CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 28, 1998

• 1533

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): Seeing a quorum, the chair now opens the meeting.

We have the agenda before us. Each of you has a copy of it. The first order of the day is the adoption of the fifth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. On that item, we have several sub-items. If you look at your copy of the fifth report, you can see those items, and later on I will entertain a motion.

Is there any informal discussion at this point? Or we can move to the motion, and then debate the specific points of the report.

I'll give you a few minutes to glance quickly at the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, and I would entertain either a motion to move the adoption of the report and then entertain debate thereafter, or we can have an informal discussion of the specifics of that report and move for its adoption with proper amendment.

Yes, Raymonde.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I would suggest that we have a discussion around the agenda and procedure report, and we can move to a vote after that.

The Chairman: Is there any contrary opinion to that suggestion?

• 1535

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Do you wish members to discuss the report?

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: Yes, before we vote.

[English]

The Chairman: If I call you by your first name, Hansard automatically deems that it will be recorded using your last name.

Who would like to start the discussion?

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): As a question for clarification, are we going to go through the report? I'm sure some of this is not a problem. Maybe we could have an explanation on the budget, for example—that's the first item.

The meeting schedule doesn't appear to be controversial.

As to the situation with speakers, I don't have any particular concern about that.

I have concerns about item 4 and some of item 5, particularly paragraph 5(c). It looks like we're trying to drag up former issues that someone might have wanted on the agenda and wasn't successful in achieving.

Item 6 is not a problem.

So I don't know how you want to proceed. If you want to give us perhaps an explanation on the first three items, then I would have some questions on items 4 and 5.

The Chairman: Steve has made his observation.

Réal.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: First, members of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure all agreed it would be interesting to discuss the issue of crime as it relates to the immigration process. However, what we meant by crime was the whole issue of smugglers, immigrants who come here and are involved in money laundering and other modern forms of crime.

The initial concern of the Reform Party was of course mainly the control of our frontiers. Later on, we agreed it would be interesting to study all forms of crime linked to illegal immigration. As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, we didn't want to limit ourselves to frontier control, but rather look at the issue in a much broader perspective.

We see that as a very important and contemporary issue. Also, a section of the study commissioned by the Solicitor General, Mr. Scott, on behalf of the government, has to do with immigration. Mr. Chairman, as you recall, each member of the sub-committee was to send you a proposed mandate. Mrs. Folco had suggested that it should be done by Tuesday. I did that, and I believe the other members of the committee have done it too. May be we'll have some specific proposals.

[English]

The Chairman: The chair observes, in response to Steve's observation, that we either discuss one by one.... Obviously you are reacting in part to his observation.

I will call on Jean and then I will make a suggestion to you.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I will allow your suggestion to go through, simply because I was going to comment on the entire agenda, on the entire item.

The Chairman: In that case, let me carry you through item by item.

As Steve has observed, he has no problem with items 1, 2, and 3.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What I asked is that someone explain them. On the surface, they don't appear to be controversial—

My colleague, Mr. McKay, is saying that's not true. So there may be some concerns. If we get an explanation of how you arrived at particularly item 3...I think that's one over which committees generally have some debate.

The Chairman: If I can go to the sub-items one by one, is there any need for commentary on sub-item 1, the budget?

Seeing none, I sense a consensus.

On sub-item 2, the schedule of meetings, there are no further observations. I see a consensus.

On sub-item 3, the calling of rounds...John.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I object to this set-up as to witnesses and questioning.

In round one, which is frequently all that counts for the time allocated that we have from witnesses, the opposition parties get 10, 20, 25, 30 minutes and the government members get 10 minutes. Effectively, 10 minutes means for government members two members will be able to ask questions.

• 1540

I frankly can't see the argument that this is anything other than a fairly even split. I'm prepared to look at something of a split that gives some greater opportunity to opposition members, but I'm certainly not prepared to sit here for at least an hour and wait for an opportunity to get five minutes, or even less, to ask questions, especially if there are more than two members who want to ask questions from the government side. I find that frequently in these committee meetings the government members are as keen about the issues as opposition members. So I can't see the argument for the allocation as it is presented here.

The Chairman: Are there any contrary views to that observation?

Yes, Grant.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): I'm assuming that the steering committee hashed this all out and talked about the procedure. It is my understanding that of course government members are on that committee as well, and I'm wondering if we can maybe hear some of the rationale from that meeting, because we're just continuing on from that.

The Chairman: As you may know, it is the mandate of this committee, the direction, that the steering committee is composed of two from the government side and four from the opposition. That's number one.

Number two, it is very clear that the steering committee must report to the mother committee for ratification of any item that has been adopted at a steering committee, and that is precisely our rule. So it should not be surprising that even the report of the steering committee may be modified by the mother committee, if the mother committee deems it right to so modify it. So I don't think it will be a surprise, and obviously we heard one observation from one member of the committee.

Are there any other observations on the issue?

Steve. Excuse me, Steve, I'll call Réal first.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'll speak after you. The floor is yours.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I haven't actually read the numbers, but I think Mr. McKay makes a valid point. I'm thinking about it in terms of other committees where there is...and we've all said we want this to be more non-partisan, if that's possible. To do that, then, perhaps there should be something that allows a back and forth. I know we do that in public accounts and it works rather well.

So you might go opposition 10, government 10, opposition 10, government 10, opposition 5, government 5—do it on that basis. You'll then wind up with 20 minutes for Reform and the Bloc in the first round and 20 minutes for the Liberal side in that first round, 10 minutes for the NDP and the Tories in the second round and 10 minutes for the Liberals in the second round. So it would appear on a member basis that there's more equity.

This does tie into the issue of the makeup of the steering committee. The current makeup would see the opposition setting the agenda for the steering committee since they outnumber the government members four to two. I find that rather unacceptable, and frankly I don't know how we let that happen.

In fairness, it would seem to me that the steering committee should be four and four, since all opposition members want to be part of it, and the chair and the vice-chair should be members. I think it would be a benefit to have the parliamentary secretary on the steering committee to ensure that perhaps there's information from the government that could be fed into that, which would be helpful to the steering committee.

Again, if we're operating as we have all publicly stated and are so recorded in Hansard—maybe not me but others—that we want to be non-partisan, then this would achieve that kind of a balance. Otherwise what we're going to have with this situation is every steering committee report that comes here will be driven by an opposition agenda. The steering committee's government members will have no power to stop that agenda from making its way into the steering committee report, and we're going to spend every committee debating like we are today about whether or not we're willing to accept the report of the steering committee.

• 1545

It will paralyze this committee. We won't get to the issues that are critical, whether it is the issue of criminality, much of which was discussed in the Not Just Numbers discussions that took place in the last sitting, or whether it be citizenship issues, which I frankly, on a personal basis, would like to see us get more involved in. I think we have a structural problem with the set-up of the steering committee that must be changed, in my view, or we're going to have gridlock in this committee and we're going to accomplish nothing.

I want Mr. Ménard to know that I wasn't questioning his motives in any way, having served with him in the last go-round when we were discussing the criminality issues, but we will all recall with great fondness the events that took place in the last sitting of this committee prior to the recess. If that's the kind of show we want, I can play it, and I can play it all day long. I don't think it will be very helpful or constructive to this committee doing its job, which ultimately is to report to Parliament and make recommendations to the minister for reform of the immigration department.

Those are my concerns. I'm not going to sit here quietly and allow what appears to me to be a back door effort by the Reform Party to get the issue of criminality front and centre on the stage here. You will recall the motion we had somewhat heated discussion on in the last sitting had to do with naming names, naming the type of crime and then naming—the most disgusting thing I've ever heard—the countries of origin, and the attempts by the Reform Party in that particular committee to somehow ferret this stuff out.

I do not want to see this committee spending its time hunting criminals. That's not our job. Our job is to deal with the efficacy, the efficiency, of the immigration system in this country, and to see if we can bring reforms forward that will make it better for people like refugees, for people like landed immigrants, for people who work in the industry, so we can make the system work better and not play what I frankly smell, which is nothing more than a political game. I enjoy political games, but I don't think they'll be that constructive if that's the route we go, and I'll make damn sure they're not.

The Chairman: Steve has managed to address two sub-items.

Réal, and then I will go to Grant and then to Andrew.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Steve, I believe your motivation, which is to ensure that the committee works as constructively as possible, is shared by many. We could change the order in which committee members are allowed to step in the debate, but I believe it's essential to distinguish between the work of the opposition in committee meetings and that of the government. That work cannot be the same. Our role is to monitor the government. We obviously do not question the fact that it should be done in a friendly manner, but we believe that it's important to give the opposition a chance to ask questions during the first round, before government members speak. We could review the allocation of time if you wish to propose something. Since we have provided for government members to speak first during the second round in the formula we propose, there is an advantage for both sides.

I would be quite ready to discuss the possibility of reviewing the allocation of time. That's no problem. However, last time, there were interruptions when opposition members were the first to speak, and I didn't appreciate that. We don't have the same role to play within this committee. Even if it's not a partisan committee, most of the time, you are going to uphold your governments' policies, which is quite normal. The role of the opposition has more to do with monitoring. I'd like you to take these aspects of the issue into account when you consider it.

As far as crime is concerned, this is a problem which can also be looked at constructively. That's why the government and the Solicitor General are not only concerned currently by the control of our frontiers, but also with such issues as money laundering, fraud and smugglers. Some people are also the victims of criminals, and it's something that we should be concerned about. The Steering Committee thought that it would be an extremely interesting subject. You believe we should not look at it in a petty and rigorous manner, and you're right.

May I ask you to repeat your suggestion regarding the allocation of time, so that we can make a note of it?

[English]

The Chairman: Go ahead, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What I suggested is that we go to Reform for ten minutes on the first round, then we come to the Liberal side for ten minutes, then to the Bloc for ten minutes, then back to the Liberals for ten minutes. Then we would go to the NDP for five minutes, to the Liberals for five minutes, to the Conservatives for five minutes, and to the Liberals for five minutes.

• 1550

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is for the second round?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's the second round, yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: So for the first round, you agree with the proposition?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I'm saying Reform will get ten minutes and the Liberals will get ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It would apply to the first round. What would happen during the second round?

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's the same thing, only it's five minutes.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Is that how we had it the first time?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You know what? I'm 51, so my memory's fading. I don't know.

The Chairman: I would appreciate it if the members would direct their responses and comments to the chair so that those waiting in line may not be waiting in line forever. I will allow a quick interjection, but not too many quick interjections.

At this point, you have obtained a proposal. First I'll go to Grant, then to Andrew.

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Mahoney raised a lot of questions, but I won't respond to all of them right now because we're talking about the time allocation here from side to side. I think it has been quite traditional in parliamentary committees to go down the line and hear from the opposition—it's only 40 minutes, not 60 minutes—and then hear from government members.

I would support what was discussed in the steering committee. I don't think there was a great “us versus them” in the steering committee with the opposition hammering down some kind of hidden agenda. In the last steering committee, I think it went along quite well, and there was discussion on both sides. There wasn't some kind of arm-twisting or anything going on. I'm just surprised by my colleague's reaction to that. I thought the steering committee had a friendly discussion about how to go about the business in the way that the majority of committees go about setting up time allocations in committee. I would fully support what was suggested by the steering committee.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a compromise suggestion that functions in the way we do it in the public accounts committee. Reform, the Bloc, and Liberals each get ten minutes. Then you go to the NDP. So the NDP gets five minutes, the PCs get five minutes, and the Liberals get five minutes. You would then go back through the process again.

The problem we face with the way this is set up is that the Liberal members, who obviously make up the majority of the committee, are going to be sitting here, as Mr. McKay pointed out, for 30 minutes before they get a shot at asking any questions. I think it's fair to say that our members, many of whom have a lot of experience in issues this committee would deal with, would have some good questions to ask that even the opposition would be interested in.

So I would suggest this as an alternative. It would give a little more flexibility to the opposition. So in terms of minutes, it would go ten, ten, ten, five, five, five. Then it would just carry on in that rotation.

The Chairman: Andrew, would you like to deal with another subject matter or this one?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Actually, Mr. Chairman, this one is fine if they stay on it.

The Chairman: I would request, so we can handle it, going one at a time so we don't confuse the items. I remember that your time is coming pretty soon.

Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): I feel that all the different parties should have a chance to speak and ask questions. According to my experience with the finance committee, usually the opposition parties get five minutes each, then we come back to the Liberals for five minutes each, then go back to the opposition for five minutes again. By rotating this way, everyone doesn't sit here for 30 or 40 minutes.

I agree with my colleague that waiting is unnecessary. We do wish for every member to have a chance to ask questions and make comments, and this is a nice way of rotating. This has been practised in the finance committee. They have tried many different ways, and this is the best way. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? Yes, Jack.

• 1555

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): We mustn't overlook the fact that we will be examining government bills. A bill comes before the committee; we'll be examining a government bill. It's the role of the opposition certainly to have sufficient time to place their concerns and questions before our witnesses. In order to do justice to that role of the opposition, we need to examine and critique the bill.

My experience has been that there have been government members who have been just as eager to do that as opposition members. Nevertheless, I feel that if we look at the time, then we'll have each witness appear before the committee and determine through the formula where the majority of the time, in terms of questioning the witness, would lie. It's best to have this lie with the opposition regardless of the formula, whether it's a five-minute round or a ten-minute round, because the traditional role of the opposition is to examine and critique the government's presentations, which in this case are in the form of bills. I would suggest that the majority of the time should be embraced by the opposition while at the same time not ignoring the role of the members on the government side.

The Chairman: The clerk has just reminded me that Jean Augustine has the floor.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I was sort of alarmed. I quickly read through this as you handed it to us. I just had some concerns about a couple of items, but if you're going one at a time, I'll just wait until you get to the item.

The Chairman: What's the item you would like addressed?

Ms. Jean Augustine: I just wondered why we were starting on the whole issue of criminality, which has a whole negative implication by tying it in with money laundering and a whole series of things. If we're going to be looking at the issue of citizenship and the Immigration Act, then starting at that point is just sending out some signals and making some really negative connections. I was just wondering how this steering committee arrived with this as the entry point of our work in this session.

The Chairman: We'll come back to that, Jean.

Raymonde, if I may, my suggestion is for us to focus first on the schedule and deal with one problem at a time. I seem to be sensing that we're coming to a consensus, but not quite yet.

Jack has raised an issue about when we are examining government bills. On that issue, we'll hear from John.

Mr. John McKay: Jack raises a good point in terms of the legitimate role of the opposition to question government legislation, but Jack, this is not like the justice committee in which there's bill after bill after bill. Then your argument had some merit. We'll be dealing over the course of the year with possibly two pieces of legislation, and that will be it.

By and large, what we've been dealing with has been developing and examining policy. I would argue that government members have as much of an interest in examining government policy on how immigration is done on the ground as do the members opposite.

I have looked at the offices represented here. I dare say that Steve, Jean, Sophia, Andrew, and I have offices that do a volume of immigration work that far exceeds that of all of the opposition offices put together. To be perfectly blunt about it, the policies the government puts forward on how the administration is done on the ground is something of extreme vexation to members of the government.

So I'm very resistant to there being anything other than fairly straightforward equality on general policies. I'm perfectly open to the idea of some inequality in terms of the periods of time for questioning with respect to when there are bills before us. That's another thing altogether. I want to make that point before we just go and give away the whole shop here.

The Chairman: Réal, then Raymonde.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: One thing should be clearly understood: you have the majority and you can reject the opposition's proposals, but you can't have both the weight carried by the majority and equality. It's not possible. The opposition's role is not the same as yours. I recognize that you people are capable of critical judgment, and that you are sincere and honest, but you don't play the same role as we do. We have to recognize that, otherwise we won't be able to come to an agreement.

• 1600

Second, there is a place where you can have some influence, and that's the caucus. When you are not satisfied with the government's policies, the first place where you can say so is the caucus.

I know what kind of frustrations the caucus can bring about...

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: Don't you feel frustrated at home?

Mr. Réal Ménard: ...but you will admit that the opposition is not in the best position to correct that.

I could agree with the compromise proposed by Mr. Mahoney or Mr. McKay: we would start with the Reform Party, followed by the Bloc and then the Liberal Party, and we would start all over again. I could agree with that.

I have here statistics our colleague, the whip, gave me. For your information, Mr. Chairman, out of the 20 committees of the House, eight allow the opposition parties to speak first; five have adopted a formula close to what our colleague has proposed, which is that members of the Reform Party speak first, followed by the Bloc, the Liberal Party, the NDP, the PC and then again the Liberal Party; four committees leave the decision to the discretion of the chair.

I would like us to come to an agreement quickly on the issue of time allocation and then to hear the department's officials so that they don't waste more time. We could come back to the other agenda items at the end of the meeting.

I would propose that, during the first round of questioning, we start by allocating ten minutes to the Reform Party and ten minutes to the Bloc, alternating with the Liberals. During the second round, the same scenario would apply, but the questioning would be limited to five minutes. We would allow the two opposition parties to speak first, and then the Liberals would have the floor. This is my proposal, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. I'm not accepting any motions yet. I'm trying to see how we can come to a consensus. When we have a consensus, we can have the proper motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's not up to you to decide whether there will be a vote or not, unless my proposal is not seconded or members think that it should not be voted on. I table a motion and it should be retained, unless it's not adopted, unless nobody seconds it or unless people want to pursue the discussion. However, once a motion is seconded, you should take it into consideration.

[English]

The Chairman: No. Yes, I will be prepared to accept the motion.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Can you repeat the motion?

The Chairman: I am requesting, though...because I have indicated I will call Raymonde first, and then if you would like to propose the motion, of course you may propose it at that point.

I would like to call on Raymonde. Perhaps following Raymonde's intervention at this point, we can come to a consensus and put it to a vote, whatever it is.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay, after Mrs. Folco.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, Raymonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: In fact, it's exactly what I meant. We were given three proposals to consider: first, there is the one stated as the third item on the agenda; second, the proposed allocation of 10 minutes to the Reform Party, 10 minutes to the Bloc, 10 minutes to the Liberal Party, five minutes to the NDP, five minutes to the Conservative Party and five minutes to the Liberal Party; and, as I understand, according to Mrs. Leung's proposal, it would be five-five, five-five, five-five, five-five.

So these are the three possibilities. I don't really wish to vote on either of these proposals. I would prefer that committee members let me know informally what they think of these three suggestions. I believe we could reach a consensus without having to vote.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. The chair would like to suggest to the group that the clerk then make those three options: Steve's option; Sophia and Raymonde's option; and Jack, Grant, and Réal's option. Just to be clear on what we are trying to decide on, what are they now?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: There's my compromise, I believe.

The Chairman: Okay. Start with the one from Réal Ménard. Réal, would you indicate your proposal?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am in favour of the proposal picked up by Steve. It's not complicated: we would allocate 10 minutes to the Reform Party, 10 minutes to the Bloc, then go to the Liberals...

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: For how long?

Mr. Réal Ménard: For 10 minutes. We would allocate 10 minutes to everybody. We would then come back to the NDP before letting the Liberals speak.

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: Would we give them 10 or five minutes?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Five. Then...

[English]

The Chairman: I'm a slow learner here, Réal. Did you get it?

The Clerk of the Committee: Okay. The first round is Reform, ten minutes; BQ, ten minutes; Liberals, ten minutes; NDP, five minutes; and Conservatives, five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Clerk: That's the first round.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And Liberals five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: And we would come back to the Liberals.

[English]

The Clerk: After the NDP?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We would come back to the Liberals.

[English]

A voice: After the PC.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: After the PC, we'd let the Liberals speak. I'm going to repeat my proposal clearly.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Reform, ten.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Ten minutes to the Bloc.

[English]

The Chairman: The Bloc, ten.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Ten minutes to the Liberals.

[English]

The Chairman: Liberals, ten.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Five minutes to the NDP.

[English]

The Chairman: NDP, five.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Five minutes to the Conservative Party.

[English]

The Chairman: And the Liberals, five.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

For the second round, we would do the same thing, but only five minutes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Are we agreed on this as the first round? Let me repeat it for the clarity of all members.

Yes, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Let's do that one and then let's hear Sophia's out on the table as an option.

The Chairman: Sophia, what was your suggestion?

• 1605

Ms. Sophia Leung: My suggestion is to deal with Reform for five and the Bloc for five, then come to the Liberals for five. That would be followed by a second Liberal five, then we'd go to the PCs and the NDP for five each and come back.

The Chairman: Okay, Sophia has made a suggestion. Raymonde, do you agree with that suggestion?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, I'm sorry, I don't agree with Sophia's suggestion, at least not in the way she's just explained it.

The Chairman: Steve, what's your prescription?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It would be ten Reform; ten Bloc, ten Liberal, five NDP, five PC, and five Liberal.

The Chairman: So in a sense, it's the same thing. It seems to me that I'm seeing a consensus on this.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would also just add that I find it difficult agreeing with the opposition like this, but I'll try.

I think Jack made a valid point. You can't necessarily have the hammer and have equality in terms of questioning opportunities. I served in opposition for five years in the province of Ontario, so I know how frustrating it can be when you're up against a majority government. I don't disagree with what you said in that regard.

The concern that Mr. McKay, Sophia, and others have raised is that we don't want to be neutered either. We don't want to sit here as members of Parliament, irrespective of our parties, and not have a chance to get our questions and concerns on the record with the witnesses. There has to be some fairness, some give and take on both sides. The report of the steering committee is weighted way too far in favour of the opposition, and the original recommendation I made would be weighted way too far in favour of the government. I therefore think this compromise works.

I would add one other thing. For the first round, I don't think five minutes is long enough. A witness will eat that up in one answer. You'll get one question out and you're done. I think we have to have ten-minute shots in the first go, and then go down to five.

The Chairman: Am I seeing a unanimous consensus? John, last word.

Mr. John McKay: Remind me never to retain Mahoney as my counsel for plea bargains.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I must be in the right, since McKay doesn't agree with me.

Mr. John McKay: The honourable member, and not necessarily counsel.

Basically, it essentially boils down to the Liberals getting two questions in during the first round, and that's it. I don't think that even closely raises the concerns I have with respect to the administration of this department. I see this department as unique in and of itself. The argument with respect to the role of the opposition in questioning government policy and government legislation is legitimate and valid, but I don't particularly care to be sitting here for an hour after the testimony—an hour and a half is more likely—in order to have one opportunity to ask two questions.

The Chairman: Okay, John, but this is a proposal for the first round, not the second round.

Mr. John McKay: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chair, if you add up the time here, we're up to at least an hour of just sitting here before the second Liberal gets to ask a question.

The Chairman: I see.

Mr. John McKay: That's the way it will boil out.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, but we can agree to split our ten minutes.

Mr. John McKay: If we're all being nice to each other, yes.

The Chairman: I think I saw a near consensus of unanimity.

Réal, would you like to make a proposal formally now?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The proposal is the one presented earlier. What can I say, you people outnumber us, Mr. McKay. If you expect everybody to be able to speak... It's not going to happen that way in a democracy.

Second, the 10 minutes can be shared between members of the Liberal Party, but I don't see how we could tend towards something which would not be in the line of what we propose. To start with, everybody has 10 minutes, and you have 10 minutes twice, which means 20 minutes. You can speak four times for five minutes, if you want, and there is a second round where the order in which people are allowed to speak is the same, but where parties have five minutes each.

[English]

The Chairman: Leon, would you like to assist the floor?

• 1610

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's just that in the steering committee we had a clear agreement on speaking times and speaking order. I just don't understand why we would adjust that now. We agreed we would have all opposition...Reform leading with a ten-minute round, then the Bloc with ten, then the other opposition parties, and then the Liberals with a ten-minute block, which they could choose to split amongst members as they wanted.

The Chairman: The committee was seized with that submission earlier. Informal debate has taken place. A compromise consensus has emerged, notwithstanding the objection of some of the Liberal members, and I think the chair is prepared to receive the motion, the compromise solution for the first round. I think what we are showing here is indeed the truth, and the truth is that the steering committee reports to the mother committee and the mother committee makes the ultimate decision. That is very much part of the decision-making process of this committee. We cannot at all times involve the principle that once it is adopted by the steering committee, it will be pro forma by the mother committee. Otherwise, let us not make the rule that the mother committee ratifies hook, line, and sinker the report of the steering committee.

Leon, and then I will conclude debate and we will accept a proposal on this motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In the steering committee you also proposed that when the minister appears, at least under those circumstances, we have all of the opposition parties questioning first and then the Liberals. I think that makes a lot of sense for when the minister is here. You know that members of the government really aren't going to be holding or trying very hard to hold the minister accountable, and we will in opposition.

If you're going to put this proposal for general questioning, then at least for the minister let's go with the Reform, ten; Bloc, ten; the other opposition parties, five; then government, ten.

The Chairman: For the information of the committee, I did make that submission at the steering committee level, because I really honestly believe that when the witness is the minister, we should have a slightly different formula, but for all other witnesses.... Of course, if this is your compromise solution.... I would like the member to address that, and since Steve started the approach on this proposal—and Réal, in light of what Leon has just reminded us, I did bring up at the steering committee that when the witness is the minister, and only the minister, a slightly different sequencing should be done.

Is that agreeable?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not as part of the motion—

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —but if we want to discuss it further just to make sure we're all clear about it, I don't think I have a problem with that.

I want to deal with this first motion. As far as the point about what you agreed to at the steering committee, before the honourable member arrived, I raised a concern over a number of the other issues that are here from the steering committee. You will find that if the steering committee continues to operate in this fashion, then every one of our meetings is going to be like this one, where we're going to be debating the report of the steering committee. That's another issue.

But what I'd like to deal with first is the motion we've been discussing. I think the other suggestion by Monsieur Ménard was that we hear from the officials and then come back to this. I think that makes sense.

The Chairman: My suggestion is that—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I table a motion, Mr. Chairman, and I am asking that we vote on it.

I propose that, during the first round, we proceed as follows: Reform Party, 10 minutes; Bloc Québécois, 10 minutes; Liberal Party, 10 minutes; NDP and PC, five minutes; then, back to the Liberals. For five minutes, as agreed.

During the second round, everybody has five minutes in the order I mentioned. Of course, let it be understood that when the minister comes—by the way, a very interesting lady—, the opposition asks the first questions. That's the way it's done in most committees. Then, we go to the Liberals' side, but when the minister comes, the four opposition parties are the first to speak. By the way, that's what we did at our last meeting.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this proposal is the one which generates the strongest consensus. I hope we can hear the department officials and then come back to the items we want to discuss.

Please, call a vote on the motion, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: We need a consensus on this—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are you moving that?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Oui.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And are you moving the part about when the minister comes as part of your motion? We weren't discussing it. We're not adopting this. If you'll just do them separately, I think—

• 1615

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Lets start with the one which has to do with regular meetings, without the minister. I believe there is a consensus, Mr. Chairman. Do you want me to repeat? Is it clear for the rest of the Reform Party?

[English]

Do you agree? Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just to show what a generous guy I am, I'll second that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, if I can just point out for the record, the first round—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We are going to end up being fond of you.

[English]

The Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: —would occupy 45 minutes, of which the Liberals would get 15 minutes and the opposition would get 30 minutes. Now, I think that's a fair balance, particularly when we realize that the NDP and PC members will only get five minutes, and as Steve has pointed out, five minutes is not enough time if you're questioning a minister on a bill or if you're questioning department officials or any witness on a bill. I don't know how they ever agreed to five minutes, because from a practical point of view, although it's acceptable to us, I don't think it's fair. I think that as the committee begins its work, you'll see some frustration on the part of the two members representing parties that only get five minutes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a question. I'm sorry to belabour this, but—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Mahoney, it's time to vote.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, I know, but there's something important here, and that is, what would we do in a situation like we have today where we don't have a representative of the NDP present? I think once the opposition has had that time, then you could go to a second Liberal questioner. So if you went 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, five minutes, and there's no second five minutes there, it would become five minutes, five minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: No problem.

An hon. member: No, there should be just one five minutes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Most of the time this is the makeup, to tell you the truth.

An hon. member: Why five minutes, five minutes?

The Chairman: The chair will say when the—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: For that round it would go five minutes, five minutes, and then it would go over to you.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Then you get 10 minutes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Then you get 20 minutes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But two members.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, if the NPD is not there, we save five minutes during the first round. That's what it means. You can't get that time back. We are not talking about a tax return; it's not cumulative; you don't get it back.

[English]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So we go to the second round, then.

The Chairman: Raymonde has raised a point of order, please.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: There was a motion. You have accepted the Bloc's motion and it was seconded by a Liberal member. I am asking for a vote on this motion, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: The vote has been called. What is the motion again? We'll have the clerk read it. Mr. Ménard, can you present your motion again, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you want me to read it over?

[English]

The Chairman: Silence, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: First round... I wouldn't want the Liberals to start arguing.

[English]

Ms. Jean Augustine: We understand. Let's call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We understand, Mr. Chairman. Call a vote on the motion. Be a man.

[English]

The Chairman: Is it clear?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John McKay: I'd like it to be a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Is the second issue about the minister included in that motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No. I'm going to propose another motion: when the minister comes, the four opposition parties are the first to ask questions, and you are generous with them. You calm down a bit and you give us enough time to ask good questions. Then, it's the government's turn.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Welcome to majority government.

The Chairman: Yes, Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would propose, Mr. Chair, that when we have the minister, we should allocate the time a little more fairly amongst the opposition parties based on our numbers. I propose that Reform get 15 minutes to start, and then the Bloc get 10 minutes, and then five minutes and five minutes for the other opposition parties.

The Chairman: A proposal has been made. Are there any contrary opinions to that proposal?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Could you repeat it, please?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. My proposal is that when the minister is here, we base the opposition time closer to the number of members in the House, and that would be 15 minutes for Reform, 10 minutes for the Bloc, five minutes for the NDP, and five minutes for the Liberals. By the way, that's what happened on another committee just recently. I believe it was Indian Affairs.

The Chairman: Andrew.

• 1620

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, this speaks very well to the problem with the makeup of the steering committee, because we're wasting all this time. We have these government officials here waiting for us to go through our business, and I think this really strongly points to it. If the member wants to talk about the makeup of the opposition, I can tell the member that we would be going at least 50-50 on the time. So I would suggest to the member that he not push his luck on that one.

The Chairman: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I find it really interesting that this same member came in and argued about why we didn't adopt the report of the steering committee, and now he puts a motion forward that couldn't be further from it. The report of the steering committee, when it comes to the minister attending, is Liberals, five minutes; Reform, five minutes; Bloc, five minutes; NDP, five minutes; and PC, five minutes.

The Chairman: That's only for the second round.

An hon. member: You're talking second round.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: When the minister comes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no, no, no.

[English]

The Chairman: That's for the second round, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So it's 10 minutes. The report is confusing.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Now that we've come to an agreement, can we hear our witnesses? We'll come back to that at the end of the meeting. I believe the officials presentation is supposed to last approximately 45 minutes. I propose that we hear our witnesses, since they have been here for an hour, and that we come back to this issue at the end of the meeting.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Réal Ménard: The discussion can go on for another hour.

[English]

The Chairman: Just a second. My suggestion, with the indulgence of the officials from the department, is that we tackle this. I do not like to keep an agenda hanging. I like it to be completed. That's my preference. The debate has already taken place.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You want to deal with the whole report?

[English]

The Chairman: Otherwise, we will be repeating the same debate next time. So my suggestion is to proceed with this, the sequence of speakers, the questioning on the part of the major—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay. So I propose that, when the minister comes, we keep the same allocation of time as for the first round, except that it's only one side. It's the four opposition parties, but it's still 10, 10, five and five. Then it's the Liberals' turn to round up the discussion, but it's the four opposition parties which speak first. That's what we should do when the minister comes.

[English]

The Chairman: So the Reform has said the same sequence but different times. You have said the same sequence but the times are different, only 10 minutes. Is there any opinion from the government side?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They're saying 10 minutes, 10 minutes, five minutes, five minutes, and then over here when the minister comes.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: For how long? For a lousy 15 minutes?

The Chairman: No. One suggestion was 10 minutes and one suggestion was 15 minutes.

Mr. John McKay: I thought when the minister came it would be 10 minutes, 10 minutes, five minutes, five minutes. Then it's over here for what?

The Chairman: It's 10 minutes for the first Liberal member.

Mr. John McKay: Is that it?

The Chairman: No, that's just the first round. The second round will be, as I stated here—

Mr. John McKay: We never get to the second round. The second round is airy-fairy stuff. You never get to it.

Mr. Grant McNally: When the minister's here, you get to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The minister doesn't like being asked questions by the Liberals, except in a few rare occasions.

[English]

The Chairman: Let us crystallize this now. Do you propose for the first round 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, five minutes, five minutes, five minutes?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no, no.

During the first round, we agree on the sequence. We start with the opposition: 10, 10, five, five, and perhaps 10, 10. Ten for the Liberals, five minutes, twice.

[English]

The Chairman: May I make a—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I hope government members don't believe they are going to have more time than opposition members to question the minister.

[English]

The Chairman: May I make a suggestion, please. For the minister and for the minister only as the witness, perhaps we can adopt the steering committee's original report that says for the first round Reform would get 10 minutes; the Bloc, 10 minutes; the NDP, five minutes; the PC, five minutes; and the Liberals, 10 minutes. Then for the second round, for the minister and the minister only as the witness, it would be Liberals, five minutes; Reform, five minutes; Bloc, five minutes; NDP, five minutes; and PC, five minutes. Can I get a consensus on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, yes, yes. We have a consensus.

[English]

Ms. Jean Augustine: Yes, that's fine.

The Chairman: Is that so adopted?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Bravo.

[Translation]

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let's invite the minister.

[English]

The Chairman: We have finished the issue of the scheduling of time.

Now we turn to the composition of the subcommittee.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And it only took us an hour.

The Chairman: We're now turning to the composition of the subcommittee, item 4.

John.

Mr. John McKay: We didn't deal with officials coming. We split minister and officials.

The Chairman: Yes, we only said minister.

Mr. John McKay: We only made the change with regard to the minister. Now, are the officials treated differently or the same as other witnesses? Again, we're into the same issue, which I raised in the initial round, and I have as much concern about what the officials have to say about immigration as do any opposition members.

The Chairman: I said only the minister, but if you'd like to have the same rule for the officials—

Mr. John McKay: No, I want exactly the opposite rule for the officials.

The Chairman: What we agreed to is only for the minister and the minister only. I'll make it very clear.

• 1625

Mr. John McKay: The minister only.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We've already adopted for the witnesses, which is other than the minister.

Mr. John McKay: But are we making a distinction for officials?

The Chairman: Yes, I think—

Mr. John McKay: Is it a third rule for officials, or is it the first rule for officials?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, they're witnesses.

The Chairman: The first rule is for the officials, because the officials may not be able to respond to issues of policy, and therefore they become just like any other witnesses, other than the minister herself. Is that clear?

Mr. John McKay: Oh, it's clear. Cooked once, cooked twice, what's the difference?

Ms. Jean Augustine: Don't challenge the chair.

The Chairman: So then the first rule we adopted applies even to departmental officials.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: Now we're back into that one.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I hope it never happens to you, but you'll be a lot happier if you ever wind up in opposition.

The Chairman: John is a real liberal democrat.

Mr. John McKay: It's a strange concept, a little bit of equality among parties.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Could we get back to business? I was interrupted when I spoke, and I resent it very highly that you let other members speak without bringing them back to order.

The Chairman: Sorry. I apologize, Ms. Folco. Would you like to speak now?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, I have nothing to say. I just want to get back to the agenda.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Can we hear the officials' presentation, Mr. Chairman, then come back to this issue?

[English]

The Chairman: On sub-item 4, is there any discussion on the composition of the steering committee?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are we on the floor?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would move that the composition of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be eight members, including the parliamentary secretary, with four members from the Liberal side and four members from the opposition. In addition to that, I would nominate Mr. Telegdi and Ms. Augustine to be added as members from the government side.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I second that, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: So the motion has been moved and seconded.

Leon, would you like to speak to the motion?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I will oppose the motion.

We have here the motion that the subcommittee presented, and it was very deliberate that the parliamentary secretary was left off that list. We were concerned already with the number of government members on the committee, that it will become the government agenda rather than a committee agenda. So I would ask that we in fact have a vote on the motion as presented.

The Chairman: Okay.

Réal.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I think Mr. Mahoney shouldn't push his luck to much.

First, you should know that, as things stand now, the committee includes the vice-chairman as well as the chairman of the committee. We cannot accept that the parliamentary secretary be included as well; otherwise, you are not following your own logic. You say that the committee should not be partisan and that it should keep some distance from the government. If it's true...

In any case, all decisions have to be ratified by the full committee. That's the way things are. Within the full committee, we have to accept that the parliamentary secretary, whoever he or she may be... It has nothing to do with the personal merits of Mr. Telegdi—whom I like, having worked with him for quite a while on the issue of human rights—but it's unthinkable that the parliamentary secretary be included, if you follow the logic you have supported until now. In any case, all decisions have to be taken by the full committee.

I hope we are not going to spend an hour discussing this. The chairman is included, as well as the vice-chairman, Mrs. Folco, representing the Liberals.

The Chairman: Raymonde.

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: I would like to react to what I just heard. The fact of the matter is that it took exactly one hour to discuss an issue which, if the steering committee's composition had been as we wished at the beginning, could have been dealt with at the steering committee and ratified here, by the full committee. The issue would have been dealt with and we would already be hearing the department officials. It's exactly the type of situation we are trying to avoid so that issues can really be dealt with.

You are talking about an arm's length relationship with the government or the department. Yes, but having an equal number of opposition members and government members introduces more neutrality than if we had more opposition members than government members. It's a question of neutrality of the executive.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Same as everywhere else, Raymonde.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, I will reinforce that once again. The amount of time we wasted was exactly because of the structure of the steering committee. If it was 50-50, we would probably have dealt with the problem in five minutes. That's number one.

• 1630

Number two, Mr. Ménard, I would say to you that if you look at one of the most effective committees, which everybody concedes is the fisheries committee, the parliamentary secretary is on the steering committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: With Mr. Baker? Right?

[English]

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'm just telling you. Mr. Baker was not the parliamentary...he was the chair.

I think it's important that the steering committee has quick access to some information regarding the department.

I can tell you that to avoid the kinds of problems we have had today, I think it makes perfect sense. I'm looking forward to having a very effective committee. I have a great interest in it because it's a very important topic. Let me tell you, I have a great deal of understanding about the issue as well. To say it will impact on the effectiveness I don't think is fair. It's totally the opposite.

The Chairman: Steve, and then Leon.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I was going to move the question.

The Chairman: Perhaps I can ask Leon if he has interventions to make.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. Madam Folco made the comment that somehow the opposition parties weren't cooperating with what was decided at the steering committee. In fact, I say let's just accept all these motions that were put forth by the steering committee—fully cooperative in fact.

The Chairman: The debate has taken place.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think we should vote, but I think I need my colleague, who's on the phone, to be available to vote as well.

My motion is an amendment to the motion that exists here, which increases the number to eight, including the parliamentary secretary, and adds Ms. Augustine as the eighth member.

The Chairman: Okay. You've moved that motion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And they should be delighted that I'm not going to be on the steering committee.

The Chairman: That's the motion.

Réal.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I believe a compromise is possible. If you, the majority, impose your views on the issue of the steering committee, there won't be any cooperation possible. You have to be fully aware of what you do.

Also, you can understand the logic behind the exclusion of the parliamentary secretary. Now, we can add another committee member, for instance, Mrs. Augustine. If we want information, we are going to work with the officials and we're going to invite them.

Now, I just want to warn you about adopting a motion which goes against the wishes of the opposition—that is not to include the parliamentary secretary, to ensure the steering committee's independence. However, we would be pleased to have Mrs. Augustine. We would welcome another committee member.

I think the Liberals can understand the importance of reflecting the steering committee's independence in its membership.

[English]

The Chairman: So you're agreeing to an equal number from the government side and the opposition side, but not including the parliamentary secretary. Did I hear you correctly?

An hon. member: No.

The Chairman: Equal numbers?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no, not an equal number, but with another government member, for instance, Mrs. Augustine. You have to understand the role of the steering committee.

[English]

The Chairman: The motion has been moved.

I'll go to Steve and then Raymonde.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Ménard's attempt to arrive at a compromise, and I think it's a genuine attempt, but what you're failing to understand in this instance is that this committee, in the first year I sat on it, dealt with some very controversial issues, some very sensitive emotional issues, as you know, and it's my very strong view that if the steering committee is to be unbalanced, it's not a matter of whether or not we receive cooperation; it's a matter that every time the steering committee comes, if the opposition has the power to all of a sudden be the majority, which you are not—we talked about the issue of majority versus equality. You are not the majority in this Parliament and you are not the majority on this committee. Why should you then be the majority on the steering committee, which sets the agenda for the mother committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We have a monitoring role.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: There is no logic there.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, because committees play a monitoring role.

• 1635

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If the compromise had been what I thought it was, which would have been that we have equal members but that the parliamentary secretary not be among those, I would have asked for a five-minute caucus break so we could have a discussion about that to see if that's agreeable. But if the issue is that we still remain outnumbered, there's no need for a caucus break; we will simply use our majority and stick with my motion.

You can't dilute the situation down to the point where you take away the ability of the majority members of this committee, duly elected as a majority government in this Parliament, to have an impact on the agenda that comes out of the steering committee. I mean you're going to send our two members, you send your four, or three and four, and you guys control the show. That's nonsense. How could we possibly justify that in our caucus?

Mr. Grant McNally: Why should we show up?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, I don't care if you show up or not. You're paid to show up. That's why you show up.

We've already given the majority of the time—

Mr. Grant McNally: Not if you drive the steering committee and all the votes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —in the questioning to the witnesses. And you want us to give over control of the committee? Not a shot.

The Chairman: Committee members, please.

Mr. Grant McNally: This is what makes a committee not work.

The Chairman: Yes. Okay. He has asked for a caucus break. Before I allow that, I have indicated I would recognize Raymonde.

Raymonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: I would like to ask something to my colleague. Last year, some of us, you included, were members of this committee. I remember quite well that the parliamentary secretary was also a member. She was always there and she spoke several times.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Ask the clerk, Mrs. Folco. She was not a member.

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: Could the clerk check that? To me, it's an important point. Could the clerk check whether the parliamentary secretary was a member or not last year? I remember that she was there and participated in meetings.

[English]

The Chairman: Of course I was not a member of that committee. The record indicates the parliamentary secretary officially was not part of that committee. Am I right?

The Clerk: Yes, that's correct.

The Chairman: I was not part of the committee. Now Steve would like a five-minute caucus break. Is that request still there?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. I will submit, if perhaps the opposition could, and then we can hope to reach a compromise. Five minutes, no more.

Mr. Réal Ménard: And be generous with the opposition.

The Chairman: Five minutes.

• 1637

• 1643

The Chairman: The meeting has resumed.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, following a meeting of the caucus members, we have decided to withdraw Mr. Mahoney's last motion and to propose another about the steering committee. This proposal is as follows: that the steering committee include eight members of the full committee, four opposition members and four government members, that is you, as chairman, myself as vice-chair, and Mrs. Jean Augustine and Mr. John McKay.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to make an amendment.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I agree with what has been proposed here. Just one thing I'd like to make clear, though, is that we have a neutral chair. In other words, the chair won't vote on issues and concerns.

Voices: No, no.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There is an equal number of members, but a neutral chair. In the case of a tie, of course, the chair would have a vote.

The Chairman: I have been reminded by our researcher and clerk that the chair usually does not vote. And we do not take a vote at the standing committee; we develop a consensus. So in a sense, the observation made by Leon is moot at this point, and it is my impression that it should not be further debated. Is that okay?

The motion has been put forward and the clerk may read the motion again.

The Clerk: It is moved by Madam Folco that the subcommittee consist of eight members, including four from the Liberal party and four from the opposition party. It consists of the chairman, the vice-chairman, and Mr. McKay.

• 1645

The Chairman: And Jean Augustine on the Liberal side.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: As a matter of language, it is the vice-chair, not the vice-chairman, if you don't mind.

The Clerk: The vice-chair, yes. I'll change that when I do the final....

The Chairman: Those in favour of that motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I was just approached by the departmental officials. They are about to give us a presentation of about 40 minutes. The equipment has been especially rented for this particular presentation. I did not anticipate lengthy debate on the report of the steering committee. With your permission, can we proceed with that presentation, and then—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would like to suggest...and if this requires debate, then we'll just go to the presentation. I'll agree to that.

The Chairman: Good.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I suggest that item 5(c) be referred to the new steering committee and that the balance of the report be adopted as is.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Not a chance.

The Chairman: Okay, since I can see debate, let us proceed first to the departmental officials.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, let's hear the department officials and then come back to what we want to discuss.

[English]

The Chairman: Now we will hear the departmental officials. I would like Mr. Tsaï to introduce his other officials and their positions, and then I will retreat to a better vantage point to see your presentation, as well. Please proceed to introduce your group.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Can we have the paper?

Mr. Georges Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to introduce the members of my team today for this presentation. With me is Mr. Bill Sheppit, who is the DG of Case Management Branch; Mr. Rodney Fields, Acting DG, International Region; Mr. Brian Grant, Director, Program Development, Enforcement Branch.

We have also with us Tracey Vansickle and Jim MacLeod from the department to help us make this presentation.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, this presentation is intended to provide a brief outline of the procedures and practices of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. It doesn't address questions related to broad policy issues or specific cases, nor why we do what we do but, simply, what we do, and how we do it. As you will see, this overview is a very simplified version of an extremely complicated program.

First, if I were asked to summarize our mandate in a few words, I would say that CIC's essential operational task is to both facilitate and control access to Canadian territory and citizenship. In this context, this briefing is designed to provide a broad practical overview of how the department's main systems and procedures function and support this task.

First of all, who are we? Citizenship and Immigration Canada is comprised of around 4,000 employees based in Ottawa, across five domestic regions and in approximately 78 embassies and consulates overseas. I'd like to add that even if the French version of the text that goes with this slide mentions "three regions", there was an update which is not reflected here.

• 1650

For fiscal year 1998-99, according to the 1998-99 Main Estimates, the department's budget was $646 million dollars, and estimated revenues were $365 million. For the purpose of clarity, this briefing breaks down our operations between overseas and domestic processes and between immigrants who may become citizens, and visitors. These client groups and the locations where their requests are being dealt with form a four-part structure which is going to be the subject of this presentation. Everything from here onwards essentially fits into one of these four quadrants.

Each year, CIC is responsible for processing over a million visa applications, both visitor and immigrant abroad, screening 110 million travellers who enter Canada, giving permanent resident status to several hundred thousand new immigrants, and granting Canadian citizenship to up to 200,000 people. In 1997, 140,240 people became citizens.

I'd like now to explain briefly a few basic principles about these diagrams coming up. Similar to the idea of the four quadrants, and in order to try to simplify some very complex programs and legislation, we have used graphic representations of our processes. As we move through our presentation, you will note that the main points on the diagrams will be highlighted. You will find more details about these processes in a handbook entitled How the System Works which we shall give you at the end of the presentation, but which some of you already have. Bear in mind that the diagrams and explanations, while providing an idea of how our programs would work in the vast majority of cases, will not address every possible scenario.

We draw your attention to the graphic representation of our activities. Approval activities are represented by green arrows, and refusal activities by red ones. Some diagrams also contain yellow lines which indicate those cases where we have to be cautious and where several options have to be explored before a decision is taken.

After this introduction, I'm going to ask my colleague, Bill Sheppit, to go into more detail.

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit (Director General, Case Management Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Just to clarify things for you, we've decided to go 5, 10, 5, 10, 10, 5.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I'll begin by discussing the overseas immigrant application process.

CIC has 78 points of service overseas, in embassies, high commissions, and consulates. These offices are staffed by approximately 211 rotational Canadian officers and 975 locally hired staff. The size of our international offices varies from year to year and ranges from one person in a so-called “satellite post” reporting to a larger office often carrying out a specialized function, to as many as 15 or 17 Canadian officers in larger, full-service posts, such as New Delhi, Hong Kong, or Manila.

In addition to immigrant and visitor processing, Canadian officers perform other key functions such as reporting on such items as fraud, refugee movements or conditions likely to cause refugee movements, liaison with the host government, interdiction of improperly documented passengers, and assessments of medical assessment results.

To explore the first quadrant of the presentation on overseas immigrant processing, in 1997, overseas officers processed over 134,000 immigrant cases. They issued over 174,000 individual immigrant visas, comprising 86% of the total annual number of landings. The remaining 14% of landings were processed from within Canada, and we'll discuss these later.

Visas are issued by our overseas offices. Applicants must then travel to a Canadian port of entry, usually at an airport or a land border, where they are landed upon arrival. That is, they are granted permanent resident status.

• 1655

In 1997, more than 216,000 immigrants became permanent residents. This is near the top of our levels target range. Between 1945 and 1990, there were only three occasions when Canada received more than 200,000 immigrants in a single year: in 1957, following the Hungarian uprising; in 1968, following the Prague spring; and in 1976, following the exodus from southeast Asia.

As you can see from the graph, the 1997 figures reflect a continuing trend over recent years where Canada has witnessed the highest sustained level of immigration since World War II.

More than half of the current movement is made up of economic immigrants who are selected for their potential contribution to the Canadian economy. The family class, the cornerstone of our program, currently represents about 28% of all landings. There are no limits to the number of people who may apply under the family class each year. This category is demand driven by potential sponsors in Canada.

In recent years, the number of applicants received in this category has declined in relation to economic immigrants, because fewer sponsorships have been submitted in Canada. About 39% of all immigrants now come from the Asia-Pacific region and the top five source countries are Hong Kong, India, mainland China, Taiwan, and Pakistan.

There are three broad immigration categories that are processed overseas. The first is the family class, the second is economic immigrants, and the third is convention refugees.

The family class is the mechanism for achieving one of the primary objectives of the Immigration Act, the reunion of citizens and permanent residents with their immediate relatives from abroad, primarily spouses, minor children, and parents. Canadian residents file a sponsorship through a centralized case processing centre in Mississauga, Ontario. Once approved, this sponsorship is forwarded electronically overseas, where an immigration application will be processed. Sponsors of refused family class cases may appeal the decision to the appeals division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, or the IRB.

The second category is economic immigrants, which include skilled workers, entrepreneurs who must establish a business in Canada, investors, self-employed persons such as farmers or performers or artists, and provincial nominees who are recommend by a province but not technically sponsored. All of these people are selected for their potential economic contribution to Canada.

The third category of immigrants processed overseas is convention refugees. Canada is a signatory to the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and has incorporated the convention's definition of a refugee into the Immigration Act. The convention defines a refugee as:

an individual outside his or her country of normal residence who is unable to return due to a demonstrated fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

Persons meeting this definition who pass medical, criminality, and security screenings, and who have good prospects for resettlement in Canada, may become permanent residents.

In 1998, the target for government-assisted refugees is 7,300. Private groups in Canada may also sponsor refugees. In both cases, the refugees are provided with settlement assistance after arrival for a period of one year.

One important point to note is that resettling refugees from abroad in Canada is an expression of Canada's humanitarian tradition and a contribution to international burden sharing. It is not an obligation under international law.

Regardless of the immigration category, there are certain requirements that must be met by all applicants for permanent residence. These are fees, statutory requirements, and selection criteria.

All applicants, except refugees, must pay a cost-recovery fee. This is non-refundable if the application is refused. Current fees are $500 per adult and $100 per child. In addition, every successful applicant over the age of 19, including refugees, must pay a right-of-landing fee of $975 prior to visa issuance. Government loans are available to cover this fee and are almost always approved for refugees.

The second element common to all applications is statutory requirements. This includes a medical examination and security and criminality checks. These must all be successfully completed for applicants and, where applicable, their dependants. The medical examination is done for all applicants and is designed to ensure there is no threat to Canadian public health or excessive demands on health care or social services. Criminality and security checks are conducted by Canadian officers in cooperation with the RCMP, CSIS, and foreign police authorities.

• 1700

In addition to these two common elements, all immigrants must meet the specific selection criteria for their category. Family class applicants must prove the relationship to their sponsor—spouse, fiancée, dependent child, parent, etc. Economic applicants must meet the requirements of a selection point system, which is based on a number of factors, including profession, education, and language skills. Refugee applicants must meet the convention refugee definition and have reasonable resettlement potential.

Moving on to the immigration application process itself, this diagram outlines the general processing of immigrant application overseas. As you will notice, it's quite complicated; however, it represents only the basic elements of this process. For categories of persons who must be sponsored before applying for immigration, the sponsor in Canada must sign an undertaking of assistance, agreeing to provide for the essential needs of the applicant, for ten years in the case of family members and one year in the case of privately sponsored refugees. The purpose of this undertaking is to ensure that the applicant will not require social assistance. Sponsors must show that they meet minimum income requirements, and family class sponsors must pay the applicant's fees. In recognition of the primacy of the nuclear family, sponsors of spouses and minor children are normally exempt from the requirement to meet minimum income levels.

The sponsorship is processed in Mississauga, which informs the overseas office electronically once the sponsorship has been approved.

Applications for all categories must be sent to the overseas visa office, along with application fees in non-sponsored cases. On receipt, the visa office reviews the application to ensure that all necessary information and documentation has been provided. The applicant is then assessed to ensure that the person meets the selection criteria for the particular category in which he or she is applying. If it is not clear from the documentation that the person meets the selection criteria, the applicant may be interviewed. Once it has been established that the applicant meet selection criteria, medical, criminal, and security checks are conducted to verify that the applicant is not inadmissible to Canada.

Once all statutory and selection requirements have been met, an immigrant visa or record of landing is issued at the visa office. As I mentioned earlier, actual landing takes place at the Canadian port of entry. Sponsors of refused family class cases may appeal the decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board. All other refused categories may apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision.

This then is a quick snapshot of the overseas process.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Tsaï: The three groups Mr. Sheppit just talked about are the three main categories of immigrants, but applicants who want to settle in Quebec are processed somewhat differently.

Under the Constitution, immigration is an area of shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments. CIC ultimately controls the admissibility of all persons applying for permanent residence in Canada or ensures that statutory requirements such as medical examinations and criminality screenings, are satisfied. However, a comprehensive agreement, the Canada-Quebec Accord, provides Quebec with control over the selection of economic immigrants, foreign students and temporary workers who want to settle in Quebec.

Other, less extensive agreements, are in place or are under negotiation with other provinces.

In 1997, Quebec accepted 12.8% of all immigrants who entered Canada.

Sponsors of Quebec-destined Family Class applicants must have their ability to support their relatives evaluated by the province, although immediate family members, spouses and dependent children, are normally exempted from these requirements.

The second component of our overseas operations is comprised of visitor processing. Visitors include tourists, students and temporary workers.

Again, I'd like my colleague to take over the presentation.

[English]

Mr. Bill Sheppit: The burden of proof rests with visitors to satisfy the immigration officer that they will leave Canada following their visit. Otherwise they will be presumed to be intended immigrants.

• 1705

Visitors seek entry to Canada as tourists, to visit family, for business reasons, to study, or to take up temporary employment. Nationals of approximately 60 countries representing 99% of all travellers to Canada are exempt from visitor visa requirements. Citizens of all other countries require visas. We impose a visitor visa requirement when a country's nationals demonstrate a propensity to work or study illegally in Canada or perhaps use their access to make large numbers of refugee claims.

In 1997, CIC offices overseas received more than 671,000 visitor visa applications, with an approval rate of more than 89%. The determination as to whether or not a person is a genuine visitor is largely a judgment call on the part of the assessing officer. Employment, assets, family links in the home country, and previous travel history are among the factors officers review.

As with economic immigrants, all categories of visitors may file a request with the Federal Court for judicial review of a refusal, and a refusal does not preclude a new application if there's a change in circumstances.

Medical examinations may be required if a visitor plans to remain in Canada for more than six months and has recently resided in an area of high incidence for a communicable disease, such as tuberculosis.

Those seeking to study or work in Canada on a temporary basis also require authorization from CIC. A student must meet the definition of visitor, submit a letter of acceptance from an academic institution, and provided they have sufficient funds to pay for their studies in Canada. In 1997 we processed over 47,000 student visa applications overseas and 87% were approved. Of all student applications, 50% are processed in less than 10 working days and 90% are processed in less than 30 days; 40% of all student applications are received in a six-week window from June until August. This also coincides with the peak visitor visa processing, and staff rotations and posts abroad.

Canada allows foreign workers to enter on a temporary basis to meet specific labour market needs. These needs cover a broad range, from seasonal agricultural workers to highly skilled professional and corporate managers. Some categories of workers require approval in the form of a job validation, issued by Human Resources Development Canada. This validation is granted when there would be no adverse impact on Canadian employment opportunities. In 1997, 70% of employment authorizations were issued under a validation exemption, including NAFTA, reciprocal employment opportunities for Canadians, and emergency or disaster relief workers. In 1997, we issued 164,000 employment authorizations.

As you can see from the chart, visitors, students, and workers are assessed in similar fashion. All may be subject to interviews. Some may require medical examinations, depending on their places of residence, the proposed length of their stay, and their intended vocations in Canada. Some may also be subject to criminal and security screening. Refused cases may apply to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the refusal.

The third component of this presentation deals with processing visitors from within Canada. CIC works in close partnership with customs officers at the Department of Revenue at ports of entry—airports, U.S. border crossings, and seaports—to screen the over 100 million travellers, including 41 million foreign visitors, who cross the border annually. All travellers are initially seen by customs officers at the primary inspection line. They refer any complex or suspect cases to immigration officers for an assessment commonly called “secondary examination”; 95% of all travellers see only customs officers.

Travellers may be referred to Immigration because there are enforcement concerns such as suspected criminality, insufficient funds, or use of fraudulent travel documents; because of the requirement for immigration documentation such as student or employment authorizations; because they are new immigrants who require landing or persons requiring additional examination because it is suspected they are not genuine visitors to Canada; or because they have made a refugee claim.

At a secondary examination, a traveller may be found inadmissible to Canada. In this case, a report is written by the examining officer and the traveller is referred to a senior immigration officer, who may do one of five things: they may grant admission to Canada, allow the traveller to depart voluntarily, issue an exclusion order that bars re-entry to Canada for a 12-month period, direct the traveller to an immigration inquiry with an adjudicator, and/or order the traveller's detention.

• 1710

An immigration inquiry will result in the traveller being allowed to enter Canada or ordered removed. Unless the traveller is granted admission or departs voluntarily, they enter the enforcement stream of operations, which will be discussed in more detail shortly.

Visitors are normally allowed to remain in Canada for six months, but may apply to extend their status from within Canada. The first stage to extend is to obtain an application kit. To do so, an applicant contacts one of CIC's centralized call centres in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. The call centres then ensure the appropriate kit is forwarded through Canada Post, which prints and mails kits on our behalf. The call centres also handle public inquiries related to all Citizenship and Immigration services.

Completed applications are mailed to the case processing centre in Vegreville, Alberta. If Vegreville is able to fully assess the application, they will process it to completion within 25 days, including mailing time. They are able to finalize 95% of all cases referred to them. The remaining cases are referred to the local Canada Immigration Centre nearest the applicant for a more detailed assessment, usually including an interview. These cases are then finalized at the local CIC.

This completes our examination of the in-Canada visitor visa extension process.

In addition to visitor visa extension, Vegreville also processes applications for permanent residents from within Canada. This is the fourth component of our operations. Although the Immigration Act stipulates that intending immigrants must apply for permanent residence from outside of Canada, it also provides the flexibility to process applications from within Canada under certain circumstances. Last year, 14% of all immigrants were processed in Canada.

Who is eligible to apply from within the country? There are three groups: persons in Canada recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board as convention refugees; those who have completed two years of employment in Canada under the live-in caregiver program; and persons who have compelling humanitarian and compassionate grounds to warrant processing from within Canada.

Let me first briefly describe each of these three groups. Any person in Canada or at a port of entry may seek refugee status. A senior immigration officer must make an assessment of their eligibility to have their claim heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Last year, 99% of all claimants were found eligible for referral to the IRB. A person may be ineligible if they have been involved in espionage, terrorism, serious criminality, or have been a member of a regime designated by the Minister of Immigration to have engaged in systematic or gross human rights abuses.

The IRB applies the convention refugee definition contained in the Immigration Act to all claims it hears. The refugee division of the IRB is a quasi-judicial tribunal whose hearings are designed to be informal and non-adversarial. Claimants have the right to representation. Persons whose claims are rejected by the IRB must depart Canada. However, applicants may appeal refusals with leave to the Federal Court.

Those whose claims are approved by the IRB file an application for permanent residence from within Canada. Failed claimants may apply for a review under the post-determination refugee claimants in Canada class, or PDRCCC. The review is intended to protect persons who fail to meet the convention refugee definition but who may nonetheless face serious threat to their lives or safety if returned to their home countries.

Last year about 3% of these risk review applications were approved. Those whose risk review application is denied may apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. There are also cases where a person found to be a refugee by the IRB is unable to satisfactorily establish their identity, thereby making them ineligible for landing. Since January 1997, refugees who have not been landed solely for this reason may apply for permanent residence five years after their convention refugee determination. This class is currently limited to nationals of Somalia and Afghanistan, two countries with no functioning central government.

To provide an idea of comparative levels of international refugee acceptance rates, in 1997 Australia approved almost 7%, France 17%, the U.S.A. almost 22%, while Canada approved 40% of all refugee claims referred to the IRB, including abandoned and withdrawn claims.

• 1715

As I indicated earlier, convention refugee is one of three categories that may apply from within Canada for permanent residence. The second is comprised of those meeting the requirements of the live-in caregiver program. To be eligible under this category, a live-in caregiver must have completed two years of employment in Canada as a temporary worker. They must have the equivalent of a Canadian high school education, related experience or training, and abilities in either English or French. Of all live-in caregivers, 98% are women and 76% come from the Philippines.

The third group eligible to apply for permanent residence in Canada is persons who are requesting to remain on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. The vast majority of these are spouses of Canadian citizens or permanent residents. In 1997, 87% of these applications were accepted.

As noted earlier, applicants for permanent residence applying from within the country apply through the case processing centre in Vegreville, which routinely finalizes 75% of all inland immigrant applications. Complex cases are referred to local offices for finalization. The applicant and any overseas dependent must undergo and meet the same statutory criminality and security requirements. All but refugees and their dependents applying from within Canada must pass the medical examinations. Refugees need not pass, but must be medically examined to determine whether or not they are suffering from any condition requiring surveillance.

CPC Vegreville or the local immigration centre requests overseas offices to conduct medical, criminality, and security checks of dependents, if applicable. Once all statutory requirements are met by all family members, a record of landing is issued by Vegreville or the local office and the applicant is granted permanent residence from within the country.

Overseas dependents are issued their visas by the mission abroad. Dependents of all other inland applicants must be sponsored by the applicant under the family class, and refused applicants, as previously, may appeal with leave to the federal court.

Mr. Tsaï.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Thank you, Bill.

[Translation]

We have now reached the last part of this presentation. First, what does it mean to be granted the status of permanent resident of Canada?

Permanent residents, like citizens, are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizens with the exception of the right to vote, to hold public office or to apply for a passport.

Unlike a citizen, however, a permanent resident may be removed from Canada should he or she commit a serious crime. Permanent residents may also loose their right to enter and remain in Canada should they remain outside of the country for an extended period of time.

Finally, a permanent resident may apply for a returning resident permit to facilitate return to Canada following a prolonged absence.

CIC provides funding for settlement programs and services that help newcomers become fully participating members of Canadian society. These programs are delivered at the community level by provincial and municipal governments, NGOs, non-profit and educational institutions. These programs provide such services as orientation counseling, official language training and job search assistance. This programs funding represents approximately half of the department's annual budget of $646 million.

Under the Canada-Quebec Accord, Quebec is responsible for administering and delivering its own settlement programs. We are currently negotiating the transfer of administration and delivery to the other provinces under what is called the Settlement Renewal initiative.

Returning now to enforcement, there are five main enforcement aspects to the program: investigation, detention, inquiry, appeals and, finally, removals.

In the context of enforcement, this is perhaps the most complex sphere of all CIC activities. High profile cases often involve deportations, security certificates and legal challenges of refusal. In fact, CIC has over 550 officers across the country who deal with immigration violations and violators.

• 1720

Let's first talk about investigations. Persons may be reported for investigation for numerous reasons, similar to those for which they would be found to be inadmissible at a port of entry: criminal convictions; inability or unwillingness to support themselves or their dependents; suspected terrorism; or the fact to have worked, studied or remained in Canada without the department's authorization.

Suspected violators may be directed to an inquiry should sufficient evidence be gathered. CIC works closely with police organizations and may issue immigration warrants to arrest those who failed to comply with immigration proceedings.

Let's now turn to detention, the second element. Suspected violators may be detained if investigators deem them to pose a danger to the public or if there are grounds to believe that they are not likely to appear for further immigration proceedings.

CIC has three minimum security detention centres: one in Laval, in Quebec; one in Mississauga, in Ontario; and another in Vancouver, in British-Columbia.

Those who are detained are advised of their right to counsel, and must be seen by an Adjudicator within 48 hours. Should further detention be warranted, the case is reviewed after one week and every 30 days thereafter.

The third enforcement activity is inquiry. In straightforward cases, a Senior Immigration Officer may either issue a removal order or allow the violator to remain. In complex cases, he or she may direct the violator to an inquiry.

Like a refugee determination hearing, an inquiry is quasi- judicial, conducted by an Adjudicator of the Adjudication Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. However, unlike regular court proceedings, strict rules of evidence do not apply. The person concerned may be represented by counsel, and the department by an Immigration Officer.

The Adjudicator may allow the individual concerned to remain or, alternatively, may issue a removal order. Removal orders may take one of three forms: a departure notice requires that a person leave within 30 days but does not prohibit his or her return. If the person concerned does not comply, the departure notice automatically becomes a deportation order.

The second form of removal is through an exclusion order which bars return to Canada for twelve months unless written consent of the minister is obtained.

Third comes a deportation order which is a permanent bar to re-admission, unless written consent of the minister is obtained.

Let's now turn to appeals. Permanent residents, Convention Refugees and visitor visa holders who are not considered a danger to the public and who are subject to a removal order issued by an Adjudicator have the right to appeal to the Appeal Division of the IRB. The minister may also appeal the decision of an Adjudicator. Once an appeal is filled, there is an automatic stay of any removal order.

Finally, removals, the last element. Current policy gives priority to the removal of criminals, failed refugee claimants and detainees.

Most violators depart of their own accord, unescorted. In some instances, deportees require immigration and, possibly, RCMP escorts. It is important to note that we cannot deport anyone unless another country is willing to receive them.

• 1725

In 1997, almost 8,000 people were removed, a 35.5% increase over 1996. Out of these 8,000 people, 1,446 were criminals.

We can therefore say that enforcement is the most complex task of the department. It is a high profile activity of the department's immigration program.

Let's now talk about the second major component of the department's mandate, the conferring of Canadian citizenship.

The Citizenship Act defines who is a Canadian—for instance, children born in Canada automatically become citizens—and describes the process for persons who are not Canadian and wish to acquire citizenship.

Please note that Canada does not prohibit dual citizenship and that citizenship is not lost by residing abroad. Citizenship is conferred on all children born in Canada, regardless of their parents' immigration status, with the sole exception of those whose parents have diplomatic status. Children born to Canadians outside the country have a claim to citizenship and may apply for it through their nearest Canadian consulate office.

To become a citizen, an applicant must be 18, a legal permanent resident and have resided in Canada for three of the previous four years. The applicant must also be able to communicate in English or French and have knowledge of Canada, including civic rights and responsibilities. Conversely, permanent residents are not eligible to apply if they are under a deportation order; if they are in prison, on parole or on probation; if they have been charged with or convicted of an indictable offence; or if they have been deemed by the minister to pose a threat to the security of Canada.

All citizenship requests are filed through our centralized citizenship Case Processing Centre in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Particularly complex cases are referred by Sydney to Case Management Branch at CIC Headquarters in Ottawa.

How does all this work? Applicants obtain the required forms from of our Call Centres, and forward a completed application and fees to Sydney, where criminal, security and immigration checks are conducted.

Knowledge and language testing is conducted on Sydney's behalf by one of 28 local offices across the country or by a citizenship judge. The final decision to grant citizenship is made by a Citizenship Officer, based on the recommendation of a citizenship judge.

Please note that the refusal rate for citizenship applications is less than 4%, but that both the applicant and the minister have the right to appeal the citizenship judge's decision before the Federal Court and that the court's decision is final.

As soon as a favourable decision is taken, the Sydney office prepares everything for citizenship to be granted. Applicants receive their citizenship certificate and take the oath of allegiance during one of the 2,000 ceremonies organized each year across the country. The list of new citizens is then sent to each member of the House of Commons.

In 1997, CIC granted more than 140,000 certificates of Canadian citizenship, therefore bringing to an end the immigration and citizenship application process for these new Canadians.

The citizenship services provided by CIC do not concern only new citizens. More than 20% of these services' clients are people who already are Canadian citizens. Last year, for instance, we handled 27,000 requests for research in citizenship files, and almost 45,000 proofs of citizenship were issued to people who needed them for various reasons.

• 1730

[English]

Mr. Chair, this concludes this rather dense and extremely condensed presentation. We have tried to cover the most important elements of our activities along the continuum, from admission to naturalization, and we are now at your disposal to try to answer questions.

The Chairman: Okay. We have almost exhausted our meeting time, but I will entertain a question from Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for that. Frankly, I wish I'd seen this presentation a year ago, when I started on this committee. It's very helpful and very comprehensive.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Very glitzy.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Very glitzy. I'm wondering if it's possible to get a disk of this presentation. I have this equipment and I wouldn't mind presenting it in my riding.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Absolutely. Disks can be made available.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is this the hard copy of the remarks?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: No, the diagrams—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could I get a hard copy to follow so that I can then present this at a round table session in my riding? I think it would be....

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Is it the wish, Mr. Chair, to have a hard copy of the slides, the disk, and the talking points, the script we used, for all members?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That would be excellent.

The Chairman: Sure.

An hon. member: In both official languages.

The Chairman: Andrew, then Raymonde, and then Leon.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Tsaï, could we have a breakdown of the numbers? I know you say there are 24,943 claimants who applied in Canada. Could we get those numbers chased through as to how many who appealed to the Federal Court were successful? I want to see what happened to that 25,000 who started out. I notice you have some stats. On a PRDCCC application or risk assessment, 3% were found acceptable, but I would like to chase those numbers all the way though.

Mr. Tsaï, could you also provide the committee with the policy of the department as to what happens in the case of the former Yugoslavia, which this week was under threat of bombing by NATO, which might resume at any time? Could you find out for us what the policy of the department is? How do we respond to situations like what is happening now in the former Yugoslavia? I would like you to put that policy in front of the committee, and it could occur anywhere else. So could you get that information for us, please?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: With—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Excuse me. We discussed the order of intervention for an hour, and you are doing exactly the opposite of what we decided.

[English]

The Chairman: I didn't see anyone raising their hands, but I'll institute that. Go ahead.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We've been discussing the intervention for one or two hours and you don't respect it.

The Chairman: No, I respect it, but seeing no hands raised—

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's informal; all right.

The Chairman: Mr. Tsaï, go ahead. Be brief.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the second part of the question, every time there is a situation of this nature, we work in very close cooperation with the UNHCR to see what support Canada can provide to deal with a situation that might create some very difficult situations for some people.

But, Mr. Chair, in terms of what is the policy right now, we work in very close cooperation with the UNHCR. My colleague, Bill Sheppit, may have some additional information on the current status of this discussion.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think generally in any situation of upheaval, whatever the country, the UN and the international community essentially look at three options. The first, where it's applicable, is repatriation, once the situation has settled down; the second is local resettlement in an area; and the last resort is international resettlement, primarily because that's just so much more expensive. It is much more effective if the various governments and the various UN agencies can provide relief assistance to encourage people to return to a more normal situation.

• 1735

At the present time in the former Yugoslavia, I think essentially the first two options are the ones that are being primarily considered. We've been in regular contract with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and certainly at this point there is no recommendation from them nor is there an international movement towards large-scale resettlement programs.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, this is important, because I know somebody who is slated to be sent back to the former Yugoslavia and arrive there on Tuesday morning when the NATO bombing could start. Can you give me what we have from the UNHCR on that particular issue? I want to know what the department did in anticipation of this situation arising, because this person did not have that happen to them.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chairman, as officials, of course we want to be as helpful as possible. Our mandate today is really to give a description of the process. This is something I indicated at the outset. I know the committee intends to invite the minister, and we will be prepared to answer these types of questions when the minister asks us to do so.

The Chairman: Perhaps we can defer the answer to the question. I thought this afternoon would be the introduction to how the system works. In fact, to the extent that I forgot—and I apologize to Réal and Leon—that we had just adopted a sequence of questioning, I immediately went to Steve, to Andrew, and to Raymonde. My apologies. I see your point, and perhaps Andrew will take that question under advisement.

Raymonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Tsaï, I'd like to thank you. We are a bit responsible for the fact that you are sitting here when it's almost 6 o'clock, and I would like to thank you and the members of your team. I know it's not the first time you make this presentation, but it was extremely important for us to start on the right foot so that every member of the committee has at least this information. I think it's fundamental.

I have a question. You may not have all the details required to answer it, but you can forward your answer to me and to any member who might be interested.

It has to do with the administrative agreements between the government of Canada and the provinces regarding immigration. Obviously, there is the one with Quebec, with which I am familiar, but I know that there are other administrative agreements with other provinces. One has been signed last year with...

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Manitoba.

Mrs. Raymonde Folco: That's it. I was wondering if I could have details about these administrative agreements signed with other provinces than Quebec.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chairman, we would be most happy to give members of the committee any information required on the agreements signed with the other provinces.

As I indicated in my comments, these agreements do not cover the same ground as the Canada-Quebec Accord, but we can see a growing interest by the other provinces for the immigration program. They wish to participate more actively in this program.

So, we'll do that.

[English]

Mr. Chair, I answered the second question asked by Mr. Telegdi, but we didn't answer the first question. May I come back very briefly to the first question? I'm not sure we'll be able to answer it in a very satisfactory manner, but my colleague Brian Grant will try.

The Chairman: Very briefly. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Brian Grant (Director, Program Development, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): For members who worked on the ILRAG report, they'll recall this. Your question is, of the 24,000 who come in, can we follow all of those through? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Unfortunately for you and for us, our system of capturing data right now is not a tracking system; it's a case-specific system. So what you'll get is 24,000 coming in one year, and then you'll get a mixing of removals that came in the year before, or maybe two years before, working their way through the system.

There is hope on the horizon. We have a new national case management system that we're working on right now that should be able to do exactly what you've asked for. It will give us a much better handle on the movement of people through the system.

So we can see what we can do, but I'm not sure that it will give you exactly what you're looking for.

The Chairman: Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just going to ask a couple of questions this afternoon. I have a briefing set up for next week, so I can ask the questions then.

• 1740

Following up a bit on this tracking, do you have any tracking system in place at all for visitors? Do you have any way of really knowing whether someone who comes here under a visitor's permit leaves the country or not?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: It's very difficult to track visitors in the absence of a system that would imply, for example, exit controls. Some countries do have exit controls, universal exit controls, and in some countries it's much easier to implement such a policy because of geographic considerations, but Canada doesn't have such a policy.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The other question is on one of the comments you made about convention refugees and people who don't qualify as convention refugees and the fact that they can receive permanent residence on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. How many would that be, for example, in 1997? How many applied and how many qualified?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chair, I'm afraid we don't have the answer here today, but we have the numbers and we could provide the information to the committee.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll follow up with that later.

The Chairman: Réal is next, then John, and then Grant.

Just to remind committee members, the panel will be here before us tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. to continue.

Mr. Georges Tsaï: If you should desire.

The Chairman: Would it be the predisposition of the committee to reserve the questioning for tomorrow, to continue?

Mr. Grant McNally: The minister is not coming tomorrow.

The Chairman: No, we'd continue with these witnesses again.

Okay, let us continue tomorrow with these witnesses, then, and I can adjourn the meeting.

Yes, John, tomorrow?

Mr. John McKay: I have my ongoing conflict between the justice committee, which operates next door, and here, and they will be going on simultaneously. So if I could get a couple of questions in at this point, I'd appreciate it.

The Chairman: Go ahead, please, with the permission of the committee.

Mr. John McKay: As I was speaking to you privately, I was telling you that over the course of the summer, visitors visas were driving my office absolutely crazy. I think that's true of most members from the GTA.

The issue that continually comes up is, of course, we don't see the 85%, or whatever the number is, of the ones that are done, are accepted. All we hear about and see are the ones that aren't.

The case officer dealing with the issue in New Delhi, or Colombo, or wherever the office is, gets a particular perspective. They don't necessarily get the perspective from the relatives who are inviting the visitor to Canada.

There are two things. The hosts, if you will, are absolutely adamant, as least when they come into my office, that this person will go home, and they will make sure they go home, and so on. The second thing that occurs quite frequently is the issue of “We are prepared to put up any amount of bonding in order to assure the department that this individual goes home.”

So I'm curious as to how the department can respond to that 15% segment, where the hosts say this person will go home and we'll put our money where our mouths are and allow ourselves to be bonded. Are you going anywhere in that area? This is an area of continuous frustration.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: I think there are two points that need to be considered. One is, notwithstanding whatever the sponsor or relative here in Canada may say, they don't ultimately know what the person's intentions are, as we don't. All we can do is make a best estimate, based on our experience, and then, to a large extent, common sense. Does it make sense that the person who is applying in this country, who is doing this job, earning this amount of money, is going to spend x amount of money to go for a trip to Canada of this duration? If somebody earns $100 a month, is it logical that they're going to spend $3,000 on a trip for six months and then return? To a large extent, that's a matter that can only be divined or arrived at by the visa officer and the applicant concerned. It's a very subjective process.

• 1745

Mr. John McKay: But that's my point: it's a subjective process by the visa officer. As I review the decisions, there are very few that I would absolutely disagree with based upon the material on the visa officer's desk at the time.

That's why I'm questioning whether there should be the additional component of what the hosts say. I agree with you that the hosts can't say you should go and then have any enforceability. A lot of hosts are prepared to be very rigorous about making sure their guests go home. This is to the extent that they will—I don't want to stretch a point—literally put up any amount of money to show their bona fides.

Mr. Bill Sheppit: That may be some area that you or the committee may want to look at in the context of legislative review. Right now, there's no provision for the posting of a bond for somebody who's applying for a visa overseas. If it's a big enough area and if the other members of the committee agree, maybe it's something that would be worth raising down the road.

The Chairman: One of the proposals on the agenda for the committee to study is visas. John, I think you've touched on a very vital issue. You weren't on the steering committee, but it was one of the proposals of the steering committee. Perhaps when we come to that issue, we can discuss that very subject and proceed further. It's a vital issue that affects all of us.

On that note, I will adjourn the meeting until tomorrow at 9 a.m., when we will reconvene in room 269 in the West Block.

The meeting is adjourned.