CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 4, 2001

• 0907

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): We'll begin. It's going to be essentially an organizational meeting.

What I asked the clerk and the researcher to do for us today was to provide three documents dating since the adjournment. There's a legislative summary on Bill C-11 that was prepared and revised June 13, 2001. It's there because those who are new to the committee might find it a useful piece, and for those who were here for Bill C-11 I think it will be a quick summary of all the issues in the parts of Bill C-11 dealing with refugee and immigration policy.

I also asked the clerk and researcher to indicate the differences in Canadian and American immigration and refugee processes. That was prepared on October 1 by Ben, our researcher. I think that would be an interesting context for us to review.

The third piece is the government's response to the Auditor General's report that was tabled in July 2001 as it related to a number of issues the Auditor General had put forward in his report. As you recall, this committee did have the Auditor General before us last year, when we were able to cover some of those concerns. We didn't, obviously, have the benefit of the response of the government on those issues raised by the Auditor General, but I thought that would also be a useful piece of information for this committee to have as we prepare our work plan for the next number of weeks and months.

• 0910

I've also asked Ben, our researcher, and our clerk to prepare for this committee a review of all the security measures that are in Bill C-11. Obviously, our time and attention are going to be devoted to talking about security, national security and security in a number of pieces of legislation, but the one primarily under our jurisdiction is immigration and refugees. Hopefully, we will get that to you before our return, so that there's going to be a summary of all the security provisions in Bill C-11. Then, when the minister comes here, hopefully in our first week back, and CSIS and RCMP and whoever else we want to talk to, at least we will have a lot of important information before us, so that we can ask the relevant questions and be able to see, putting Bill C-11 through the lenses of what happened September 11, what this committee might want to recommend to the government as additional legislation, resources, or a number of other things.

Art.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Yes.

With these events that have unfolded, there's no question, when we listen to the discussions south of the border, there's going to be a tightening up of matters at the border that really will affect this country economically, and probably the United States too. What do you think of the idea of having a closer examination of where the Americans are going as they develop the policies that are going to affect those border points when it comes to movement of people, examining our policy in light of that too? We're going to establish our own ground, there's no question about it, but if it's going to hit our country in a way that is going to hurt us economically, then we should be looking at what we're doing as well in light of that.

The Chair: There's no doubt other committees will be looking at the free flow of goods and services, and while we're interested in the people part, obviously, people and goods and services all come together.

There are two things I hope we will do as a committee. One is to visit some border points and see for ourselves, talk to the people on the front lines with regard to, it may well be, how cities are affected by border delays. And we may very well hear that economic argument, which I think is an important argument. The free flow of people is also a very important economic ingredient. You can't get goods and services across a border without having a driver, so to speak.

Mr. Art Hanger: Exactly.

The Chair: Second, I hope this committee will want to go to the United States and talk to our American counterparts about how they're feeling. Because 25% of their exports are important to this country, and 75% of our exports are important to us. So there's no doubt that's a very important question.

But I should tell you there are other committees, particularly the one that's dealing with customs and revenue, that will be discussing the border issue as it relates to the commerce part of it.

Mr. Art Hanger: The whole thing, though, centres around people. If there weren't a concern around this people issue, as to who is moving where, there wouldn't be a concern over goods and services.

I can recall a statement by one of the Bloc members in the House on that debate. I think it was the Drummondville border crossing, where trucks and goods and services were backed up for a long time, and may still be backed up for a long period of time, I don't know. But it's interesting to note that there probably isn't a province or a party here that isn't concerned about the impact on their community from this issue. And what the Americans do is certainly going to reflect substantially on our position.

The Chair: Sure.

Steve.

• 0915

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I quite agree that the provinces are concerned, and I think it would be important for us to talk to our provincial counterparts, in addition to the Americans. There are two sides to the border. The Americans have a responsibility as to who enters their country. That's not our job, that's their job, so any suggestion that somehow our immigration system failed, even though there's no evidence that any of the terrorists went through a Canadian border point... If they did, they would must have been allowed into America by American customs. Clearly, they've got a responsibility on their end, and I hope they will act upon it.

My concern is, there have been some very good moves provincially and some questionable moves. I think the Premier of Alberta's going to New York to assure the Americans that energy will continue to flow is a very positive move, something I applaud him for doing. I take strong exception to the actions of Premier Harris in saying he's going to set up some special police force to root out illegal immigrants. I wonder if he's issuing them brown shirts and knee-high boots, or exactly what his plans are—it's nothing but theatrical opportunism, and it's a disgrace.

Having said that, I do think we should be talking to people in Ontario. We should be talking to people in Quebec, who have a special agreement. Ontario is the only province that is not negotiating with the federal government on immigration matters at the present time, and maybe it should. If in fact the provinces have some resources available, police resources or investigative resources, maybe they should be cooperating with the federal government in providing some assistance, if indeed it's required at the provincial level.

We've got the external situation, visiting some American communities and talking to them about how we can work more closely together, but I think internally, within Canada, given that just about every one of our provinces faces a border situation, we should be talking to our provincial counterparts as well.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me apologize for missing your inaugural meeting. I was away at a funeral. I look forward to sitting on this committee again, representing the Coalition.

Let me make a couple of comments about the position of the Coalition. I believe Canada needs to continue to welcome all people from all over the world and maintain an open immigration policy. It's good for this country, it always has been in the past. Immigrants built this country, so despite the events of September 11... Yes, September 11 has changed our view of the world.

The issue here is about the separation of legitimate immigration and illegitimate immigrants, asylum-seekers, issues we've known on this committee for a long time and have tried to deal with. For immigrants like myself and for all Canadian citizens, it's in the best interests of all to ensure that we have a secure system in this country, to keep undesirables out of this country.

I think this committee has a huge role to play in light of the events of the last few weeks. We need to come up with more effective measures to deal with asylum-seekers. We've talked about that in the House and in this committee. I agree with the chair that we need to visit border points. Perhaps we need to travel overseas and see how other countries are dealing with the same problem. The whole world has basically the same problems. We all have to deal with the same migrant population that's going from country to country, usually in a fraudulent way, putting all nations at risk as to their own national security, as we've witnessed over the last three weeks.

Whether we deal with this issue as a whole committee or strike a subcommittee, that's the will of this committee. But I look forward to the work we'll be doing, and I'm happy to hear some of the suggestions that have already been brought forth to this committee.

• 0920

The Chair: Thank you.

David, and then Madeleine.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a unique situation in my riding. I have seven border crossings, one of them being in the middle of a lake, where you don't even have to, I guess, physically meet up with anybody. You can cross the border by phone. There's a phone set up on the side of the lake, and you just go over and call and say, I'm coming through, and if they want to talk to you, you have to stop. You can go into town and get a vehicle, and you come back to the land border crossing. As you may have seen in Newsworld last week, they actually did a special report on my riding because of the situation there. There are buildings that the border line goes right through—half is in the States, half is in Canada. We have a playhouse, half and half. We have an industry, a third of which is in the States, a third in Canada—the line runs right through the middle.

The Chair: Is that by design? That's a nifty way of achieving trade.

Mr. David Price: We have a street where the middle is the line. On this side, it's American, they have American licence plates on their cars, on this side, it's Canada. They have a sidewalk there. If a guy comes out of his house to walk his dog, he comes over onto the Canadian sidewalk and walks the dog. It's quite unique.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If you turn your car around, do you have to go through customs?

Mr. David Price: If you back out onto the street, legally, you should be going through customs.

So it's a situation where there are very close ties between the Americans and the Canadians. There are a lot of people working on the American side, and vice versa. There's a very free flow. It always has been that way, and we haven't even gone to the CANPASS system there. It's not even required, because the customs officers from both sides of the line know everybody locally. So they've never run into that problem.

I'm part of this committee, but unfortunately, I won't be able to be here a lot, so I just thought I'd suggest that if you wanted to see a unique situation and how something can work very well, maybe one of the border crossings you visit should be in Stanstead. It gives a unique picture of how things can work, how they do work. I think it would be a large advantage also to see what's happened since then, see the feeling.

One of the problems we talked about when I was here a year and a half ago was the fact of the databases of the Americans and the Canadians, the lack of interchange. The interchange that happens in my riding is quite interesting. The border people from the Canadian side and the American side will go out and have a beer, and that's where they exchange information. It's with such ease that the situation works.

Mr. Art Hanger: Are you suggesting that everybody do that?

Mr. David Price: Well, it's probably not a bad idea.

The Chair: Along the 4,000-mile border, that's all.

Mr. David Price: That's the situation that is happening there, and that's not really the way it should be happening. We should be sharing that information on a much more formal basis, not so informal.

The Chair: Maybe we should force everybody through a Tim Horton's that's built on the border across the country.

Mr. David Price: That's a possibility.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Roll up the rim to get in.

Mr. David Price: As I've suggested in the past, we should have one physical building to take care of both. We do have a pilot project going on now in the Yukon like that, and it's working out very well, from what I've heard. But it's something that's long-term. We're going to have to develop some different rules in order to do this, but I think that's a direction we should start looking towards.

Mr. Art Hanger: Do you mean at border crossings one building with shared resources?

Mr. David Price: We can understand the fact that the Americans may not want to share their database, and that's okay. If you're in the same building, all you do is say, Art, this guy here who I've got going through, what do you have on him? There's no problem that way, and the same thing works back and forth. It would be far simpler, and I think we're looking at that already.

The Chair: That's obviously going to be part of our work plan, and thank you for the information about that unique place you have in your riding.

Mr. David Price: There is a college where you could have a meeting with different people.

The Chair: That may very well be exactly what this committee wants to do.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): When we adjourned after adopting Bill C-11, I don't think any one imagined that we would find ourselves in this situation. As a result, the actions of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration are being closely scrutinized. Most likely, the biggest responsibility that committee members have is not to give in to the climate of collective paranoia.

• 0925

I agree completely with Steve that we need to meet with our provincial counterparts - in my case, my counterparts in Quebec - to gauge their perspective on the situation and get a sense of their expectations. That's fundamental. I think we should use the week-long recess to contact and meet with them.

I have a question. Mr. Chairman, do you have some idea of how the Senate plans to deal with Bill C-11? Will they allow their study of the proposed legislation to drag on for months? Don't you think that at some point, the Senate should pass the bill? The current situation is somewhat problematic. We live according to the provisions of one act, all the while mindful of the fact that another law which contains changes is imminent.

I would greatly appreciate more information about the status of the bill. One thing seems abundantly clear. There is no question that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will need a major injection of cash. Judging from what we are hearing and from what the analysts are saying, the provisions of Bill C- 11—and even those of the existing legislation—are more than adequate to ensure fair protection at the reception level. The department lacks resources, however. Sad to say, but it takes money to attract skilled employees. There's no way around it.

I think the public would be extremely disappointed to find out that the cracks uncovered over the years in our system—and there have always been cracks—can be directly tied to the lack of adequate resources. I think we need to focus on this area.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madeleine. First, as you know, the minister's appearing before the Senate today, and they have called many witnesses. So there's no doubt in my mind that the Senate will quickly approve Bill C-11.

Second, as part of the good work this committee did, we insisted on having the regulations before us, so that we could review them before they were gazetted and implemented, and we were going to have some sort of consultation on them. The devil, as we know, is always in the detail. Framework legislation is such that the regulations are really the important part of the legislation. From what I understand, at one time the department talked about having those regulations ready for May of next year. We now know that the minister and the government feel it's much more important to have those regulations done more quickly. So there's been sort a 60- or 90-day timeframe looked at. That's part of what we want to do too. So when the department is here, when the minister's here, we will, I hope, get their commitment as to when we can start to look at the regulations. I think that's very important. You will remember that we saw the intent behind the regulations, but not the actual legal words, because that's where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. So we will have that regulatory framework.

As far as concerns the resources, you will know that during our deliberations on Bill C-11 we talked a lot about how important it is for immigration to have the resources, not only to market for immigration, but also to make sure that in regard to enforcement, deportation, all of those other security provisions, the resources were there. Hopefully, when the minister's here, and more importantly, when the department is here, we can actually ask the tough questions as to how many of those resources are there and where, how much more we are going to need. As you know, we want to be able to have a report ready to go to the government on further resources that are required. There's no doubt that the Minister of Finance and the government want to know from a defence standpoint, an immigration standpoint, a custom standpoint, the Solicitor General on this national security agenda, how much more money we are going to need to do the job properly.

• 0930

This brings me to the point brought up by Art, I think, and everybody else. I hope we don't make our work plan so large, wanting to do so many things, that we'll still be discussing this issue six months from now. The country doesn't have that kind of time. They need the assurance that their elected representatives are moving as quickly as possible to fix the system, if in fact it needs fixing, to deploy the resources we need, and to give them the comfort that we are a secure people, so that the economy doesn't grind to a halt because people are afraid of what's happening.

So I hope everybody will keep that in mind, and I hope over the next 60 days maximum, in my opinion, maybe 45 days, we can work hard. If that means doing a little more work here and doing our travel by splitting into two groups, so one group can go to Stanstead and another group can go somewhere else, we should make sure we get this done as quickly as possible. I don't want to be here six months, becoming totally irrelevant, the rest of the world putting together their programs, while we're still talking about them.

So I hope we keep in our minds that we want to do a good job, but we want to do it fairly quickly, because there is a sense of urgency.

[Translation]

You have the floor, Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we have here a document comparing Canadian and American immigration and refugee determination procedures. I've gone over the document quickly and plan to reread it more carefully. It's important that we know precisely what procedures are in place in the United States so that we can make an accurate comparison. This would also enable us to properly appreciate any changes in procedure.

I'd like to propose that we adopt a system similar to the one in place in all G-7 countries, and at the very least in France and England. A UN Security Council resolution issued several days ago called upon all countries that make up the international community to beef up security. We're not about to ask our service to examine in detail every procedure in place in other countries, but perhaps the G-7 countries could adopt a similar approach and a mechanism that would keep us informed of what other nations are discussing.

I wouldn't want us to be limited to always discussing what the United States and Canada are doing. We are entitled to our independence and, as the Prime Minister stated, we mustn't limit ourselves to references to the United States.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Yvon.

This committee has done a little work in comparing our system to other countries of the world in our deliberations on Bill C-11. You're absolutely right, this is a global situation, and we ought to know. Let's face it, our so-called illegal immigrants or undesirables, in fact, are not only coming from the United States. A lot of them do come from the United States, but you're right, we have to look at the whole world, how we compare to them, and what other countries might be doing. So we will do that.

I'll just go to one final speaker, and then we can get down to talking a little about our work plan.

Art.

Mr. Art Hanger: You're absolutely right, if we extend this beyond reason and we're engaged in information gathering six months from now, we will look rather foolish. Is it your intention, then, to draw up some very specific things right now at this meeting, so that we can focus on them for the next few weeks?

The Chair: That's what the next step is. Let's start talking a little about the work plan, the timelines and possible outcomes, and when we want to deal with these things.

There are a couple of motions, one from Paul and one from Inky. They essentially talk about the same thing, inviting the minister. I think we discussed that on Tuesday. That's the first order of business, to have the minister here. In fact, we've made a request that the Tuesday we get back after next week the minister be here. We could work all day Tuesday. If you tell me right now, we will arrange that once the minister finishes, we have the department stick around and come back on Tuesday afternoon, if that's what you want to do.

• 0935

Then on Thursday we can have CSIS and RCMP officials here. We'll have to decide whether or not we want to do it in camera. I think probably there are more candid conversations, with some important information, that we might want to have behind closed doors. There might be a public part to the meeting, but because we don't want to telescope what those security measures were, are, or are going to be, we may want to do that. And we can have the IRB here also.

So in that first week, let's get the officials and the government people to answer our questions with regard to our bills and Bill C-11, what the government has planned, what the departments have planned, and we can ask them about resources.

For the following week, I've asked the clerk to look at starting the travel schedule. There are a lot of border points in this country, but I think we have to be very selective as to where we go, unless we decide to take half of the committee and send them to certain parts of the country, while the other part goes to others. Then we can come back and gather the information, put it together. We should also get to the United States as quickly as possible and have those discussions with our counterparts as to where they are coming from. I think that's in keeping with what everybody said. We have to know what's happening around the world.

At least that's the first week or two or three. I don't believe this is the time—I may be wrong, and I look to your advice—to start calling in so-called expert witnesses and others. We might want to do that in week three or week four, bring in some other people to give us advice as to what we need to do. But so far that's what I think the sketch might look like, at least in week one, week two, week three: gathering as much information as we can, and then spending the better part of two or three days discussing amongst ourselves what changes, if any, need to be made, or whether or not we need to look, perhaps in November, if we have the time, during that week off, at travelling to other parts of the world that we might decide are crucial for understanding how things work.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I don't know how you're defining border points, but I'm interested in looking at the airport operations, because that's quite clearly where most people are coming through. That's a priority for me.

The Chair: I mean border points and airports.

Ms. Anita Neville: Okay.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, on your suggestions. I was wondering whether the optics of it would be more positive if we met with our counterparts in the United States, since the discussion today is perimeter protection and security. It would certainly demonstrate that this committee is getting down to the task of doing something about it if we met with our counterparts, say, two weeks from now, after next week, before we do the travel to the border points.

The Chair: Okay. What do you think, Art?

Mr. Art Hanger: You brought up one point that I think needs a bit of discussion, and that's the Immigration and Refugee Board. Because there's a certain flow of refugee claimants coming into the country, there has been a lot of concern over just how this board operates, wondering whether there are some alternatives to the board. In 1985 it was the Singh decision that gave birth to the Immigration and Refugee Board. The process that was set up was to develop a quasi-judicial body, and there is some question about just how effective this quasi-judicial organization is and whether or not there's a way of dealing with the refugee flow outside that body, possibly a completely restructured organization. I'm not only wondering if we can get legal opinion on that court case itself, but it would sure be interesting to know if there's ever been any challenge to the Singh decision in Supreme Court—there's none that I know of—that gave rise to this whole process. Because it's costing the taxpayer one pile of cash, and it's not dealing with the problem.

• 0940

The Chair: I'd like to think, though, that's part of what we did in Bill C-11. This committee really worked hard and asked those very tough questions, had witnesses talk about a number of alternatives or different models of the IRB from its inception to now. I think, Art, once you start to look at some of the improvements we've made to Bill C-11, they may not be enough in light of September 11.

As for the court case you talk about, if I'm not mistaken, that was brought up before by a number of people. We asked those particular questions at the time, and I think we had some sort of explanation with regard to the 1985 Supreme Court decision. We can get that information for you. But listen, you're going to start asking those very questions we asked before, and that's fine. That's exactly what the purpose of our meetings is going to be, to find out whether IRB is working as efficiently as it can, whether they need some additional changes, including personnel, resources, and so on.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with things being open, but I hope we don't get off track. What I think we want to do in light of September 11 is determine what can be done to improve both the American side and the Canadian side and harmonize our operations and our communications. The issue here is, frankly, not whether the IRB is working, but how we stop terrorists or criminals from getting into either country illegally—and let's admit it, right now they're obviously in the United States—working cooperatively with our friends in the United States to see if it's resources we want, if it's training, if it's interviewing, if it's identification, if it's ways to detect fraudulent documents, if it's better intelligence coordination between CSIS and the CIA, if it's working with our overseas offices—whatever it is. But if we want to start revisiting the IRB and that system, I think we will be here in six months looking at each other saying, what else can we study?

The Chair: You've asked the questions, and I think you're both right. I don't want to review Bill C-11 again. We want to put it through the lenses of September 11 as it relates to stopping terrorism and criminality and—Steve, you're absolutely right—stopping the undesirables and the terrorists and criminals coming into this country. Hopefully, every other country is doing the same thing. That's why we have to be focused and not get off into complete reviews of everything, or else we'll be here in six months.

The Chair: Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

As you know, I'm not a permanent member of this committee. I'm only here for this meeting. However, a very interesting situation is developing in my riding.

[English]

In Atlantic Canada what you're facing is four provinces with one or two borders that you'll need to visit for all four. One of them is in my riding, and if you want to come, I'll certainly host you and help you coordinate that.

The Chair: Okay, thank you for the offer.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I assume, for the short-term work plan, that the invitation has been made for the minister to come on the Tuesday after the break. Is that on?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. I just wanted to add that we should be doing that in room 237C. That meeting should be televised.

The Chair: Yes, we put in that request. I can tell you that every other committee in this Parliament is trying to get the same two televised rooms. There are some new rules with regard to television coverage that were adopted by the procedure and house affairs committee, which essentially say that if we want to bring in the media with cameras, that is fine. You're absolutely right, all of these issues are important, but immigration being of prime concern to Canadians, we're trying to make sure that one of the two rooms is reserved—as you know, there are going to be two. But so is everybody else, from finance to justice to foreign affairs—they all want to be on television.

• 0945

So should we all, in a sense, because part of our job is to inform Canadians as to what their parliamentarians are doing and what the country is doing in order to assure their safety. So if we can't get one of those reserved rooms, we will let it be known that the news media can be here for the duration. They have to stay here from gavel to gavel, they can't just come in here, do their little thirty-second shots, and get out, because it will be disruptive. But I would agree with you, Paul, that's an important part of what we do, to inform the public.

Can I just get back to—

Mr. Paul Forseth: I just wanted to make the point that yesterday Minister Anderson, on endangered species, was on television in one of those rooms, and I was there. Certainly, in the order of priority of things, we ought to provide a chance for the Minister of Immigration to do the same.

The Chair: Of course.

Were they talking endangered species or endangered terrorists?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Endangered species, which we hope would be the terrorists.

The Chair: Yes, of course.

David, quickly.

Mr. David Price: Mr. Chair, we've been talking about the possibility of six months and that. Could we not fix a time, say the end of November?

The Chair: I'm trying to get to it. I agree. There's no way we're going six months. There's no way we're going two months. That's why we've got to work extremely hard.

Is there any problem with meeting with the minister on Tuesday, perhaps continuing on that Tuesday in the afternoon, if we have to, to get the minister and the department done on that day?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do we have a confirmation from the minister?

The Chair: No, but the invitation has gone out, and I don't foresee any particular problem.

So we'll take all of Tuesday. We'll come back in the afternoon from 3:30 to 5:30 and do the department, after the minister in the morning.

The following Thursday let's get RCMP, CSIS, and the IRB here. I think we should be able to do that in the morning part of Thursday. Okay?

The following week, in light of what Inky and a number of others said, perhaps we ought to get to our counterparts in the United States, sooner rather than later, maybe even before the border points, if we can get approval. As you know, in order for this committee to travel, we need House of Commons approval, which means that all parties are going to have to agree to this. I'm sure, in light of the situation, that cooperation will be extended, so I'll ask the clerk to start making preparations for us to travel to Washington that second week.

The clerk has just indicated that he will put the request in through the Canadian embassy and make sure that our counterparts are available that week too. We want to make sure we're talking to the Senate and Congress people who are part of their immigration committee. We'll work on that. I don't think we need to spend any more than a couple of days in Washington. Depending on the availability, we could probably leave on a Monday and be there Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, or something like that. Is that okay?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Their airport is not open.

The Chair: We can fly in very close by.

Mr. Art Hanger: We should go by Ground Zero too.

The Chair: I don't know.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Let's think about that.

The Chair: Let's think about that, but I think there's going to be a lot of work.

If we get to Washington, the week after that we'll go to border points. Obviously, we want to make sure we cover most of the country. When we do that, wouldn't it probably be a lot more efficient and effective if we split the committee in half, have one part of the committee do Quebec east, one part do Ontario west? I'll look to your advice as to which border points they may be in B.C., or Alberta, or Manitoba, or whatever. That should be just to go to the border points, perhaps have discussions with the people there, communities on either side, if we have to, or make an invitation. We'll be on the Canadian side just to gather some information from the community and the municipal leaders as to a number of things, including some of our people who work there. Would that be fine, splitting the group up in two? Would that work better for everybody?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Can we come back with suggestions?

The Chair: Of course.

So, that's week one, week two, week three, and week four

• 0950

Yes, Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Given this work plan, how are you planning to communicate with provincial immigration authorities? Are you considering occasional visits to certain provinces or are you thinking about inviting certain provincial representatives to appear before the committee?

[English]

The Chair: When we go to that border point in that particular province, perhaps we would invite the provincial government people to meet us there and have that discussion then, rather than going to the capital again. Every time you start adding places to visit, you're talking expense, you're talking a lot of time. Why not have the provincial people join this committee at that border point in that particular province, and have that discussion with the community and the provincial governments right then and there? I think that would be important. But I need some information as to where those locations should be.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Maybe Ben could prepare a paper similar to the one where he set out the differences in Canadian and American immigration and refugee processes. He could do a paper on each province and what relationship each province in Canada has to the department. Quebec has one agreement, other provinces have theirs.

The Chair: Okay.

So, Yvon, it's a good suggestion. We'll have the provincial people right there at the border point. I think, to be fair, every part of our country touches the Americans except P.E.I. and Newfoundland—right?

Mr. Andy Savoy: Nova Scotia.

The Chair: Nova Scotia.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Just to add to that, the I-95, a major artery on the east coast, runs from the Florida Keys to Houlton, Maine. That comes within our riding.

The Chair: Okay. Then forward them on. In Quebec we'll look to Madeleine and Yvon to give us some idea as to where we should go—and David, of course. As far as the west is concerned, we've got enough western representation to cover where we want to go in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Let's pick one. We can't go to all of them, but it doesn't prevent us inviting people.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In planning our itinerary, I think it's important not to limit ourselves to visiting only the major border crossing points. There are many small ones as well that we should be looking at. However, it may be a case of lacking the necessary resources.

[English]

The Chair: Sure. Let's start with developing a list. Can I ask the critics and everybody from each party to submit something as to where we should be going to the clerk as quickly as possible, so that we can start to work on a plan. While we're off for the week, I'll work with Art, or with Paul and Steve, all of you from each party, putting this plan in place.

During the break week, is anybody going to be travelling anywhere in the country or in the world where they might want to do some work?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm going to Regina.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm going to Coquitlam.

The Chair: I'm going to Romania. I might be able to do something there with the minister.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm going to be at the NATO conference.

The Chair: Maybe you can give us a report on that, Art.

That takes us through week one, week two, week three. In week four we come back here, gather all this information, maybe bring in the minister and the officials again. Maybe at that point we'll get the potential regulations down.

So I'd like to say that within six weeks we should be able to send a report to Parliament on our complete review of some sort of tightened security, call it what you will. Maybe we'll discuss the title of what our report should be to the government. Obviously, the government is taking this matter seriously, and it has asked essentially all committees to get a report in as quickly as possible, so that the finance part of all this can be put in place through an economic update statement or through a budget, and so on.

• 0955

If we take six weeks, is that a reasonable amount of time for us to do our work?

Mr. Art Hanger: I think it's reasonable. I'm just thinking about some of the events unfolding in reference to the finance minister. He's going to be coming up with a budget, or at least an economic forecast update. How's that going to fit in with what we're doing?

The Chair: That's why I think the six weeks might fit, five or six weeks—the sooner the better, obviously.

Mr. Art Hanger: You mentioned somewhere in October?

The Chair: I don't know. We'll try to find out for you. But we want to be relevant, as we're an important part to this.

How about other witnesses? Do you want to do that at the back end, if you think we need some additional experts? Maybe that fifth week we'll fit in for some other experts who may want to give us some information.

Mr. Art Hanger: I have an idea. I know this is a bit of a sore point for some. The Government of Ontario hired Inkster and MacKenzie, which is an interesting combination of people, but there's a good reason for their doing that. I think there should come a point where we call them in to testify in front of the committee. I know they're going to be dealing strictly with security as it relates to the province of Ontario, but at the same time, there's going to be a gathering of information on their part that I think it may be essential for us to look at.

The Chair: Let's hold fire on who our public witnesses might be, because that won't happen until the back end of the process. I'm sure we all could come up with names after our own experts give us advice that we need to do it. I'm not discounting any names at this time, but let's not get into who we should invite until then. I think we want to keep focused.

Mr. Art Hanger: You asked the question.

The Chair: I did, and thank you for that great answer.

Is there any other business?

Yes, Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I was just going to say that by the time you do all the travelling, get back here, and discuss the thing, we may have a different perspective on what we want to see in the report and who we're going to call for witnesses. It's break week, remember, after the four weeks.

The Chair: Let's try to drive it, get it as compact as possible, because I know there are breaks not only this coming week, but also in November. That's a problem. That's why we want to be relevant in this whole thing.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: On Tuesday, I tabled a motion respecting the time allotted to members to speak. I presented it personally to Mr. Lahaie.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I'm sorry, Madeleine, you did provide—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm sure you're sorry.

The Chair: You gave it to me, and I did want to discuss it a bit.

Madeleine's motion essentially—I don't know if everybody's had an opportunity to take a look at it—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Surely that is not the case. I didn't make a copy.

[English]

The Chair: Let me read it while we distribute it.

That the witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement

—which is the usual process—

and that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated five minutes for questioners of the parties in the following order: the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, and then it says the Progressive Conservative Party, which I take it can be the Coalition, and then the Liberal Party gets another one, and thereafter five minutes is to be allocated to each subsequent questioner.

You will all know that in the past I've been more than generous. While we have guidelines, it all depends on who wants to ask. Presently the system is, the Alliance gets ten, the Liberals get ten; then we go to five-minute rounds, and the Alliance gets five; then we go to the Liberals for five, the Bloc five, the NDP five, the Coalition five; then we get back to the Liberals. I thought it worked not too badly last time. Madeleine, I know you have to wait maybe a little longer to get to your question, but not very long.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have to wait a very long time, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: No, it seems like a long time sometimes.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: A very long time.

• 1000

[English]

The Chair: Rather than the motion, Madeleine, let's try it the way we've been doing it and see how it works. Cooperation is the key part here. I find sometimes that I'd rather keep it more informal, respectful of one another, non-partisan, as opposed to being so rigid. I think there's enough time. So unless the Liberals are prepared to give up five minutes of their opening and the Alliance is prepared to give up five minutes... That's how we can accommodate it. I'll ask Paul whether or not he's prepared to do that.

Mr. Paul Forseth: In a technical sense, it's fine if you just say, let's just keep it the way it is. Do we not actually need some kind of motion to spell out again what it shall be?

The Chair: I knew you were going to ask the question. No, we don't have to, because the beginning of the new Parliament is when you set the rules, and you never have to deal with this question again until the next Parliament. But Madeleine posed the question. Rather than putting forward a motion that I would probably have to rule out of order, I thought we might have a nice comfortable discussion as to the possibility.

So Madeleine, don't put the motion. I won't accept it. We'll just try it. We have to make some adjustments.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn, I'd just like to say that I have attended most every meeting since this new session has convened. Of course, we've often had many witnesses. I have found it very frustrating to watch the time go by and the meeting draw to a close without an opportunity to ask a single question. I find this whole situation exceedingly frustrating. The aim of a committee is surely not a priori to frustrate people. I'm certain my colleague Steve would agree with me on this.

[English]

The Chair: The last thing I want is for you to be frustrated, Madeleine. So just leave it to me and we'll make sure that it works out all right. Okay?

Thank you.

On Tuesday morning we're getting together with the minister. We'll take all the time we need. If we have to go to 12 o'clock, we'll take the three hours or so.

Meeting adjourned.