CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 7, 2002

¾

0835

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

¾

0840

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

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

¾

0845

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

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

The Chair

¾

0850

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

¾

0855

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 002

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 7, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾  (0835)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Colleagues, I wonder if we could begin.

    I know that the notice went out that this was supposed to be a full committee meeting, and I think we all agreed that a full committee essentially would be the planning committee. Because we don't have nine people for a quorum, it causes some problems. I think, if everybody agrees, that for our purposes it is going to be as if we were having a meeting dealing with witnesses. Our witness for the morning is Ben, and I'll tell you why. Ben has some interesting things that we need to go through and he's going to be our witness for the day so that we in fact can constitute ourselves. If that's all right with everybody, we'll operate on that basis, because I know everybody wants to get to the House for the debate on Bill C-18. If we can proceed on that basis, why don't we do that?

    What I indicated on Tuesday was that we should talk about future business. First of all, let me review what I think is coming down the pike for us and what I think we need to do. First and foremost, as you know, the regulations on safe third were published on October 26, I believe. There are 30 days for public review. Obviously, I would like this committee to have some input into that safe third. I know that we may have received or we may have seen the text. It's a pretty complicated text, but apparently it's a simple principle. It's out there, but I think what we as a committee need to do is invite the officials to come to talk to us about safe third. There might be some interested witnesses or people who may have already talked to you individually who may also have some comments on the safe third. I don't know if you want to entertain the idea of witnesses. We can discuss that.

    I should also tell you that in regard to when we get back the week after next, we have been trying to arrange with the minister for him to be here since obviously he should be here first. Tuesday is not going to be possible for him because he is travelling, I believe, but on Thursday he would be available. I was thinking that we would invite the officials to meet with us on Tuesday so that we can go over a few things with them. One is the safe third agreement. They can give us the background and the information on that. As well, we can ask any other questions that we might have of them in relation to the annual report that the minister, as you know, has tabled in the House. They would prepare us so that we would have some great questions for the minister on Thursday.

    If we did that on Thursday, and had the minister with us for an hour and a half to two hours, at least then we could deal substantially with the issues of immigration, and the minister could answer the questions on the annual report, safe third, and also the new citizenship bill. If we did that when we come back, that would prepare us for what we want to plan to do in the weeks to come.

¾  (0840)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Chairman, given that we had 30 days to respond to the regulations, do you think the minister would be willing to consider an extension? The October 26 deadline is a little tight. I for one know of three witnesses that the committee might be interested in hearing from. In any case, it's important for us to get some idea, don't you agree?

[English]

    The Chair: I would agree with you, and there is even the fact that we want to discuss it. As you will remember, it was a recommendation of this committee that Canada enter into an agreement with the United States, so I think it's an important issue for us, important for the purposes of us looking at what that safe third agreement actually says, getting the minister to comment on it, and getting the administration to give us some briefing on the details of it and on the actual mechanics of how it's going to work. I found it complicated in terms of the procedures and process, not necessarily the principle.

    More importantly, if we want to entertain witnesses for the purposes of the safe third, that's when we will get into some degree of problem with the 30 days.

    Thirty days is a statutory requirement for the tabling of certain regulations and what have you, right, Ben?

    Therefore I don't know if we can move that date, unless we request it. As you know, the minister moved the date on the regulations for Bill C-11, the immigration bill. We can ask for that.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We can ask.

    The Chair: We can ask. We can find out whether that is possible, because, as we discuss future business, the timelines are such that between when we get back and the winter break there are only two or three weeks. It all depends on what you want to do. So let's put safe third as one of our highest priorities because there are some timelines. Let's put that as number one and see how everything else works.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Furthermore, committees were very late in starting their proceedings. I think we have very valid reasons for requesting an extension.

[English]

    The Chair: Diane, do you have any comments on safe third as to the approach? First, should it be the number one priority? What are your feelings with regard to witnesses and, obviously, if we can get a delay? Do you think that's important? We did hear witnesses as part of Bill C-11 and some of them did comment on safe third, but is this something we ought to do?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): As you know, we had that letter from Buzz Hargrove, and the concern was raised about the side agreement, which I think has been dealt with somewhat. I haven't heard any other concerns expressed other than the straightforward details, so I wouldn't think, other than familiarizing ourselves with the regulations and expressing any concerns we feel we need to be expressed, that we'd need to hear a lot of witnesses, but I don't know who Madeleine has in mind as witnesses. I don't have any in mind.

    The Chair: Yes, I can tell you. I should have said this. So far what's come to our attention through the clerk's office are four groups: Amnesty International, the Canadian Auto Workers, as you've just mentioned, the Canadian Council for Refugees, which is an umbrella group, as we all know, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Judith Kumin. In fact, this may very well be because they've respectfully asked and they're all in or can be in Ottawa, so we could take a morning or an afternoon and at least invite these groups with regard to hearing them on the safe third.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that all of those groups will have concerns about safe third. It may be helpful to hear from at least one group or one witness who supports the safe third. As you know, it's something the committee has recommended and I think it would be good to hear some balancing viewpoints on it to allow us to make a little better judgment about its adequacy. I imagine that you or the researchers could suggest a couple of such witnesses or I'd be happy to try to schedule some--

¾  (0845)  

    The Chair: As you know, it's a government motion, so an awful lot of the proponents of safe third are not only on this committee but in the government. If in fact we need to find someone, I think we can.

    By the way, talking about safe third, Ben has been hard at work while we've been trying to organize ourselves, and everything you'd want to know about the safe third agreement, in common English language, and en français aussi, is right here. This is going to be very helpful as we prepare ourselves.

    Okay. So far I understand that, yes, we have to move fairly quickly on safe third, and yes, we ought to have a limited number of witnesses, those who have asked to appear, and perhaps with the addition of one or two that might be proponents. So far that's what I get from you, colleagues.

    Steve.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Sorry, I've been away from this issue for a while, but I thought that the safe third agreement was done.

    The Chair: Except that the regulations have been tabled, and there are 30 days for comments, and the minister would come here and want to talk to us about it. Because it was such an important issue to this committee, we want to review it with the minister, the administration and among ourselves to get a better understanding, because it was our recommendation.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: I know it was. So we're only talking about the regs. We're not talking about...my understanding was that the Americans had agreed--

    The Chair: Yes. We're not talking about the concept. As a committee, we've already approved the concept. We're just talking about the mechanics of how safe third is going to work. As you know if you have read that agreement, it's very complicated and very technical, so I think this would be for the purposes of how it would actually work. Again, if you remember, we had a principle in Bill C-11 and we wanted to make sure that the regulations reflected the principle.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: I understand that. My only concern is that we seem to be sending out a message that safe third is on the table again.

    The Chair: No. Well, it is on the table as it relates to the public and regulations--

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: What? In terms that they might convince us not to do it?

    The Chair: No. The regulations are on the table and there are 30 days for public comment. The committee wishes to comment and to make sure, because we recommended it, and we want to have an understanding of how the regs work. In fact, the public will be commenting on some of the regulations. I think it's appropriate for the committee, which may or may not want to comment on the regs. We may be very satisfied that the regulations actually will work very well. I don't think the minister's office or the administration have any disagreement with this, because obviously we've said that this is something that the committee may want to do.

    But you're right: it's not on the principle, Steve. It's on the actual regs that are in the public domain now.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Fine. Obviously the committee can order its business and if it's the majority wish that we do this, that's fine, but I would just comment that it seems to me we're going to be holding out the opportunity to all of the groups who want to come before us that we'll cancel this or that we won't proceed with it. That's clearly the message. I thought it was a done deal.

    The Chair: It is a done deal, but the regs are out there for public comment, and therefore there is going to be public comment going back to the administration on the actual implementation.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: But why don't we allow that to happen? Why have all the public comment and the debate and the whole issue raised again at a committee level? Why not just allow them to comment as they would normally in any situation?

    The Chair: Well, yes--

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: In essence we're providing a platform and a forum for the people who are opposed to something that we recommended, that the minister accepted, that we have had discussions with the United States on, and it has been agreed on and it's done. Now we're going to go back at it?

    The Chair: We did the same thing on Bill C-11, and thank God we did or else we would have had a bunch of regulations that in fact would have screwed up the immigration system in this country big time if we hadn't.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: So we want to go through the regulations...?

    The Chair: I'll tell you that when I started to read this safe third, in principle of course I agree with it, but it was very complicated to understand how it was going to work technically, like what do we do about a person who actually is coming from the U.S. to Canada? I just want to understand--

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm just putting my oar in the water, Mr. Chairman. It seems like micromanaging, but if that's what the committee wants to do, fine.

    The Chair: Inky.

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Since this is a planning session and you're already looking at witnesses for third safe, and you know we have a bill to deal with, do you have any idea about when the bill is going to come back to this place for hearings?

    The Chair: Which bill? Bill C-18? Probably when we get back at the end of the day, I would imagine, because it's in second reading. Unless there are going to be a lot of speakers on our side and your side, we should have it when we return.

¾  (0850)  

    Mr. Inky Mark: When you expect to actually do the hearing?

    The Chair: On the citizenship bill?

    Mr. Inky Mark: Yes.

    The Chair: That's what I'm waiting to hear from you about. I have some ideas. Should we be travelling? What should we be doing? What would we be dealing with?

    Mr. Inky Mark: Will we be dealing with it by the end of this month?

    The Chair: We can start, but there's no way that we're going to finish it before we get out of here. I would think that if we get it done by February sometime we'll be in fine shape. I don't think that there's a hurry on it. It's been stepping--

    Mr. Inky Mark: I'm not in a hurry, but I have other business to deal with.

    The Chair: No. I would agree. We'll get it and we should start it before we leave this place and complete it hopefully by February or the end of February. That should be fine.

    Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted that my friend Steve is here. He's not even listening, but no matter.

    Since we've scheduled time for comments, I would find it rather amazing if no comments were forthcoming, because first of all, Members are here to represent their constituents. If we maintain that their views don't matter and that we've already made up our minds, then we're sending a very poor message out to the public. I'm sorry that I don't share Steve's vision, but I'm fond of him nevertheless.

[English]

    The Chair: I like him too. All in favour of people who like Steve?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: On that we agree.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: You had an “opposed” on that.

    The Chair: I didn't ask. I was afraid to ask.

    Inky, do you have any problem with safe third, with moving along with a limited number of witnesses and taking a day or two?

    Mr. Inky Mark: No. I agree that this is the platform for people to come to and dissent, if they wish, or to praise the government because they agree with the legislation and policies.

    The Chair: Okay.

    David, do you have any comments?

    Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): No, I have no comments.

    The Chair: Okay. So far, what we'll do is this. We'll do a limited sort of hearing on the basis of four or five witnesses, those who have asked to appear, for the purposes of reviewing the regs. It's not about getting into the principle of, “Are we going to have a safe third or aren't we?” That decision has been made. An agreement has been signed with the United States. We want to do it.

    The first thing we'll do is get the administration here Tuesday when we're back, essentially to take us through the safe third and any other questions we might have on other matters, and I'll get into that. We'll limit the witness list to those who have asked: Amnesty International, the Canadian Auto Workers, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and as well, as Diane suggested, we have to take a look--

    Yes, David.

    Mr. David Price: I'm sorry I'm late. Unfortunately, I didn't realize there was a meeting this morning.

    Just hearing the list of witnesses brings this to mind. If we're going to take a look at this and see how safe third is going to be handled, should we not talk to the people who are going to be on the front lines and dealing directly with this, not just the people that are opposed to or happy with it but the people who are going to have to deal with those regs directly? Maybe we should talk to some people from the border crossings or some of our air terminals. They are dealing with this and they have had a chance to take a look at it and say “Okay, this is the everyday dealing I'm going to have with this subject, and gee, this really doesn't work.”

    The Chair: That's a good point, David. I take it that the government administration, the administration of immigration, maybe even customs officers, would talk about it, but you're actually talking about the workers?

    Mr. David Price: That's right, because we've seen before--

    The Chair: They've been witnesses before.

    Mr. David Price: What funnels down doesn't always get to the bottom.

    The Chair: Okay. I have another problem, because on Bill C-11 and the regulations we did invite the immigration officers--

    Mr. David Price: That's right.

    The Chair: --to come forward, so when we invite them to see if they have any particular comments...you will know that we asked them when we were dealing with Bill C-11, or no, it was the border security issue, and safe third was one of the recommendations from that report, but they did comment on that.

    Mr. David Price: But as you know, Mr. Chair, you have said yourself that you're in total agreement with the principle and they were too, but now you've seen the regulations and you're already saying, “Well...”, and they probably have the same--

    The Chair: I don't understand the regs fully because it's very complicated legal language. Ben has put it very well into layperson's language and I think we just have to make sure that it's right.

    So that's a good suggestion. We will invite them to come forward.

    If we do this, then on Tuesday, November 19, when we get back, we will have the officials with us so we can talk to them about all kinds of things. The minister is going to come to the committee on November 21. Do you want to meet on Tuesday afternoon for a couple of hours and deal with those witnesses then? We'll see if we can get these organizations all before this committee on Tuesday between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., okay? Let's do that. That way, on Thursday we'll have the minister in the morning. It won't be in camera. Because we're going to be dealing with important immigration matters, we can try to get the television room.

    We'll be able to deal with safe third and have the minister with us. He can talk to us a little bit about safe third and also about the annual report and the numbers that he's put forward. I suppose that he could also talk to us a little bit about his meetings with his provincial counterparts as that relates to provincial nominee agreements. Also, he can talk to us about the new Citizenship Act. So maybe we can get him for a couple of hours on Thursday, because there's a lot of ground to cover.

    During the following week, we can continue with some additional work. As you know, one of the other things we needed to do and wanted to do as it relates to immigration was to talk a little bit about the settlement programs and the provincial nominee agreements, the last piece of immigration. As you will remember, we've done everything, not only the policy but the regulations and the implementation, but an awful lot of our witnesses talked about settlement programs and provincial nominee programs. So, if at all possible--and I think we have to travel on the Citizenship Act--I think we could try to incorporate citizenship hearings as well as settlement and provincial nominees hearings at the same time.

    I was thinking that if we wanted to do it we could split the committee in two, one half going from Ontario west, and the other going from Quebec east. Then not only would we be able to save money but we would essentially cover an awful lot of area in over a week and a half or so, with hearings in every one of the provincial capitals, not only on citizenship and for any witnesses that might want to come forward but on the settlement and provincial nominee matters as well. We would begin that at the end of November and continue it when we get back in February.

    That's the other issue, the Citizenship Act as well as our settlement programs, but if we're going to travel for settlement and provincial nominee agreements, we don't want to have to go back out for citizenship. I think we can incorporate both.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Do it all at once.

    The Chair: Yes, we could do it all at once, if that's okay. Are there any comments with regard to that? We've prepared some tentative dates and budgets, but is the concept acceptable to the committee?

¾  (0855)  

    Mr. Inky Mark: Are you planning on two weeks, at the end of November and in the first week in December? I don't know if we can decide--

    The Chair: We're going to look at what we can do. I was thinking of not trying to do five capitals, because I'm not sure that we can do one capital a day. It may very well be that we need two days per capital, and for five capitals, that's ten days. If half the committee goes west and half the committee goes east, then we can cover it off over a two-week period.

     The problem is that I think that we all want to be here for the second week of December because that's when there will be the adjournment of the House and there will be all kinds of things happening here. So we have the last week of November and perhaps the first week of December in which to at least do the travel and the hearings. Then we can get into the nuts and bolts of the Citizenship Act and the settlement and the provincial nominee programs in February when we get back, but if we can do the travel leg before we have to leave this place...we'll work on a tentative schedule to see what it looks like. We'll give it to you and then you can take a look at it and comment on whether it's okay.

    The other thing that I think is on the drawing board is that we have to get to the United States, but there's no use getting to the United States until January, their new session, for the purpose of again discussing some bilateral issues that are very important. We should have been there before, but obviously it didn't happen. That's something that we should look at in February.

    I think we're going to have a pretty busy number of months. Not only do we have an act to do, but there a number of reports that we have to do. As well, the government is going to have a response to our “Competing for Immigrants” report that we did from our travel. We're going to be very busy. Let me get down some of these ideas we've discussed and I'll send the list to your office so you can comment over the course of the week when we're back in our constituencies. When we get back, we'll come back on Tuesday for the purpose of hearing the administration and the witnesses on safe third, okay? After we hear from the officials, we'll have a further discussion on future business again.

    Merci. We're adjourned.