CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 18, 1999

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I shall call the meeting to order. With your permission, I have allowed a video camera for the first couple of minutes at the request of a member, for his project. As soon as the cameraman is out, we will proceed. Actually this is a public meeting of the committee, come to think of it, although we wouldn't like distraction like that.

We have the agenda before us. The clerk was just telling me as I came in that if we could, we should go to the motion of Mr. Benoit, which is item 3 on the agenda, for the reason that his motion, as she looks at it, could have a bearing on the report of the schedule of meetings for next week, which is the sixth report's item 2. I thought it was an excellent suggestion to give meaning to the discussion.

With the permission of the group, I will proceed with item 3 on the agenda, the notice of motion of Mr. Benoit for consideration.

• 0910

While we are at motions, we might as well go to all the motions ahead of us. Item 2 is another notice of motion and is the motion of Mr. Ménard, I think.

Mr. Benoit, would you like to reread your motion? You can start the debate on the motion.

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

My motion reads:

As agreed by the Committee on December 9, 1998, I move that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be requested to reappear before the Committee at the earliest opportunity, but not later than March 25, 1999, to address the performance reviews of the department for the fiscal year 1998-99.

Of course all I'm asking for here is for the meeting that was ended abruptly by the death of Shaughnessy Cohen in the House to be held again. We had just barely started that meeting. There was an agreement at that time, in fact, that the minister would come back at the earliest opportunity in the new year. In fact, if you read the committee Hansard.... I'll just read from it. I'll begin with me saying:

Mr. Chair, under these circumstances, from what I've heard, I think it would be reasonable to close the committee down now, but I would like assurances that we will have the minister back very early in the new year.

The minister said, “I'm ready.”

The chair said:

In a situation like this, when we say we will adjourn, which is my recommendation, I don't think there's any need to ask for assurance of this point.

So, Mr. Chair, I am quite shocked that here we are more than three months later and the minister still hasn't appeared. The House has been sitting a month and a half now since Christmas, and the minister hasn't appeared to finish her appearance on the performance reports.

She appeared on this legislation, but the two aren't connected at all, Mr. Chair, as you know. Even in her appearance at this committee...that's another issue, but I certainly felt that I was restricted way beyond what was reasonable at that meeting. Certainly I couldn't get into any of the issues that we would talk about in regard to the performance reports.

I'm surprised that a motion is needed, Mr. Chair. I'm really quite shocked that a motion is needed here, and I'm hoping we can just quickly pass this thing and get on.

As you know, there are really very few opportunities for members of Parliament to hold a minister accountable. You can do that through public pressure, certainly, and we do. You can do it in the House to some extent, but of course there is very limited time in Question Period. Really, probably the most effective tool we have to hold the minister accountable is appearances at committee. That's where you can get into a little bit more depth in questioning—at least in theory you can.

This is critical, Mr. Chair. I would just ask for the unanimous support of the committee to complete the meeting that was started and to honour the commitment that was made by this chair.

The Chair: Is there any debate on the motion?

Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Ménard and Mr. McNally.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I agree with the motion with the exception of the timing. I'm concerned about the workload that's in front of this committee. I'd like to put an amendment. Where the word “committee” appears on the second line in the phrase “to reappear before the committee”, I'd like that followed with “after completion of clause-by-clause review on Bill C-63”, followed by “to address the performance reviews of the department”.

• 0915

I want us to get on with this bill that is before us and with the public hearings. The member has stated very clearly that he wants public hearings on this thing, and taking up an entire meeting with the minister when we could have half a dozen or more deputations appearing before the committee is not, in my view, judicious use of the time of this committee. I put that as an amendment.

The Chair: Madam Clerk, would you read the amendment so that it's clear to everybody?

The Clerk of the Committee: The amendment by Mr. Mahoney reads that at the second line, the phrase “to reappear before the committee” is to be followed with the amending phrase “after completion of clause-by-clause review on Bill C-63”, which will be followed by “to address the performance reviews of the department”.

The Chair: Just for the clarity of the amendment, you have proposed, Mr. Mahoney, to delete the phrase “at the earliest opportunity, but no later than March 25th, 1999” and to substitute “after completion of the clause-by-clause” study of the bill—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

The Chair: —ahead of us.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Bill C-63—

The Chair: —an act respecting Canadian citizenship. Okay—and after we have concluded our report for submission to the House.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

The Chair: Okay.

On the amendment to the motion, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I had a secretary many years ago who had a sign above her desk which read that a “lack of planning on your part does not make an emergency on my part”. We've had a month and a half now for this committee to have the minister here. Before the legislation was even introduced or was ever debated in the House we could have had the minister here. I asked for the minister to appear on several occasions, both in the steering committee and in this committee. I asked for that commitment that was made in December to be honoured. Just because that wasn't done, either because the minister was too stubborn to come or because she wasn't asked—or for whatever reason—that shouldn't cause this to be held off for even further down the road.

There's no problem with interrupting this procedure. This citizenship bill could take a year before it ever gets to clause-by-clause. How do we know? Certainly I think the minister should meet that commitment immediately. In the motion it says “by March 25”. This motion was first introduced to this committee two weeks ago, so there was certainly ample time to have this arranged. It certainly isn't because of me that this motion wasn't dealt with before now. I just think we must have the minister here and have her here immediately.

The Chair: In your debate you alluded to perhaps a lack of planning on the part of the chair. Did I hear you correctly?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Certainly.

The Chair: I will say that the chair only acts at the pleasure of the committee. It is done by consensus or vote. Whatever is pursued is done by the committee on the basis of a majority vote, if not a unanimous vote. I should also say that I recall—and the records can be corrected—that we had agreed to do other studies as we were planning to extend the invitation to the minister and check her availability. I think the clerk will confer with me and confirm here that the invitation has been issued to the minister. The insinuation that she might not have been asked is definitely wrong. For your information, I should share this with you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, if I could reply—

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, Mr. McKay, Mr. Ménard and then Mr. McNally.

Mr. Telegdi, please make your debate brief and to the point of the amendment.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Chair, the point is fairly simple. Do we want to deal with Bill C-63 before we go off for the summer? I think we do. We have a lot of comments from the Reform Party in particular saying that they want to get on with the review of the Immigration Act. We have very clearly stated that we will go to the Immigration Act as soon as we can get through Bill C-63.

It seems to me that when the Reform Party says that “the lack of planning on your part makes no emergency on my part”, let me suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that we have had a filibuster of sorts coming from the Reform Party, which is to hold up the work of this committee by having having no presence from the Reform at steering committee meetings.

An hon. member: Come on!

An hon. member: A point of order.

An hon. member: I would like to respond to that.

The Chair: No. The chair would like to make a note that we would not like to refer to the absence of any member. Please proceed with your debate.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The fact of the matter is that if we're going to deal with the bill—

An hon. member: I missed...[Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: Please avoid the interruptions.

Please proceed.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: If we're going to deal with the bill, I think it's imperative that we get to the minister as soon as we put this bill to bed, and the sooner the better.

• 0920

If we want to go into hearings—we said we wanted to have hearings—I think it's imperative, if we're going to meet any timelines and get on to the Immigration Act in the fall, which we want to do, that we deal with the hearings and deal with them now, as expeditiously as we possibly can, being fair to the people who want to appear, focusing our attention on that at this point in time. I agree totally with my colleague that as soon as we finish clause-by-clause and send the bill out of here, we have the minister report to this committee.

The Chair: Mr. McKay, Mr. Ménard, Mr. McNally and then Ms. Folco.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): The issue is pretty simple, Mr. Chair. Do we want to have it on the timeline as proposed in the main motion or do we want to have it after Bill C-63? If you look at the pros and cons of this matter, we want to get through Bill C-63 and get that back before the House, so I would propose to call the question.

The Chair: Sorry? You're calling for the question?

Mr. John McKay: I call for the question.

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: With respect, can we conclude at least with those witnesses that I have indicated I will recognize?

Mr. John McKay: It's a very simple issue. Let's just get it over with.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to begin by voicing my concern about how the working relationship between members of this committee seems to be deteriorating. In my view, it'll be extremely difficult for us in the coming days to continue our deliberations if things continue this way.

No one is denying that the minister was interrupted when she was last here and that she undertook to return, in keeping with her ministerial responsibilities. That undertaking meant something. Mr. Chairman, you are no more responsible for this situation then the other members of this committee are. We have all known since January that the minister was supposed to return. Now, we must move quickly to make the necessary arrangements for that to happen.

Secondly, I remind you that she will have to come back anyway to discuss the estimates for the current fiscal year. If we wait until the conclusion of our clause-by-clause study to call the minister back, we will be considerably behind schedule because she will have to appear twice. I remind my Liberal colleagues that they cannot disregard ministerial responsibility. We must follow the same course of action as other committees.

• 0925

Could the Reform Party tell us whether it would agree to our inviting the minister back during the first week of April? We would be prepared to support this motion, but it needs unanimous consent, so that we can contact the minister as soon as possible, within the next few days, to make our wishes known.

If we start getting bogged down in procedure and disregarding principles like this one, it'll be difficult to work peacefully on this committee. One day, the Liberals will no longer be in power. They will be in opposition and this principle will apply to them as well.

The Reform Party is right to demand that the minister return. We shouldn't have to thrash this out, but if ever partisanship conspired to create a difficult working relationship within this committee, well then, everyone will suffer the consequences. Let's admit once and for all that the Reform Party motion is justified.

If we decide to wait until we have concluded our clause-by- clause study, everyone knows that we could be waiting until June. Let's proceed quickly to get the minister back because that's what ministerial responsibility it is all about. She'll have to return again to discuss the estimates. Therefore, let us reaffirm this morning our desire to work together because if we don't cooperate, it will be difficult for everyone involved.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

An hon. member: I love you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I love you so and I would like to have a kiss now.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Why don't we all get in the middle and have a group hug?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Will you start, Mr. Mahoney? With Mr. Benoit?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: The action cannot be recorded—only the words.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): I'm almost speechless.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Grant McNally: Almost.

That's definitely a new tactic.

I echo many of the comments of Mr. Ménard—prior to the last exchange. Going back to when the minister was here before the committee, Mr. Chair, I was in the House when that incident happened with Ms. Cohen and was quite upset about it. In fact, it was I who told you what had happened and suggested that we adjourn that meeting, with the understanding we would have it again shortly after we resumed sitting.

Now, as Mr. Ménard has said, the relations have broken down and that's unfortunate, but all we're simply trying to do is to remind members of this committee how important it is for the minister to come here and for us to have an opportunity to talk to her and ask her questions.

In regard to clause-by-clause, those of us who've been in committee when other legislation was before committee know that it's a long process. Really, for us to wait until after the clause-by-clause is, I think, unacceptable, because it's going to put us months down the road, as Mr. Ménard said.

I'd be willing to look at his suggestion of maybe having that meeting in early April if next week is too soon, but I'm certainly not in favour of waiting until after the clause-by-clause. We had a commitment. We initiated the adjournment of that meeting in good faith for a very important reason, with goodwill and with the intent that the minister would come back, and we'd like to see that commitment kept. I think it would be wrong for us to wait until after the clause-by-clause.

The Chair: Mr. McNally, just for the information of the committee, we are in recess for the first two weeks of April, for 10 days.

Mr. Grant McNally: Maybe it needs to be next week, then, because of that. I'm not sure, but for us to wait until after the clause-by-clause is too long to wait.

The Chair: Okay.

Madam Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to bring an amendment to the text as proposed. The amendment would read:

I move that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be requested to appear before the committee at one special committee meeting called by the chair for that purpose.

If the opposition agrees, this would mean, from my understanding, that you, the chair, would call the meeting, one meeting, to which the minister would be invited. This could be done fairly soon, and during the meeting we would finish the matters on hand with the minister pertaining to the credits. Then we would go on to our regular schedule, as has been proposed in article 3 of the sixth report, and go on to study the bill before us.

The Chair: Madam Folco has suggested an idea.

• 0930

Madam Folco, in debate, of course, the clerk was just telling me that it has to be in the nature of a sub-amendment, but the idea has been floated here. How does that idea sell to the group as an approach to consensus building?

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I believe that if I were to withdraw my amendment in favour of this amendment that would put this amendment in order. I might be prepared to do that, since we're all trying to get along.

An hon. member: Make love, not war.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: When I hear Mr. Benoit say that we could be a year in debate on this bill, that's simply not acceptable.

We have a job to do, as you do, as you have pointed out. I served in opposition in a Parliament for five years and I know how frustrating it can be when there's a majority government that simply wants to get its job done. But frankly, we have a responsibility as members of the government side to ensure that this bill goes through the hearings, goes through clause-by-clause and is brought back into the House. If you guys want to play games, then you force us to put motions that will ensure that happens.

I'm quite prepared to accept the amendment on the basis that—and it can be next week, as far as I'm concerned—we get the minister in and complete that meeting that took place when our colleague died, but before I'm prepared to do so I need an agreement from the other side that we put some timelines on the public hearings and an agreement that at a certain date public hearings will end and we will move into clause-by-clause.

I cannot ask you for an agreement on the clause-by-clause. I understand filibustering. I understand well how it works and I understand the use and the purpose of it. If it's the opposition's desire to simply stop this bill from returning to the floor of the House of Commons, then frankly I'm not prepared to co-operate with them on that basis.

The problem I face is that before us we have a number of motions out of the steering committee. One of the things—and I'll be right upfront—I want to do with regard to the report on the steering committee is to put a sunset date of April 23 on those hearings. That gives us more than a month to have hearings. If we can agree, we can have increased hearing dates and we can sit in the evening. I'm agreeable to all of that. We can try to accommodate as many people as we possibly can in order to get a full hearing on this bill, but I'm not prepared to allow this bill to go down in flames just to satisfy the need of the members to question the minister.

I offer a deal, frankly, and that is, if the opposition is prepared to agree to some timelines on the process involved here, then, I think, Madam Folco's motion is a very good motion and I would be prepared to have it replace my amendment.

The Chair: Having heard that, Mr. Benoit, we are still discussing how we can arrive at a consensus. Your motion is ahead of us. Please go ahead.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's interesting that Mr. Mahoney thinks he can somehow interpret our feelings and our emotions. It is quite interesting, indeed. Because he felt frustration in opposition doesn't mean that we necessarily do.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Leon Benoit: This has nothing to do with frustration. This has to do with honouring a commitment that was made when that last meeting was cancelled.

Mr. Mahoney talks about a filibuster. There's no filibuster intended here. All we want to do is to have some proper debate on this bill, and this debate is going to take some time. It not only takes time to go through the process of committee, it takes time for the public to get involved in the debate and discussion so that we really have some meaningful feedback from the Canadian public. After all, this is Canadian citizenship that we're talking about with this bill.

To talk about putting in a guideline of the end of April is absurd, quite frankly, Mr. Chair. It's going to take months of debate across this country to get this piece of legislation to a point where we can gauge the feedback, the feelings of the public, and to a point where we can make appropriate amendments to improve this legislation—of course, unless the government has already decided they're going to push it through exactly the way it is, and if that's been done, then we're all wasting our time. Let us go out into the Toronto and Vancouver communities and talk to the people ourselves. We could be far more effective doing that.

• 0935

The Chair: The chair would like to put it on record that he recalls that the minister, as a first witness before this bill, did indicate that they are wanting the submissions from this committee as to how we can improve the bill.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I consider Ms. Folco's motion to be completely honourable and I think the Reform Party should seriously consider it. We should seize this opportunity. I understand that you would have the authority to convene a special meeting of our committee sometime during the next few days at which time we could hear from the minister and diligently examine the bill. I think that's a reasonable compromise, one that everyone can accept.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. So I'm hearing part of the development of the consensus—it's not quite yet.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: The debate has gone back and forth. We're not moving anywhere off the debate, so let's just call the question.

The Chair: Okay. I thought I could see a half-evolution of a consensus. I can see that Mr. Ménard is persuading Mr. Benoit's group.

Now, if I, as chair, can propose this to you: if we can have that agreement to have a special meeting for the purpose of continuing and concluding the hearing with the minister, as suggested by Madam Folco, Mr. Mahoney has indicated that he is prepared to withdraw his amendment on the understanding that we will support that agreement.

On that basis, if that is the emerging consensus, I will be prepared to ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Mahoney withdraw his amendment and then have Madam Folco introduce her amendment. Is that agreeable?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If I accept it as a friendly amendment, you've had the question called, and quite frankly, that is a non-debatable motion.

The Chair: You're...?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Calling the question.

The Chair: I know. I realize. I was asking his permission.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You just can't cut off debate necessarily because a question is called.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You can move that the question can be put and the chair is obligated to take the vote. It happens to be Robert's Rules.

Mr. Grant McNally: On your amendment?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: On your amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you withdrawing your amendment?

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm accepting it as a friendly amendment.

Mr. Grant McNally: You're accepting that and withdrawing—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm having it replace mine, so we'll have the meeting with the minister, and we'll have it as soon as it can be arranged. It will be a special meeting that will be outside of the normal work plan of this committee—as quickly as that can be done. I don't think we can be fairer than that.

The Chair: Okay. The clerk has advised me that the Robert's Rules of Order, which I thought I was familiar with as well, and which we're all familiar with.... The clerk has advised me that to call a question in committee to put it to a vote immediately is not allowable, according to the clerk. I seek counsel there, and I think in a sense that gives the chair a little vindication in trying to ask that persuasion to hold off the request for a vote at this time.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What are you saying, Mr. Chairman? Could I just understand?

An hon. member: Call the question.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are you telling us that we cannot call the question—

An hon. member: In committee?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —that this debate can go the entire day or in the next committee?

The Chair: There is a time when the chair has to rule on the basis of reasonableness that debates shall conclude, and I shall put it to a vote.

An hon. member: I don't agree.

The Chair: That is what the clerk has indicated to me, but I will verify that with the Clerk of the House later on as well.

Anyway, on that note, I can emerge a—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we mustn't waste our time. Since Mr. Mahoney has agreed to withdraw his amendment, the committee must now consider Ms. Folco's motion, namely that the Chair convene as soon as possible a special meeting of our committee so that we can continue to question the minister. In the interim, we will continue with our work. Does the Reform Party find this motion acceptable? Could I put that question to our colleague Mr. Benoit?

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: Certainly.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine. It's possible that no one may ask that this motion be put to a vote and that there is unanimous consent, which is the best thing that could happen to you as chair. I do think we have unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney, I think a consensus has been reached. Can you please take your place?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is that in the rules?

The Chair: Yes. No, no—just a sense of humour there.

I think consensus has been reached, brokered by Mr. Ménard, that—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that the minister will be appearing before the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

• 0940

The Chair: We will call one special meeting for the purpose of examining the minister on the performance reports, okay? It will be one meeting, and there will be no further motions that we will entertain, and thereafter we will proceed with the consideration of the bill and a timeline so that we can complete our work.

Mr. Mahoney, you said you were prepared to withdraw your amendment with the unanimous consent of the committee. Is that agreed?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just a point on having the minister appear: by what date?

The Chair: As early as next week, if available.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: As early as possible.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: How else do you do it? You can't put a date on a minister's schedule, but if it can be done—

The Chair: But before the conclusion of our study. That's what your indication read.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We haven't said that. The motion says that a special meeting—

An hon. member: One special meeting.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —one special meeting to be called by the chair for that purpose, so we would expect that you would contact the minister today, check her schedule, find out when she's available and try to coordinate a meeting.

The Chair: I will make that undertaking. I will contact the minister myself and indicate the consent of the committee. Are we prepared, then, to get unanimous consent for the withdrawal of the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Okay.

Madam Folco, your amendment.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Do you want me to read it again?

The Chair: Yes, please, for clarity.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I move that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be requested to appear before the committee at one special committee meeting called by the chair for that purpose. To address the performance reviews, etc....

The Chair: That's clear? Okay, a vote on the amendment to the motion. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Unanimously.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now, on the amended motion, unanimously agreed, I assume?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you for that consideration.

Let us go to the second item, which is the consideration of Mr. McNally's motion.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm hoping that all the members have the motion before them.

The Chair: Do you have a copy of the motion?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I don't think I have it.

Mr. Grant McNally: Is it en français?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm sorry, I do have a copy.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could have just a few minutes to give them—

The Chair: The clerk has just advised me that she will read the motion and then—

The Clerk: I will read the letter—

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

The Clerk: —from Mr. McNally, dated March 9, 1999, which states that:

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) a meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration shall be convened within ten sitting days for the purpose of examining concerns relating to the abuse of the refugee system as evidenced in the Greater Vancouver area by the growing number of refugee claimants charged with drug-trafficking offences.

This was signed by Mr. McNally, Mr. Benoit, Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Doyle.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I bring this motion forward today because there is a serious problem happening. I know we have a lot of work in front of us with Bill C-63, but these are some of the issues that constituents and people within British Columbia are raising in terms of the refugee situation going on in the Greater Vancouver area.

As members of the parliamentary committee on citizenship and immigration, as duly elected members of Parliament, the highest court in the land, it is my belief that we must deal with the integrity of our immigration system. I have brought this motion forward because so many individuals have spoken out on this problem with the system. For us to ignore the obvious or to try to minimize a serious problem that is having serious consequences for so many people would be, in my opinion, shirking our responsibility as elected representatives of Canada.

My focus in presenting this motion is to focus on the problem with the system, not on those working hard in the system, as they are bound by current procedures. I propose we set some time aside in another meeting to work together to help find solutions to this issue.

Let's look at what some people are saying about this so that it's not just my words being said. There are a lot of people—very important people with a lot of influence within the system—saying these things, including the Attorney General of British Columbia.

• 0945

That's one of the main reasons I'm bringing this motion forward, for he, as the chief law officer of British Columbia, is concerned about this issue as well. He said:

I believe we need to put in appropriate checks and balances to make sure that Canada is not used by people who aren't genuine refugees and I think perhaps we need to do this right at the beginning.

He has also stated:

I think if you are abusing the hospitality of Canada by committing crimes, you should be deported forthwith.

These are the words of the Attorney General of British Columbia, Mr. Chair.

He also went on to state that:

People that are illegal aliens that come into the country and are caught by police and convicted by the courts, there should be a speedier process of deportation for them. Police are doing their best to stem the tide, and I think Ottawa needs to assist them.

This is why I bring this up here in our parliamentary standing committee here in Ottawa.

Others have made comments, perhaps not as judiciously as the Attorney General of British Columbia. Recently Mike Prue a former immigration official stated:

For 14 years I was an appeals officer and counsellor to the Minister. Canada is a sieve. Canada's refugee system is a joke.

I'm not sure I would go that far, Mr. Chair, but I would say that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Currently there's no guarantee that those individuals who are refugee claimants and are convicted of drug dealing are going to be deported. Drug dealing is not an offence that precludes an individual from proceeding with a refugee claim. One of the minister's own spokespersons, a Mr. Eric Tetrault has confirmed this in a statement in which he said that

People who make refugee claims can do what they want, and that includes committing—crimes or being accused of committing crimes.

Immigration officials have admitted there's an organized approach to this activity, as Mr. Rob Johnson, the Vancouver enforcement division head person, has said:

We believe there is an organized smuggling approach to this in the criminal community...they're getting through the border, coming downtown and there is an organized approach to it....

He and the department are trying to do their best with the resources that they have available. Police have done their best to try to stem the flow. However, as Staff Sergeant Rockwell, head of E division's immigration division in British Columbia, says:

We're not getting a whole lot of help. The government doesn't want to fund us for this type of initiative.

Staff Sergeant Doug MacKay-Dunn of the Vancouver police has said:

They know the system. That is something you don't pick up in a small village in Honduras.

He has also said:

Those people who want to come here make a contribution—wonderful, that's the strength of Canada, but those people who flought the system and slap the face of the person who invited them in...that's wrong.

Bill Bauer, former member of the IRB, has said:

The whole refugee program is being abused by these gangs and petty criminals and we're just sitting ducks for it.

To conclude, I'd just like to wrap up by outlining for this committee one example of the kind of abuse that's going on in British Columbia, particularly in the Vancouver area. A one Juan Carlos came to Vancouver on October 15, 1997, and claimed refugee status under a false name. He was charged on October 29, 1997, two weeks later, with trafficking crack cocaine and assault with a weapon. He was caught on June 10, 1998, smuggling three Hondurans across the border, and he was released. On August 20, 1998, he was again caught smuggling Hondurans across the border. This time five individuals were involved. He was detained and confessed to using a false name. A criminal record check revealed that he had a criminal record for dealing drugs in the United States. It took another four months have him declared a dangerous offender and deported.

Clearly there's a serious problem with the system. It's our duty and our responsibility to address problems with the system, to improve the system and to return integrity to the name of our country's immigration system.

Even the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who is here today, has said in committee, and I quote:

Regarding the deportation of criminals, there seem to be a lot of problems, especially recently in B.C., where there are several cases. They create a lot of resentment from our voters.

Even last week, the Minister of Immigration, the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, said, in reference to the refugee system on another matter, and I quote, “It's time we revised this system.” She also said, and I quote, “Something isn't working in the system.” That was on March 9, just a week and a half ago.

That's why I've submitted this motion to address a need in the system and have called for another meeting to explore in more detail the serious abuses within the refugee system, Mr. Chair, as particularly evidenced in the Vancouver area by the information that I've outlined, that is, so that we can take a look at this very serious problem and restore the integrity in this particular area. I believe that's our duty: to look for solutions and answers to make something we see as a problem much better.

• 0950

The Chair: So I assume you have moved the motion.

Mr. Grant McNally: Yes.

The Chair: Ms. Folco and then Mr. Benoit.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Do I have the floor, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Then Mr. Ménard and then Sophia.

Ms. Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I ask that Mr. McNally's motion be put to a vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Unfortunately, in the rules of the committee, a vote called is not binding unless we have unanimous consent at this point to proceed with the vote—but you may debate if you like.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I can't understand why the opposition doesn't want to vote on this motion. This would give them the opportunity to move and have their own motion adopted. Do they want us to proceed with the debate? If they want to have their motion adopted, then I don't understand why they're refusing to vote.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: If they get an indication that they're going to pass the motion there's no need for debate.

The Chair: Okay. Let us now debate.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I just want to make a brief point on who the victims are in this problem. The victims are: the kids that are getting that poison from these drug traffickers; the general taxpaying public of this country who has to pay the costs of trying to deal with the problem; and, Mr. Chair—and I think this is really important—the victims are people from the new immigrant communities who are all tarnished, who are all painted in a negative way because of the activities of a few criminals. Well, it's quite a large number of criminals in this case, but it's certainly a small percentage of the total group.

With respect to their reputation, the situation hasn't been dealt with, and there are some really negative feelings, I would say, certainly towards all people who come from the countries that are most commonly involved. I think it even just kind of spills over to the general new immigrant population. I think it's our responsibility to protect their reputations, and we do it by dealing with the problem.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I understand the situation that the residents of British Columbia are currently experiencing. I'm somewhat concerned, because the motion seems to establish a link between the process of claiming refugee status and crime. I'm uncomfortable with this. A refugee claimant is someone whose physical well-being is threatened because of political, religious or other convictions. Everyone is familiar with the convention. In my view, the motion is not properly balanced.

Like most members, I watched the report on Le Point. If we want to deal with crime, me must first deal with the problem of smugglers, the people who run illegal smuggling operations, as was reported on in this story. If we adopt this motion as it is currently worded, one might be led to believe that there is a direct link between refugee claimants and crime. As I said, I'm uncomfortable with this because fundamentally, I don't believe that's the case. It's important that we continue to send out the message that we want the refugee claimant process to be as open as possible and that we want to deal with claimants as generously as possible.

Perhaps the committee could study the issue of illegal immigrant smuggling at a later stage. Canadians expect this of us. However, we must ensure that we adopt a balanced approach to this matter. That's why, regrettably, I cannot support this motion.

[English]

The Chair: Sophia?

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Yes, I've been waiting.

The Chair: Sorry. I indicated—

Ms. Sophia Leung: You're talking about Vancouver.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Do you understand that? It's my concern, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I call on Ms. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you. It's about time.

I share Mr. McNally's concern.

I don't remember what I said. I guess you took notes of everything I said.

Anyhow, I think the problem is very complex. It's not purely a refugee problem. We know that. As a matter of fact, I had a discussion with the Minister of Justice, and this is real tie-in with Ujjal Dosanjh's department. He is the attorney general.

• 0955

There are provincial judges. They give very light sentences. Six months or three months and the drug dealers—or whoever, they may not be arrested—will be out on the street. This is literally not working. I want all of us to understand that this is not a refugee problem. It's a crime-, drugs- and refugee-related problem.

But here's what I want to know. The honourable member has proposed that we “examine” this concern. How is he going to examine it? That is a very loose term.

I'd like to understand what you propose. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. The chair would like to intervene at this point. How we examine a particular subject matter will be left to the determination of the committee. The issue before us is the motion before us and whether we agree with the motion that we examine. I think a discussion of how we examine this, although relevant, is.... Why would you like to know?

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's a good question.

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: How would you respond to that, Mr. McNally, briefly?

Mr. Grant McNally: I appreciate the comments of my colleague. I know she's from the riding of Vancouver Kingsway, where a lot of this drug dealing is going on.

Let me first of all state, in response to Mr. Ménard and Ms. Leung, that it is not the intention of this motion to link refugees with drug dealing. That is far away from the intent of this motion. The intent of the motion is to say that there are people who are using this system to abuse it and that we need to look at that abuse of the system and at those individuals. I agree that it's related to some other matters as well.

The Chair: Before I yield the floor to Mr. Mahoney, how many officials and witnesses do you envision we will need for such a study?

Mr. Grant McNally: I think if we just had even a few of the key people who are well aware of the problem, perhaps the staff sergeant I mentioned or Mr. Rockwell, the head of the immigration division for the RCMP, and perhaps just a representative from the attorney general's department, because I know he's very busy and probably wouldn't be able to come. We could just limit it to that, perhaps, to get an idea of some solutions to solve a problem.

The Chair: When do you envision this study taking place? After the conclusion of our study on the bill or before that?

Mr. Grant McNally: This is related to the Standing Orders, which say that it would be within 10 sitting days of the motion passing.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could I ask the clerk to clarify the meeting that we had in this committee where we approved a work plan for the committee, which we were going to look at? Do you recall that, Madam Clerk?

The Clerk: Was it a steering committee meeting?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, it would have been a meeting of the entire committee.

The Clerk: I'll have to check into that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Because the issue that I recall is that Reform has consistently attempted to get the issue of crime on the agenda of this committee, and there were a number of issues that we approved for this committee to deal with. They're just trying it again through a back door. Frankly, I don't know what the point of the committee approving a work plan is—

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —if we're going to simply accept motions, Mr. Chair, that take the committee off in another direction. It's absolutely clear that all the Reform Party wants to do is stall and delay and get the committee on their agenda. The member who moved this says that he's not trying to tie the issue of refugees to crime or drug trafficking—I just heard him say that—and yet the motion says “the growing number of refugee claimants charged with drug trafficking offences”. It is in the interests of the Reform Party to simply bring up—

Mr. Grant McNally: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't need your direction, Mr. McNally, thank you very much.

It's in their interests to do nothing more than turn this committee into some kind of a witch-hunt committee. If there is a problem in relation to drug trafficking in Vancouver—and my honourable colleague, Ms. Leung, suggests that there is a problem—then perhaps that should be investigated, and that should be investigated by the appropriate authorities. She has said that the provincial minister needs to be involved in that.

• 1000

That is not something that this committee, when we have a very full agenda and we have an approved work plan that specifically took the issue of crime away, because all the Reform Party has been trying to do in the speeches in the House that they make is to link refugees and immigrants with crime and drug trafficking.... I remember a speech in which they went on about how people are coming into this country and transmitting disease to people all over the country.

It's just sickening stuff and I've about had enough of it. It is totally contrary to the work plan of this committee, and it's obvious that all they're trying to do is to delay. Maybe they should amend the motion to include getting the foreign minister from Brazil. They seem to have a relationship with those people. Maybe the committee should travel to Brazil—

An hon. member: Why don't we—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —to find out what kind of relationships the Reform Party has.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We try to be co-operative.

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We've agreed to bring the minister here, we've agreed to work with their request and what do they do? They just play games—

An hon. member: You may think this is a game—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —and they put nonsensical motions to try to throw a cog into the wheel of this committee.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, you're—

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —in danger of losing control of this committee if you don't rule this type of nonsense out of order and get on with the business of this committee, which is examining the citizenship bill.

The Chair: I think Mr. Mahoney has come to the floor.... We just had an earlier agreement.

I will give the floor to Mr. McNally to close debate and I will put the motion to a vote.

Some hon. members: No.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's hard to respond to that kind of comment, Mr. Chair, and that's the kind of thing that leads to the disharmony that Mr. Ménard mentioned earlier. Mr. Ménard does not support this motion in its current form and he can state that in a reasonable manner, and I appreciate him doing that without going over the top with useless rhetoric.

Ms. Leung mentioned very clearly that there's a problem. It's happening right in her community.

Mr. Mahoney talks about all kinds of ridiculous things when he impugns motives of members here. As to what the motivation is for the motion, I can tell Mr. Mahoney the motivation for this problem is that the Attorney General of British Columbia is asking Ottawa for help. He's met with the minister. Ms. Leung knows that. Here we are in Ottawa and this is an opportunity for us to do that.

The Chair: Okay. I would like to put the motion to a vote if I could. No?

Mr. Telegdi, then.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything that my colleague to my right said.

I'm going to put to you a Vancouver perspective on this. When I was—

Mr. Leon Benoit: On a point of order.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: A point of order has been raised.

Mr. Benoit on a point of order, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, the tone there is a little bit—

The Chair: I do not want a debate. I'm becoming very strict. I am very compliant, Mr. Benoit and members of the committee, and if you like to be strict, the chair will be very strict on the procedure. To the point of order, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The point of order is the order of the list here. Mr. Telegdi has now been given the opportunity to speak here and I had asked for one some time ago.

The Chair: That is not a point of order.

Proceed.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me note that this is the first time I'm speaking on this particular motion, but let me say that I agree with my colleague from Mississauga in terms of the work plan.

Let me further say.... I'm going to put a Vancouver perspective on this because in 1957 I came to this country with my family as refugees and our first port of call was Vancouver. We stayed in Vancouver from 1957 to 1962. Let met tell you that it took me a long time to realize where some of those schoolyard calls of DP, immigrant and honky come from, and it comes from these kind of attitudes that we hear around this table from the other side, where we are criminalizing refugees, we are criminalizing immigrants, we're making the link.

I tell you, Mr. Chair, and I tell you, members of the committee, there's many a child going to public school and high school in this country who is going be victimized by the rhetoric coming out from here and encouraging the elements in this country who hate refugees, who hate immigrants and want to shut the door—

An hon. member: Oh, come on.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: —and want to blame us all for it.

I'm telling you that, Mr. Chair, from personal experience in Vancouver in the schoolyards of Tecumseh Public School and John Oliver High School, as well as the streets of Vancouver, and that's exactly where the attitude comes from.

I agree totally, 100%, with Mr. Mahoney on this.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

• 1005

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we have to be cautious about categorically stating that refugees bring a criminal element here to Canada. Statistics clearly show that there is no obvious link between the presence of political refugees and crime. That's my first point.

Secondly, I'd like committee members to get their hands on a study commissioned by the federal Solicitor General. This study identifies a number of problems associated with immigration, in particular the illegal smuggling of immigrants. At some point, our committee will need to look at this issue. There has to be a middle ground here and I think I represent that middle ground.

Canada must continue to uphold, as a sovereign Quebec would, a tradition of extending a welcoming hand to political refugees. I support such action. However, each time a move is made to establish a link between crime and immigration, there is a general outcry. We need to establish a middle ground and I think we should start by giving members of copy of the study commissioned by the Solicitor General in 1997 which examines the link between immigration and crime, as well as the issue of illegal immigrant smugglers. We can't deny that this problem exists.

Mr. Chairman, it's important that we familiarize ourselves with this study so that one day, our committee can focus on this genuine problem. Moreover, we mustn't take the position that each time the crime issue is broached, there can't be any connection with immigration. That isn't true either.

Can you arrange to have this document distributed to committee members, including the honorable member for Bourassa, who is always looking for new reading material? He'll be happy to hear this.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): I too appreciate an efficient, healthy work environment, one that is not anti-Reform.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Coderre, the chair has not recognized you.

I will put the motion to the vote. Those in favour?

Mr. Leon Benoit: A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: There will be a recorded vote.

Can you read the motion first?

The Clerk: Mr. McNally moved that pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) a meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration shall be convened within ten sitting days for the purposes of examining concerns relating to the abuse of the refugee system as evidenced in the Greater Vancouver area by the growing number of refugee claimants charged with drug trafficking offences.

The Chair: The motion has been read and is clear. Debate is concluded.

A recorded vote, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 6, yeas 3)

The Chair: The motion is lost. Let us proceed with the consideration of the sixth report, item 1.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Will you see to it that members receive a copy of the Solicitor General's study?

[English]

You will move the study regarding crime and immigration,

[Translation]

the Solicitor General's 1997 study?

[English]

The Clerk: I'll look into it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: All committee members will receive copies?

The Clerk: Certainly.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Consideration of the sixth report: would somebody move the adoption of the sixth report?

I have been advised that we shall go item by item. Item 1.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have an amendment.

The Chair: Yes. Please proceed.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have an amendment to add the following at the end: “said hearings to be concluded by April 23”.

The Chair: Where is that?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: At the end of item 1, which begins with “that the committee hold public hearings”.

The Chair: Could you please repeat it once more?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Said hearings to be concluded by April 23.

The Chair: Said hearings.... There is the amendment.

Mr. Benoit.

• 1010

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, we've had closure used in the House now where we're reaching our 50th anniversary of this government in the limiting of debate on legislation in the House, and now the member wants to extend that to this committee. I think that is a completely unacceptable way to go into an examination of a bill, to say that we're going to have this finished within what amounts to three or four sitting weeks, I believe, in which we would be able to have witnesses on the bill. It's simply not enough time.

As I expressed before, it's critical when examining a bill not only to have witnesses who represent different groups that are interested—that's important—but also to have general feedback from the public. To have that feedback come in a meaningful way requires some time. First of all, it requires some time for the interest to be stimulated—in other words, for the general public to understand this legislation is there. Most people in Canada wouldn't have any idea at all that there's new citizenship legislation being proposed. In fact, a brand new act is what it will be when it passes.

So we need time for the public to become aware that this is happening, and then for them, the members of the general public, to have input. It is important that we hear these witnesses who represent different groups. It's also critical, certainly on a citizenship bill, which affects every Canadian in a very real way, that we allow time for the general public to become involved.

I would suggest that it is going to take some time. I want to make it very clear right now that Reform has absolutely no intent of filibustering or slowing this bill down. We have no reason to do that. We want debate on the bill. We want the bill to be carefully examined.

Literally dozens of people have sent us information on this bill in areas about which they have real concerns. Now, how can we possibly deal with that in three or four weeks of sitting by the committee?

If this committee is serious at all about the democratic process, and about a careful examination of this legislation, then we can't set a timeline.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to read into the record Standing Order 116 as it relates to meetings. It says:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Mr. Chair, I think that Standing Order reflects what committees should be about. I echo the comments of my colleague, that committee is about scrutinizing legislation and making sure the legislation is adequate legislation, legislation that will stand the test of time. For us to limit the examination of a very important piece of legislation is a dereliction of our responsibility.

I cannot support Mr. Mahoney's motion for that reason. We need to take a careful look at this bill and not hamstring ourselves as a committee. I think we must respect the Standing Orders as they are clearly stated here in terms of the way the committee is run.

So I cannot support this motion. In fact, I think the motion may even be out of order.

The Chair: Ms. Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: The attitude of the Reform Party almost leaves me speechless. Party members talk about democracy and the importance of studying Bill C-63, when in fact it's been almost three weeks now that they have been trying, using every possible strategy, to delay consideration of this bill, whereas we, on the government side, are trying to move things forward.

While we're on the subject of democracy, I'd like to remind committee members that the steering committee did everything it possibly could to ensure that every Canadian who wished to speak to this proposed legislation had an opportunity to do so, one way or another.

I remind committee members that we suggested three courses of action: first, witnesses could come before the committee to express their views; second, they could address the committee via a television hookup; and third, they could submit a brief to us. I suggested this third option so that as many people as possible could make their views known to us.

• 1015

We even agreed to have an ad run on the parliamentary channel so that everyone who watches television—and that's just about everyone in Canada—would learn that this committee was holding hearings on this bill and find out how to respond in order to have their name included on the witness list.

I don't think there's anything more we can do to make these proceedings more open and democratic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney, would you like to close the debate?

If not, I shall put the amendment to the vote.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, I had asked for the floor.

An hon. member: We're in a vote here.

The Chair: I indicated that I would like him to close the debate. I have put it to a vote now. I think we should push on. I would not like to lengthen debate on the motion. We gave you ample opportunity to debate the motion earlier on.

I shall put the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Can I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, on what you just said? I didn't understand what you just said.

The Chair: I said you have had an opportunity to debate. I asked Mr. Mahoney, who moved the amendment, for the closing debate. After the debate on the amendment and the vote on the amendment, we will vote on the amended motion, whatever happens.

So I think any debate you may have can be had when we debate the amended motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I haven't yet commented on the motion. I'm just trying to understand it.

My colleague's motion states that this committee's proceedings on the Citizenship Act must be concluded by April 23. Is that correct?

[English]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, the hearings.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The hearings must be completed by this date, following which we will commence our clause-by-clause study. In some respects, you are invoking closure. Are you aware of that? That's the truth, Ms. Folco.

I think we'll have enough time, but if we should need an additional week... you can't ask the opposition to approve this.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: We've already extended the proceedings.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I understand that, but do we really need to set a deadline?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: We need to wrap up our work, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I don't dispute that. That's something we can agree on.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes, we do agree on that.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We agree on many things.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: But not on the wording of this motion.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You're not willing to give an inch on this—

[English]

The Chair: Order, please. I am calling the vote on the amendment.

Mr. Leon Benoit: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Standing Order 116 says:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

The chair is not to be limiting the number of times of speaking or the length of speaking. I think that Standing Order should be respected.

The Chair: Well, the Standing Order is subject to interpretation; the chair will say that. Of course, we are our own masters. We can make our own rules within the Standing Orders.

I am just telling you, Mr. Benoit, that I would like to put this motion to a vote. You have had your opportunity to debate. My stand is that this is not limiting debate. This is in fact allowing ample debate but not to the point of meaningless debate at the end.

So I will put the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Grant McNally: Could we have the amendment read out for the record, one more time?

The Chair: The amendment is to hold public hearings, with said hearings to be completed by April 23.

That's the amendment. We're voting on the amendment.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'd like a recorded vote on that.

The Chair: Okay. We'll have a recorded vote on the amendment.

• 1020

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Is there debate on the amended motion?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I have to debate this. With this amendment, which invokes closure on the activities of this committee, it's just impossible to support this motion.

We've had all kinds of accusations from the members across the floor impugning motives; like they can understand our reason for doing things. We haven't done a single thing at this committee to stall for the sake of stalling. We have had issues we want to have dealt with. We have brought up extremely important issues, issues that we feel a lot of people would see as being issues that should be debated and properly discussed.

Now we have closure being invoked on this committee, Mr. Chair. It's completely unacceptable. In fact, if this happens, this committee really might as well be closed down.

We're going to have to do anything we can to make this committee work. Invoking closure is not part of that. Clearly it's not part of that.

I just want to ask all the members opposite whether they understand very clearly that what they're doing with this amendment, should they pass this motion, is ending debate, is preventing Canadians from having input on the citizenship bill, a bill upon which it can only be healthy for the country to have an open debate on.

I just can't believe what I'm hearing from across the floor, Mr. Chair. Anyone who would support this motion does not understand the concept of democracy in any way.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Chair, I cannot support this motion for a number of reasons. I agree with Mr. Benoit that we've heard a lot of words here today impugning motives, by government members towards opposition members. You haven't heard that from me in regard to government members. I've tried to clearly state my motion and give a reasoned approach as to why I bring the motion forward.

Ms. Leung gave indication, with regard to my previous motion, as to why she had some concerns about that issue too. This motion does just what Mr. Benoit said. It limits debate. It limits the opportunity for input on an important piece of legislation. I can't understand why we would do that to ourselves, or why, if the government members support this, they would want to do that.

I think it does violate Standing Order 116 in limiting debate, something that was written into the Standing Orders to avoid this kind of situation. Now here we are, in a committee format. The government members talk about cooperation and working together. How in the world can they expect members of the opposition to want to work in a harmonious fashion with people who don't even want to hear what they have to say, or think that the issues they raise aren't important? We're representing the people who voted for us.

I can't support this motion because it is what it is: It is closure on an important topic.

I don't understand how we can get to this level at committee. In the House, ministers say we'll send it to committee, where it will get full debate, where we can look at the legislation, and we can examine it very closely with a lot of time and detail.

Now we get to committee and government members are saying, no, we need to limit that and shut it down to I think a two- or three-week period. I can't understand that.

The Chair: The research staff has just asked me to convey, since you indicated that a lot of comments have come to your attention from the public, a request to pass them on to the clerk. The research staff is prepared to summarize those comments.

Mr. Grant McNally: The comments from...?

The Chair: The comments you have heard from the public on the bill.

Is there any other debate?

An hon. member: Yes.

An hon. member: No.

The Chair: Just a second, please.

I will allow Mr. Benoit one more time.

• 1025

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much.

I'm going to say this with some hesitation, but I think we have to try to do what we can to make this committee work. Towards that end, if we see legislation on immigration, the legislation the minister promised would come—although she did say herself it may not come until next year—tabled in this House while we're debating this bill, I will agree to anything we can do to speed up the process. I will agree to hold extra meetings, Friday meetings, Monday meetings—I've already said that I support those concepts—or anything else we can do to speed up the debate on this bill so that we can get to that immigration bill.

So if the minister tables that in the House, and we complete second reading on it, at that point I'll do whatever I can—and I hesitate to say this without talking to my colleagues about it—to move this bill through committee as fast as we can, while at the same time allowing the proper debate that we need.

I would be concerned, by doing that...because if the minister did table—next week, say—immigration legislation making substantial changes to the Immigration Act, I still feel it takes a certain time period to get public involvement so that they really are involved in the debate. But I think we could just focus on trying, each of us finding our own way, to get the public involved in the citizenship debate and to clear it as fast as we can so that we can move on to this major piece of immigration legislation.

I do agree that there are so many areas of the Immigration Act that desperately need change. We have a dysfunctional immigration system right now. I understand that. I want to get on that. Let's see the legislation and we'll somehow make this work here.

The Chair: I will ask Mr. Ménard and then I'll give to the floor to Mr. Mahoney. Then I will put the motion to a vote.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, couldn't we agree that we will try to wrap up our hearings on April 23, which would give us one month, but if ever any important witnesses... my problem with this motion is that it is too categorical. I think we'll have enough time to hear from witnesses, provided everyone is reasonable, but if two or three important witnesses—Mr. Coderre will certainly understand why I am being extremely conciliatory here—haven't yet appeared and we are unable to schedule them in on time, won't they be penalized?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: They can still send us their brief, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I realize that, but maybe some witnesses—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: If they are important witnesses, like the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, then they're already on your list.

Mr. Réal Ménard: How can we ever thank you?

[English]

The Chair: I will give the floor to Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that I hear Mr. Benoit say if—“if”—the minister will introduce the immigration bill, then we'll just run right through this.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, that's not what I said.

On a point of order—

The Chair: Just a second.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —Mr. Chair, clearly that's not what I said at all.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Clearly, that is what he said. I heard him say that if the minister will introduce an immigration bill in the House, get it through second reading so we can bring it to committee, then he will ensure that this bill is dealt with expeditiously. I mean, that's what I heard him say.

Mr. Leon Benoit: While still allowing full debate.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, fine. I don't have a problem with that. But it's quite clear that when the minister came before us on this bill, all Mr. Benoit wanted to question her on was immigration issues. He didn't want to deal with any citizenship matters whatsoever. You had to call him to order several times to ask him to ask questions that were relevant to the bill the minister was appearing on. So the agenda is clear.

I don't have a problem with that, by the way. If your agenda is to get at the immigration side of this ministry, that's fine. That's fair ball. But to use that as some kind of a carrot to us, that if we can ensure that happens, then you'll stop all the stalling tactics....

I mean, it's clear to me what's going on.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Excuse me, but there's a point of order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There have been no stalling tactics and there will be no stalling tactics used in this debate.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We've been here an hour and a half already, and all we've dealt with is new motions put in to deal with something that's not even on the agenda of the committee. I mean, it's just constant stalling, every meeting we have.

Sure it gets heated. It gets emotional. I would prefer that we could get on with the business of the committee. I don't know when we're going to get to hear witnesses if we keep doing this. It's just throwing things in to mess it up.

Frankly, this is exactly the opposite of closure. This is setting a window, a specific period of time in which we can conduct hearings.

• 1030

Monsieur Ménard, I don't have a problem saying that if on April 23 we still have a couple of key witnesses we want to hear from, we'll put a motion to have another meeting to hear from them. I don't want to cut people off. I'm prepared to sit in the evenings.

We have a motion later that extends the time this committee will meet. We're trying to make it work, and be cooperative, but it's just constant points of order, points of privilege, and new motions unrelated to the business at hand. Frankly, it's wasting the time of this committee.

So I would suggest that we set that window, that we get busy on the list, and that we get the invitations out. We've agreed later on that we will advertise. I suggest we get our business going.

The Chair: I will put item 1 to a vote.

An hon. member: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Recorded vote, please.

The Clerk: Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Oui.

The Clerk: Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Oui.

The Clerk: Ms. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Excuse me, but could I have the motion?

The Chair: No interruption may be had, because the vote is being taken.

The Clerk: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

The Clerk: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Oui.

The Clerk: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam—

The Chair: No interruption, please, when the vote is being taken!

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would just like the—

The Chair: No interruption, please! After the vote has been taken, we will proceed.

Proceed, please.

The Clerk: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd just like a clarification on exactly what motion we're voting on now.

The Chair: The motion has been amended. The amendment has been carried. We are voting on the amended motion.

Proceed.

Order!

Mr. Leon Benoit: I want the motion as amended read, please, Mr. Chair, so that we know precisely what we're voting on.

The Chair: You did not take your right of order at the beginning, before the vote was taken. The vote is being counted. The vote shall proceed.

The Clerk: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just for clarification, Mr. Chair, you say you're not willing to read the motion again, the motion as amended?

The Chair: The vote is being taken. It cannot be interrupted.

Proceed, please.

The Clerk: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, I can't vote.

The Chair: Are we concluded?

The Clerk: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: No.

(Motion as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Members of the committee, if you want to invoke the rules of order, you have to respect a rule of order. Okay? I would say that; really. I have to be very strict. You may not interrupt when a vote is being taken unless there is a fire—unless it is a matter of life and death.

Now for item 2.

An hon. member: I move adoption.

The Chair: Is there any debate on the motion?

I shall put the motion to adopt item 2 to a vote, seeing there is no interest in debate at this time.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Would someone now move adoption of item 3?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I move adoption, but in terms of reading the motion, I'm having trouble with saying, “with prior agreement”. Is that practical?

The Chair: No, we are on item 3.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: That is item 3, in the second paragraph.

The Chair: No, item 3 is about the authorization in consultation with research.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes, but if you look at the second section, “That in addition to the regular hours of sitting”—

The Chair: Oh, okay. Good.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Going on to the third line from the bottom, you're saying, “Wednesdays and Thursdays from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. with prior agreement”.

It seems to me that if you're going to have the phrase “with prior agreement” in there, it's going to be awfully difficult to schedule anybody.

The Chair: Just for clarification, the clerk has just advised me of a typographical error. Item 3 as now printed has become items 3 and 4, and item 4 will become 5, and the other items changed.

So we are voting on item 3 only, authorization on consultation.

• 1035

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Item 4 now, regular hours.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Can I ask a question? It's interesting how this motion has been changed from what the steering committee had talked about. I had specifically asked to have it stated in the motion that Monday afternoons and Fridays be used if extra time is needed beyond our current times. I thought there was agreement that at the very least those days would be alternated on a regular basis with the extra time suggested by other members.

The Chair: Let me ask the clerk.

The Clerk: I was not clear on that.

The Chair: I do recall—Mr. Benoit is right—that Monday and Friday should be used for extra time. I do recall that.

Mr. Ménard did object to Monday, though, right?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No. We advised you that it was difficult for us to be here on Mondays and Fridays. The motion is in line with what was adopted by the sub-committee, because that was supposed to be the norm. As everyone knows, few, if any, committees meet on Mondays and Fridays. It's more difficult for members to sit during the evening, but we have agreed to that. That's the motion we adopted. We can change it, if that's what the committee wants, but it's not standard procedure. Members are usually in their ridings on Mondays and Fridays. I would imagine that Reform Party members are also back in their ridings at this time.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I recall your intervention at the steering committee. I think the clerk summarized what was adopted, but as Mr. Ménard was saying just now, if we would like to make an amendment to that effect, of course you can propose an amendment to this item 4.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I will make an amendment, that Wednesdays and Thursdays, the regular meetings in the time slots we've been using, stay as they are, but beyond that, the Thursday evenings and the Wednesday evenings, I believe, that have been added be alternated with Mondays and Fridays as dates for extra meetings, if necessary.

The Chair: You have heard the amendment of Mr. Benoit.

You have not moved it yet, correct? You're just suggesting it at this point.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

The Chair: The suggestion from Mr. Benoit is to alternate Wednesday and Thursday evenings with Mondays and Fridays.

Is there a disposition to adopt this, to alternate Wednesday and Thursday evenings with Monday and Friday evenings?

The chair sees a little difficulty here. The clerk was advising me earlier that if we would alternate this, and we have no fixed plan of meeting dates as a work plan, the clerk cannot move until we have an agreement on that plan on the day we would like to change and alternate. It will create a potential scheduling problem.

I would like us to take that into account as we consider the suggestion—unless you're prepared to move an alternating schedule that we have now as a work plan.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think that's what we should do, Mr. Chair, approve a schedule well ahead of time. I mean, we all have to know further ahead than a couple of days what the schedule for committee is going to be.

The Chair: Can we adopt this motion as a minimum and then revisit this when we come back?

The other thing is that I was advised by the clerk earlier that the phrase “with prior agreement” will mean that anytime we sit for an extended meeting, we have first to agree, which means another meeting of the committee, another debate on that proposal. We will be in procedural difficulty, to say the least.

The chair, then, would suggest that we delete the phrase “with prior agreement”, as I think Mr. Telegdi was suggesting as well.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, let's leave that in. I think that gives some security on this.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: You said yourself, Mr. Benoit, that you were willing to do it in the evenings. You said it a few minutes ago. So where is the problem?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Let's just have prior agreement so that we all have some say in it, that's all.

The Chair: Well, we are now having an agreement today—

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's a democratic way, I think.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We're having our say here. All this will do—I think it's quite clear, having thought about it—is give opportunities for extended debate on issues on procedure, which will just slow up the committee.

• 1040

I would like to make a suggestion that will increase the amount of time available and therefore allow us to have more witnesses, that we extend the sittings on Wednesdays to 6.30 p.m. instead of 5.30 p.m. and on Thursdays to 12 noon instead of 11 a.m. It would give us a couple of extra hours, and we could slot in a number of extra presenters.

The House sits until 6.30 p.m. anyway. It could get interrupted with a vote, I suppose, from time to time, but generally we don't have votes on Wednesdays or Thursdays.

So I'd like to put that as an amendment. I think you have an amendment to delete “with prior agreement”. I wonder if we might just say “on Friday or Mondays only if absolutely essential”. If we have a long list of people who haven't had a chance to address the committee and they really want to come in, then you could simply call a Friday meeting.

If we're unable to be at the meeting because we're in our riding, we get subs. I mean, that's the way it works around here.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney, just for clarification—it's absolutely essential—would you give the discretion to the chair and the clerk and the research staff?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would have great difficulty making a Friday meeting. I highly doubt I'd be able to. But if it's an option that will allow for more time and more people to present on this bill, I'm prepared to suggest that as a cooperative motion.

The Chair: Okay.

For the purpose of clarity, can I ask the clerk to please read those amendments?

The Clerk: That the committee meet in addition to the regular hours of sittings on Wednesdays from 3.30 p.m. to....

Is Mr. Mahoney saying 6.30 p.m.?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

I think it would say that in addition to sittings on Wednesdays from 3.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and on Thursdays from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, the committee meet in the evenings on Wednesdays from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. We're already sitting at 6.30 p.m., so....

The Clerk: How about “continue”?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, that we just continue to 8 p.m. Maybe that's what we should do.

The Clerk: Are you saying from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.?

The Chair: No, 3.30 p.m. to 8 p.m.

The Clerk: No, in the evening.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If we're meeting on a Wednesday from 3.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., we would just extend that, if required, to 8 p.m., and Thursdays from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

The Clerk: And take out “with prior agreement”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, delete that, and add, “and on Fridays and Mondays only if absolutely essential, at the call of the chair”.

The Chair: Okay.

You have heard the amendment. Is it clear?

I will open it for debate.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think I understand the amendment, but I'd like to make a comment on the amendment.

The Chair: Please, go ahead.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You know, Mr. Chair, we might as well just close down the steering committee entirely, because we had agreed to something completely different at steering committee.

This member was there, Mr. Chair, and now he's making a complete change from what was proposed there.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm trying to give you more hours.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So let's just close down the steering committee and do everything at this committee.

The Chair: Well, it may come to that, the chair will observe.

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Ms. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the extension of time, but I object, and am strongly opposed, to Monday and Friday. I live in B.C., and it's not possible to be sure I'm here Monday and Friday.

Thank you.

The Chair: Just for clarification, the Friday and Monday as moved, as I understand it, would be only if absolutely essential at the call of the chair. The chair will take into account the availability of members.

Ms. Sophia Leung: If we have the extension of time, I should substitute the additional time...[Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, just as a practical thing, is there somebody who comes in at 11 a.m. to the committee room we're in?

The Chair: I'm sorry?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Is there a committee meeting after 11 a.m.?

• 1045

The Clerk: There are other committees meeting as well, yes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: What I'm worried about is that if we extend the morning session—

The Chair: Leave the logistics to the clerk and I. We will arrange that.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Okay.

In terms of the meeting on the Monday and the Friday, if it's essential, all members of the committee do not have to be here to hear witnesses. We have the research staff to take information, to summarize it, and to give it to members of the committee. As much as it is good to have everybody here, if it comes down to hearing people and having them on the record, the research staff will have that record for us.

I mention that because I think we should err on the side of getting the witnesses in.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): I think one point that needs to be made in relation to that is the matter of fairness. You have to realize that you have, on the government side, 150 members that you can bring into this committee, and you can question witnesses. It's very important that we also have the opportunity to question all of the witnesses, because there will probably be a different perspective brought on whatever issue is brought before the committee.

I think it's to the government's advantage as well that we be allowed to properly question in committee. If you structure the meetings in such a way that it's almost impossible for us to get there to question all the witnesses, I then question whether we should even be having those particular witnesses come before the committee if they can't be properly questioned by everyone.

So if you go too far in the direction you're headed right now, you could actually be counterproductive in your aims.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: What are you suggesting?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Well, I didn't put in the time allocation procedure, so....

The Chair: No, I think I heard your submission. It's excellent. You can be assured that the chair will take into account that submission as we use the Monday and Friday. Certainly I will consult with the members of the opposition. We have a quorum rule on that basis, hearing witnesses, to include members from the opposition.

The chair will take that into account in consultation with the clerk.

Are we prepared to put it to a vote?

Mr. Grant McNally: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't think we have quorum.

The Chair: I was going to ask that myself.

Do we have quorum for a vote?

Mr. Grant McNally: It doesn't look like it.

The Chair: Oh, somebody had to answer the call of nature.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, while we're waiting for them to come back, I would like it to be actually taken in two votes.

The first part of extending the hours would be one amendment. The second part would be deleting the words “with prior agreement”, and adding the Fridays and Mondays.

By the way, the Friday and Monday came from Mr. Benoit, not from us. We're going to have a great deal of trouble having members here on those days.

The Chair: We have quorum now.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm not hung up on those. If we don't want to do Fridays and Mondays, fine. I just thought that putting it in the sense that it was at the call of the chair would at least give the opposition the knowledge that if they did have people who wanted to come for a Friday session and whatever else, they could talk to the chairman and we could try to do it.

The Chair: I would like to put to a vote the suggestion to extend the hearing time, as the first amendment.

No, no, we haven't quorum.

An hon. member: We need the Reform for quorum.

The Chair: Where is Sophia?

An hon. member: We need more members.

• 1050

• 1053

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order. We have quorum.

The question before us is the adoption of item 4, to the extent of extended hearings on Wednesdays until 6.30 p.m., and 8 p.m. if required, and on Thursdays until noon. The phrase “with prior agreement” would be deleted, as printed...and Thursday 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. as well.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But we're doing it in two. Leave the prior agreement for the second vote.

The Chair: The clerk is advising me that we do not need to do that. If need be, we can go ahead and do both.

The Clerk: It's up to Mr. Mahoney.

The Chair: Would you like to separate the two?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, separate the two.

So on extended hearings, it's 6.30 p.m. up to 8 p.m. on Wednesday, and Thursday up to 12 noon, resuming at 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Is that right?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Wednesdays and Thursdays, yes.

The Chair: Okay. Thursdays it's 9 a.m. to noon and 6 p.m. up to 8 p.m.

Monday and Friday you have deleted now.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, that's a second amendment.

The Chair: Okay.

We'll vote on the amendment to the motion.

• 1055

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'll put it, and we can vote on it. I just want it done separately.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Motion as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The second amendment would read that sittings could be held on Fridays and Mondays only if absolutely essential at the call of the chair.

The Chair: You've heard the amendment. We've discussed it.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: As with the previous vote, unanimously adopted.

Now we will vote on the amendment to delete the phrase “with prior agreement”. We have debated that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That was done.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear that part.

We have yet to adopt the list of witnesses as a report of the subcommittee.

Mr. Ménard, you were on that subcommittee. The clerk and the research staff would like to ask some questions.

Again, do we need all these witnesses as provided to us, as suggested by the agenda of the subcommittee?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'd like to speak on that, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

At present, our list includes 37 groups or individuals and most likely more names will be added to the list once we vote on running an advertisement on television. That's coming up next. I would hope that this initial list of 37 witnesses is adopted, and that a second list of potential witnesses can be submitted later to the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have any other comments on the list?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We believe that once the ad runs on the parliamentary channel, other potential witnesses will come forward.

[English]

The Chair: The chair would like you to consider pruning down this list to begin with, to cut it down, to see if there is real rationale for some of these witnesses, as we have adopted. I would be prepared to surrender a couple of witnesses I have suggested, for one thing.

Is there a disposition to go that way?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, is there some way the committee can have some say in the witnesses we will accept?

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, that's essentially what we're discussing right now.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Okay, good.

The Chair: The issue before us is item 5 of the report. In other words, are we adopting the list of witnesses as projected here or are we trying to pull some of the witnesses because of duplication or for any other reason?

I'd like you to go over the list.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, this doesn't mean that everyone on our witness list will accept our invitation. This doesn't mean... excuse me?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: The Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste won't be accepting your invitation?

Mr. Réal Ménard: It would be a shame for you to miss this opportunity. You have my word that this organization will be appearing and you can be first in line to ask questions.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm quite familiar with this group.

Mr. Réal Ménard: And you're rather fond of it as well.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I know it quite well.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I appreciate that. However, we can't start discriminating against certain witnesses at this stage. I suggest that we start with this list and group witnesses together. We agreed to proceed by theme, that is to hear at the same time from witnesses wishing to talk about a particular aspect of the bill, and to have you report back based on the confirmations received by the clerk. Some may decline our invitation, while new names may be added to the list. However, I think we should use this list as a starting point and make adjustments as we go along.

[English]

The Chair: For example, I have a question on witnesses 25 and 26. If we have those two individuals, for example, where do we say 100 other lawyers will not be allowed to appear before the committee? I would like us to have some rationale.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's what's wrong with this committee. Mr. Benoit's witnesses were approved yesterday. Now you wish to come back to the witness list, whereas we discussed this yesterday. I'm suggesting that we use this list as a starting point, and that we make adjustments as we go along.

• 1100

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney and then Ms. Folco.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, we did agree. I think Mr. Ménard is right that we did agree in the steering committee, but of course the mother committee can change it.

I would like to suggest that maybe we adopt this but the chair be given some latitude to either combine presenters, if they will agree to that, or if, for example, the bar association is coming, these individuals would agree to be represented by the presenter from the bar.

It would give you some flexibility to group presenters or to request that they cut down the numbers so that we then get the broad spectrum of people presenting to the committee.

The Chair: And some discretion to avoid duplication.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Can we put this motion to a vote, Mr. Chairman? Can we do that? We have to leave shortly.

[English]

The Chair: Andrew, very quickly, please.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: When we have individuals down there, before we vote on accepting them as witnesses we have to have some kind of concept of what the heck they're going to talk about, that it's relevant to the committee. With most groups, I can tell you, there is relevance, but if we have lawyers coming to talk about something that's not within the purview of the act we're dealing with, then....

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I think we agreed yesterday, Mr. Chair, during the time I was chairing the steering committee, that the clerk would be looking after that aspect.

In the case of witnesses 25 and 26, for example, she would be asking these people what their point of view was. She had leave to put them together with some other people who were talking on the same categories—not necessarily the same points of view but the same categories.

I think it's very important that the clerk be given the leeway to be able to put a list together.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We have a problem. Yesterday, we agreed to hear from all of the witnesses on the list. Ms. Folco, you were chairing the meeting. You can't turn around and now say that we're going to hear only from some of these witnesses. This list should be used as a starting point. More names will be added to it once the ad runs on the parliamentary channel.

Of course, the clerk may hear from some of the people on this list who feel that they don't need to testify because other organizations will be supporting their position. However, we do have to adopt this list, otherwise yesterday's meeting was pointless.

I move that we vote on this motion and concur in the report so that we have the pleasure of meeting here again next week.

[English]

The Chair: I think it was the suggestion of Mr. Mahoney earlier that the chair use some discretion and the committee allow the chair to do that in consultation with the clerk.

The motion before us is whether we adopt the list.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I move that the report be concurred in.

[English]

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: That was unanimously adopted.

The last item is item 6, the advertising on CPAC, informing Canadians. It's page 2 of your agenda copy.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Then it's agreed. We will proceed with the vote.

The Clerk: Which vote is that?

Mr. Réal Ménard: You said that an advertisement would run all next week on the parliamentary channel and that the list would be finalized next Friday. The ad will run for seven days. That's what we agreed to yesterday.

[English]

The Chair: One week of advertising? Okay.

On that understanding, are you in favour of that motion?

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: That was unanimously adopted.

Will someone move that the sixth report of the the subcommittee on agenda and procedure by concurred in with amendments?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Excuse me, but there is a second part to item 5. The first part is how long they are going to be advertised. The second part is how long they have to propose written submissions.

Has that been decided?

The Chair: Yes, two weeks.

Good point, Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Two weeks after the end of the seven days.

The Chair: Is that right? Two weeks?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: Is that adopted, then?

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Mr. Ménard has moved the adoption of the report as amended.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn, I would just like the record to show that the Reform Party left this committee in an attempt to break quorum so that this vote could not take place. Had that happened, we would not be allowed to have hearings in this place on this very important bill.

• 1105

What they have done is totally contrary to their stated aim to have more hearings. The fact of the matter is, they just want to stall and delay.

Thank you.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.