CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

¿

0905

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

Mr. Monte Solberg

The Clerk

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

The Clerk

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

¿

0910

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

¿

0915

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

¿

0920

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

¿

0925

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

¿

0930

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

¿

0940

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 001

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0905)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: I see a quorum.

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

    Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Clerk, if there is more than one person nominated for the chair, what is the procedure? We'd prefer, obviously, a secret ballot, but what is the procedure?

    The Clerk: There should be discussion among the members as to how they want to proceed on that matter.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay. I would ask for consent that we have a secret ballot in the event that there's more than one person nominated for the chair.

    Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): And the vice-chairs.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: And the vice-chairs, absolutely.

    The Clerk: Do the members wish to proceed in that manner?

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I second the motion.

[English]

    The Clerk: Okay. I am ready to receive nominations.

    Mr. Assad.

    Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Joe Fontana is nominated for chair of the committee.

    The Clerk: Are there other nominees? As there are no other nominees, nominations are closed.

    Do members wish to proceed by secret ballot? If not, I declare Mr. Fontana elected to the chair and invite him to take it.

    The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Thank you again, all of you, for your vote of confidence. We've done some excellent work in the past two years working together. I think, in most cases, we were 95% in agreement. We've got some great work ahead of us in the next year or two. Welcome to the committee.

    Let's have the election of the two vice-chairs. I'll take nominations on the first vice-chair.

    Bob Wood.

    Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'd like to nominate Jerry Pickard.

¿  (0910)  

    The Chair: Right.

    Are there other nominations for the government vice-chair? Seeing none, Jerry Pickard's elected vice-chair. Great work, Jerry. Thank you. As you know, Jerry was vice-chair last year and did an absolutely fantastic job for us.

    We'll now take nominations for second vice-chair.

    Lynne.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I nominate Diane Ablonczy.

    The Chair: Antoine.

[Translation]

    Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): I nominate Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

[English]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: To put a little French in.

¿  (0915)  

    The Chair: Oui, Madeleine.

    As there are no other nominations, according to the first motion, it would be a secret ballot. We could do two things. We could vote on the first nomination, or we could put both on the ballot and do it on that basis.

    An hon. member: Put both on the ballot.

    The Chair: Okay. We're going to hand out the ballots for you. We request that you put the first and last name of your choice on the ballot.

    I have the honour of announcing the result of the vote. The second vice-chair is Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral. Congratulations.

    There are routine motions we have to go through, first the appointment of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. We've worked together as a committee of the whole to deal with agenda and procedure items. Do you want to continue with that, which I think has worked out in the past, rather than having a separate committee? Are there any objections to doing that? Can I have a motion to that effect. Actually, we don't need this one at all. Okay, forget about that one there.

    On hearing of evidence and publication of the same, it says that the chair be authorized to hold meetings and to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition. I think that's how we've operated in the past couple of years.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next motion is that the committee retain the services of one or more researchers from the Library of Parliament as needed to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the chair.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Let me invite Margaret and Ben to the table. As you know, Ben and Margaret have done absolutely fantastic work for us in the past couple of years. In fact, they've written some very good things for us. So congratulations again.

    On allocation and timing of questioning, we've done something unique around here with regard to making sure there's been a fair and equitable distribution of questions. What you see here is how we've been operating over the past couple of years, and it's worked really well. In fact, the chair has been operating on how many people want to ask questions. It's a matter, again, of having some sort of flexibility. I think it's worked in the past. I would appreciate it if we could move that. If there are some differences of opinion, I'll hear them now.

    Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

    I have been a member of the committee for two years, and I have always found the time allocation rule for questioning witnesses extremely problematic. I am thinking particularly of MPs from the fourth and fifth parties. I think the system is very frustrating, particularly when we have many witnesses. I think that committees are defined by the fact that all parliamentarians are on an equal footing. Of course, the parties have different opinions and visions, but, precisely because of this, we should try to promote a broader range of views.

    I would suggest 10 minutes for the official opposition, which I think is quite fair, then 10 minutes for the Bloc Québécois, 5 minutes for the New Democratic Party and 5 minutes for the Conservative Party. In this way, our friends on the government side would have the advantage of being able to rebut our arguments. I think that would be a good thing and would promote a better dialogue and a better atmosphere.

[English]

    The Chair: What you see before us is something that is not the norm. What we together have decided is that the official opposition gets 10 minutes, then we go to the government for 10 minutes, and then, instead of what other committees do, we go to the Alliance, then to the Liberals, and then eventually get to the Bloc, the NDP, the Conservatives. This was a compromise. In fact, the Liberals are giving up a lot of time in order for you to get your questions. You've suggested something different. We'll discuss that in a little more depth if you like.

    Diane, do you have any comments on that one?

¿  (0920)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, generally, I think we haven't had to adhere to the letter of the law, so to speak, in this committee. I think it's worked very well. I'm happy if we have some kind of procedure if there's a dispute, though I wouldn't anticipate that. So I'd be comfortable with whatever is proposed by the committee, because it just hasn't been a difficulty.

    The Chair: Inky.

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Mr. Chair, I would suggest that for the second round on the opposition side, instead of going back to the Alliance, we complete the questioning from the third, fourth, and fifth parties.

    The Chair: If you look at that, though, we go to the Alliance first for 10 minutes, then we go to the Liberals for 10, then we go five minutes and we go to the BQ, and then--

    Mr. Inky Mark: And then we go back to the Alliance.

    The Chair: That's how we've operated. I think we are talking about flexibility, because you never know who is going to be here at the time and who wants to ask a question; it's not mandatory that questions be asked. You are essentially now suggesting something a little different from what Madeleine is proposing too. Let's canvass some other people.

    Joe.

[Translation]

    Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, if we were to accept the principle that all members are equal, we would not need to give either the official opposition or the government 10 minutes. Since we have exactly 7 opposition members and 8 government members, everyone should be given the same opportunity to express his or her opinions. If we were to allocate the first 5 minutes to the official opposition and the next 5 to the government, we could alternate between the opposition and the government and give every committee member equal time, without regard to any party, except for the first question.  

[English]

    The Chair: That's a third option.

    I think the principle this committee has tried to work on is the spirit of non-partisanship. I think our reports would indicate that we've done that rather well. While there are parties in this particular room, we've tried to operate on the basis of respecting each individual's point of view, working together to build that consensus. This is what's worked in the past. Now I've got all kinds of different alternatives. I haven't gone to motions yet, because the consensus seems to be based on what we already have. I'll entertain motions, if you want, to push the envelope.

    Anita.

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): If you wish, I would move what we have here, and I'm prepared to speak to it.

    The Chair: I have a motion, then, as written, on the allocation of time for questioning. Is there any debate?

    Ms. Anita Neville: Mr. Chair, I would propose that we continue with the status quo. This is for the purpose of questioning witnesses, and I think all members around the table have equal eagerness to question the witnesses. This has worked well. There has been a spirit of cooperation. The committee make-up is more or less the same as it was in the past two years that I've been on the committee, and I would suggest that we continue as we have in the past.

    The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, I must acknowledge that you have almost always—98% of the time—been able to understand the opposition's requests. However, as you know, things do change. I think we have an opportunity now, given that all members are here today. I have never seen that in the almost 10 years that I have been here. I find it quite extraordinary.

[English]

    The Chair: It probably won't happen again.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Exactly. We have to take advantage of this opportunity. I think we should be able to find an arrangement that reflects Mr. Volpe's comments about the committee's role and the value of each member on it. If one of the opposition parties is absent or has no questions to ask because everything is clear, that party would simply be skipped.

    I confess that I am particularly sensitive to the fact that on the first round, the official opposition has 15 minutes to question the witnesses. Fifteen minutes is not an insignificant amount of time. I could understand if we were to give those members 10 minutes, but I think 15 minutes is very long. I am quite generous by nature, but I think we have to be generous to everyone. So I would remove at least the second five-minute time period for the Canadian Alliance, so that the fourth and fifth parties may have an opportunity to speak, and not be relegated to the end of the proceedings.

[English]

    The Chair: Madeleine, are you moving that as an amendment?

¿  (0925)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, I think that...

[English]

    The Chair: The amendment is, then, that when we go back to the Alliance, five minutes be adopted from there. Is that what you're moving as an amendment?

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That is correct.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, that's been moved. Is there a seconder to that amendment? Judy seconds it.

    Let's deal with the amendment first. Is there any debate on the amendment?

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would take that time away from the Liberal Party as well, while we are at it. My friends on the other side are nice, but if we take this time away from the Alliance, we should also take it away from the government party. Is that not right?

[English]

    The Chair: Well, Madeleine, you'll soon learn as the second vice-chair that.... Are you now talking about a second amendment or one amendment that includes deducting five from the Alliance and five from the Liberals?

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

[English]

    You don't agree with that?

    The Chair: Well, I'm going to let you try your hand at democracy. Is that what your amendment is, five away from the Alliance, five from the Liberals?

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

    The Chair: Does everybody understand that?

    Jerry.

    Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I think you've been very flexible in the chair. We are debating rules by which all members will function, and the comment all the way through the system over the last couple of years has been that we try to put partisanship aside on a lot of these issues. However, if we have people on the committee who decide that we follow the letter of the law of what we're developing here today, what we're putting on the table, whether it's Madeleine's amendment or the motion you have in front of you, may I ask how long it would take the eighth member of the Liberal group sitting at this table to get to ask a question?

    The Chair: Thirty-six hours after.

    Mr. Jerry Pickard: No, I'm serious about this. I think it is an issue. There may be issues where every Liberal wishes to speak. If that is the case, how long would it take this committee to sit, under the rules you're putting forward, to allow the eighth member of the Liberal caucus to speak? That's important, because under some circumstances, if we don't accept more flexibility than is in this rule, we will end up with somebody coming here and not being able to speak for hours. I would like your analysis or the clerk's analysis of how long it would take for the eighth Liberal to be able to speak. That's important to me, because I think every member of the committee has the right to speak at committee. What you're doing is saying, no, there are going to be members who will not be allowed to speak.

    The Chair: Jerry, you know, that's why we chose this particular compromise as a motion, taking into account that if we followed everything other committees have done, that eighth member of the Liberal party, under their scenario, probably would have got on a lot sooner. With this one here, it's a little longer, but under the scenarios proposed by the amendment, it's going to be a very long time.

    I'm ready to move on the amendment.

    Mr. Jerry Pickard: But just to be fair here, “very long” is not what I wanted. I asked for how many rounds and how long it takes. Every person at this table should be aware of that, because there will be people not allowed to speak if we have the committee here, and I don't think that's right. That's why I'm asking the question and bringing it out. I think the Liberal caucus is extremely overgenerous, and I'm asking not only for the letter of the law, but for flexibility. If we go in this direction, flexibility is required.

¿  (0930)  

    The Chair: If you want an answer to that question, we'll have to get a calculator.

    Mr. Jerry Pickard: That's okay, people can add.

    The Chair: It will take a little while.

    It comes out as close to 85 or 90 minutes. It's right in that ballpark.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether you're going to require another amendment or a subamendment to that amendment. I would be willing to be guided by you, but the reason I made the initial observation reflects Mr. Pickard's reasoning. You have 15 members on a committee. Usually, you have witnesses come here before the committee and speak for 20 minutes. So if you have them for 20 minutes and you want every member to actually have an input in that, 8 times 5 minutes is 40 minutes, 7 times 5 is 35, so that's 75 minutes, plus the 20 minutes. You've a minimum of an hour and thirty-five minutes to get to the last person. Since most committee sessions are between one and a half and two hours, it's hit and miss if you're going to come on a committee and you want to have input. If you assume that everybody wants to be a diligent member and come to a committee, you're asking somebody to sit for a minimum of an hour and a half before he or she may get a chance to say something. If you're going to guarantee two speakers 20 minutes before anybody else gets a chance to say something, then you're really asking the rest of the committee members to come and just sit and wait.

    It's been my experience on other committees that after the first couple of times the novelty of going to the SkyDome wears off, and unless you're seeing a winning team play excellent ball, you don't go to the SkyDome anymore.

    The Chair: I would say, though, the spirit of the committee is such that we manage to split times. The Alliance is an example, and the Liberals all the time split their first round 10 minutes between two people. Believe it or not, in practice, it works a heck of a lot better than what other committees do and a lot better than it might appear. But as our second vice-chair has thrown a grenade into the discussions this morning, we're into this.

    I'm going to go to the amendment.

    Jerry.

    Mr. Jerry Pickard: I don't mean to undermine what's happening here, I just want to point out the limited ability of a lot of my colleagues to speak on issues at this committee. I know you've been flexible and I know those across the table have been flexible, so I accept where we're going, but I don't want to accept more limitations on the ability of people on this side of the table to speak. That's why I pointed it out.

    The Chair: Okay.

    First we have the amendment, which would strike five minutes from the Alliance and the Liberal parties, as suggested by Madeleine.

    (Amendment negatived)

    The Chair: We already had the main motion, as moved by Anita. Inky, do you have another amendment?

    Mr. Inky Mark: I have a subamendment to the main motion, the striking of the second round for five minutes for the Canadian Alliance. It will give more time to the government side. Let's not forget that usually we're dealing with government legislation. That's why we have opposition on this side. We tend to forget that at times. I think it will free up more time on the opposition side.

    The Chair: But the government is one thing, the Liberal members are another thing; that's what the whole parliamentary discussion is all about.

    Okay. I'll accept that amendment. Is there any further discussion on that one, to strike five minutes on the second round from the Canadian Alliance?

    (Amendment negatived)

    The Chair: Now we have the main motion, as moved by Anita.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: On in camera meetings, it's been the practice for this committee to operate in public unless there's a motion to move in camera. That's the motion before you, and that we will be allowed one staff member if we're in camera.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The motion on distribution of papers is pretty standard.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next motion is on transcripts.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The motion on working meals should be a popular one--it all depends where we're ordering from, of course.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: With notice of motions, everybody's been very respectful of this particular practice of 48 hours. There's a very urgent manner of waiving this particular thing, but we'll stand by this for now.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Okay. The second one there is that it's considered by the committee and that the motion be filed with the clerk and circulated to members in both official languages. Upon receipt of notice, the clerk shall put the motion on the agenda of the committee's next meeting.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next begins “In the absence of the chair”. It's not “legislative committee”. Strike “legislative committee”.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Those are all the motions we have.

    Can I suggest a couple of things? We should probably meet for a short time on Thursday morning for the purpose of talking about future business. Let me just remind committee members where we've been, where we are, and where we're going.

    As you remember, after Bill C-11 we indicated what we wanted to do was deal with settlement issues as they relate to immigration and provincial nominee agreements. You know the minister has already met with his counterparts. It would be timely for us to finish that last piece of how we implement the immigration bill and hold hearings on provincial nominee agreements, as well as settlement programs.

    Another thing I should tell you of interest to this committee is that one of our recommendations was the safe third party agreement. As you know, the regulations have been tabled. I think we ought to deal with that. I know the minister has already announced his numbers for the coming year and he has introduced the citizenship bill. So I think, as the first order of business, we ought to invite the minister to come here and address all of those issues, especially safe third party and the new citizenship bill, as well as his immigration numbers. We should do that the first Tuesday we're back. We'll extend that invitation, so that we can start our work program.

    The other thing that is going to be important for us is something this committee wanted to do, and I believe it's still very important--in fact, getting to be much more important--a visit to our American counterparts. During the summer I had an opportunity of meeting with some senators and congressmen in the United States with regard to immigration, and they said they would like us to come there. I know it was a very frustrating time for this committee, post-September 11, to get there. I think, for the most part, our embassy was not as helpful as it could have been. We need to get there. There are a number of matters, permanent residence status, passport issues, citizenship issues, and our American counterparts would really like to meet with us. I know they have an election tonight, and we probably won't be able to get there till after the new session begins in January, but that's something we ought to give some consideration to.

    So why don't we talk about all these issues on Thursday morning as a striking committee on future work, and then we'll get the minister here first thing when we're back on Tuesday.

    Yes, Diane.

¿  (0940)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, as you know, Bill C-18 has been tabled, the new citizenship act, and it may be debated on Thursday, in which case, some of us would need to be in the House. That might interfere with a committee meeting.

    The Chair: That won't happen until after 10. I'm suggesting that we only take half an hour or forty-five minutes on Thursday to have a little discussion about where we're going. Is that okay?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Okay.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We can meet next Thursday at 8:30 a.m. That would give us one hour and a half before we have to go to the House to discuss Bill C-18.

    I would like to raise another matter while I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. I welcome Mr. Farrell, but I would like the chair to write a letter on behalf of the committee to Jacques Lahaie, who was the clerk of the committee for many years. Most people who were members of the committee had the pleasure of working with him. So I would ask the chair, on behalf of the committee, to send him a letter expressing our thanks and our regard for his work.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madeleine, that is exactly what I was going to talk about.

    First, we welcome Bill, who is going to be permanent. Bill was going to be with us only for a month, but I understand that since he found out the make-up of the committee and was thrilled with it, he's asked to stay on permanently, and I think we're going to be very happy with him.

    You're absolutely right, this committee was so well served by Jacques that not only should we ask for a letter, but let me find out what's in our budget and maybe we can take him out for dinner. I think we need a dinner as a committee. Let's see if we can't get Jacques, and we'll toast him and roast him at that dinner. How's that?

    Merci beaucoup. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.