Benoit: The motion has been...?

Mr. John McKay: The motion is in order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Notice has been given, has it, and it's in the record? Or is all that's required that it goes to the clerk?

The Clerk of the Committee: It just comes to me.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I just want to say, for the record, that I find it quite remarkable that Mr. Benoit would suggest that we delay this when in fact this is releasing information that he has made quite a fuss about, that it be made available to the public. To look for a way...it just clearly shows that the only agenda Mr. Benoit has is to try to delay all procedures of this committee.

Frankly, I've calmed down, but I was at the point where I was prepared to come into this committee and put a motion to have Mr. Benoit removed from the committee for the activities he undertook. He has shown a complete disregard and a lack of respect for the members of this committee. The fact that he ultimately apologized in the House of Commons was the only reason that I personally was prepared to let the thing go. But I wish we could get on with the business that is before us and stop this kind of obstructionist movement by the critic from the Reform Party. It's just getting to the point of becoming quite nauseating, frankly.

The Chair: I take it you're speaking in favour of the motion.

Yes, Mr. Benoit.

• 1030

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. I also agree with the motion, and in no way am I trying to delay it. I'm trying to ensure proper procedure in this committee, which was my concern in the first place.

If the chair would let me have my say, my concern was that proper procedure hadn't been followed for this committee to go in camera. Plus, of course, I received a copy of the new act, which this committee was supposed to have an impact on—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You were found guilty by the Speaker. Why do you continue to try to defend the fact that—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, would you get some order to the committee—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —you violated privileges of members of the House of Commons. Why don't you apologize to the men and women on this side and over here for the absolute rudeness—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, who has the floor here?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —you have displayed in ignoring the rules of the House of Commons? You were found guilty. Say you're sorry, Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I was not found guilty. In fact all your cabinet ministers voted against your own motion. You have very selective memory, don't you.

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like to finish my comments. If the members could settle down enough to listen, I'd really appreciate that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Call the question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: As I said, I support this motion because I think these things should be considered in public, and I'm pleased to see the minutes of these meetings and Hansard be made public. But I want to make it clear that the reason I decided to go to the media is, as I explained—

A voice: Stop trying to justify it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm not trying to justify it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a point of order.

The Chair: We're not going to get into this argument. The question is now being put on the motion. Would you take—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I want a recorded vote.

The Chair: Mr. Anders. I will allow Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

To speak in defence of one of my colleagues, I just received this motion, and I think all my colleague is doing is trying to hold the government to the same process the opposition would have.

I remember when we first came in this place after the last election and the government forthwith put in all committees that there had to be a 24-hour notice at least for motions so that nothing could be popped on them in committee, Mr. Chairman. And I think all he was trying to do was make sure that indeed was the case, that the government was living up to its own rule.

I don't think that's asking too much, Mr. McKay. You can raise your eyebrows as much as you like.

To be fair, the reason this whole thing has come forward is because the opposition had problems with the in camera process, and in a sense the seeds that have been sown are coming back to roost. So maybe this is all at the end of it making it right.

The Chair: I call the question on the motion that the minutes of the meetings of the 23rd and 24th be made public.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We're adjourned.