CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

• 0909

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Colleagues, the longer we keep working on this report, the more ideas the government and the United States' government steal from us. I'm happy to see that so far, since we've started our discussion and report, Bill C-41 reflects some of the things that we've been talking about. Obviously some of the things that were reported yesterday also come from this report.

• 0910

I think our document is on the right track, but it's much more comprehensive, because it also talks about the world and what we need to do within our own country.

For all intents and purposes last Thursday, we adopted the report, save and except a couple of technical matters that we have to discuss this morning. In addition, we invited all the other parties, other than the Liberals, of course, to insert an appendix to the report. We've asked that this be tabled with the clerk before noon. That has been received. It's being translated now. The game plan is still to do the technical corrections right now and have the report tabled in the House of Commons on Thursday. We're having a news conference at about 11 o'clock on Thursday where we can talk about our recommendations.

So we'll move towards that.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say something before we get down to work on this report.

I wonder whether this report is useful. We found out on Saturday in the Globe and Mail—the rest of Canada found out a bit later—that the ministers had already made some announcements.

I think it can be said that we have worked seriously and were convinced that the work we were doing was useful, but I see that in the end, this was just a way to keep some members busy, to keep them from getting up to no good. The government should at least have the decency to give the appearance of showing respect.

As a parliamentarian, I feel I have been shown no respect whatsoever, and I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. I therefore want the record to reflect that I, for one, am very disappointed with the minister's attitude. She is admittedly a woman of great human qualities. I thought that respect was one of them.

Given that the committee met on several occasions, it would have been quite easy for the minister to come and meet with us to let us know what was going on. That is the least she could have done.

I would like to make another point along the same lines. We know that things change and that right up until they have been tabled, they can still change. What has happened in the last few days will or may result in changes to this report, which was supposed to be final.

I received version four of the report on the weekend. Thank you to the clerk and the chairman.

We gave a dissenting opinion, which does not make sense. A dissenting opinion should really come after the report has been duly adopted by the committee. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you pretend you did not receive my dissenting report, to which I will add the comments I have just made about the sense of disrespect I felt as a parliamentarian from the Bloc Québécois.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Well, Madeleine, first of all I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not slighted at all by.... As you can recall, this committee has delayed our report for a number of reasons. But just because the government decides to do something doesn't necessarily mean the committee of the House of Commons can't continue to do its work. Just because two governments decide to do something, as they did yesterday.... Our report talks about a lot more than Canada and the U.S. It talks about Canada and the world. It talks about Canada and what we need to do as a country ourselves in terms of Bill C-11, resources and technology. While you might be offended that two levels of government in a very difficult situation for the world and Canada and the United States decided to implement certain things, that's up to them. The committee is apart from the government. We are not the government. We are a committee and we are independent. We report to the House of Commons and another 280 members who look to us to put forward a full report.

I'd like to say that what was mentioned yesterday and what was mentioned in Bill C-42 have come as a result of some of the fine work that has been done by this particular committee. I think our report in fact is much more comprehensive than what was announced yesterday. The timing is appropriate. We've done all this good work. We need to report. My intention is to continue to report on Thursday our fine work.

• 0915

With regard to the request that was made by other parties that they be able to insert, I thought we would get.... At least on Thursday it seemed to me that we had agreement that the report done by this committee was in fact accepted with certain reservations. Those reservations are probably added on your own report, which I have not seen, and therefore I can't say anything about it. I think that is respectful. I understand there are going to be other parties that say.... For 99% of the report we've all had a great working relationship. We have consensus. If there were some additional points you wanted to make, that opportunity was offered to you on Monday, and I understand you've done that. So that's the procedure I intend to stick to.

Art.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Just in follow-up, in regard to Madeleine's comments, I don't think it's untypical really of the events that unfold in a committee of this nature. Unfortunately, I think the Americans are driving the agenda at a much more aggressive rate when it comes to the security policy. It will either be addressed by the government ASAP or maybe it languishes in the committee for a while. But I don't think that's unusual for a committee.

Our committee is not a master of its own destiny in the sense that we can shape things all that much. Yes, we may have some influence on some of the detail that is yet to come about, but for the most part we're generally quite too little, too late.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I think Madeleine has a point. It doesn't say much for parliamentary democracy when we work away at an issue and, lo and behold, the bulk of the items discussed are announced by the government in advance of the committee releasing its work. It doesn't surprise me in the sense that on many occasions, through other committees I've been on, we're treated as a make-work project. We do busy work. Keep us away from the main issues. I'm not saying that about this committee as a whole. I'm saying it generally in terms of parliamentary committees. I think we have work to do to try to enhance democracy in Parliament.

In terms of our report being more comprehensive than what was announced yesterday, the key issues—safe third countries, biometric identifiers, coordination of visas, resources and coordination of enforcement teams—are the big issues we're talking about in our report.

The Chair: But there's a lot more in this report.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, there's a lot more in this report, but—

The Chair: I know. You might think that four or five is the solution. How about Canada and the world?

My point is you're absolutely right. But sometimes I'm sure if the Canadian people were to wait for committees to make up their minds—if they can get unanimity, if they can do this—and then have the government adopt committees...that's not reality. The government has a responsibility. Parliament has a responsibility. Parliament is reflected in this committee. If we had released our report, as I wanted to, a week ago, we would have looked like the big heroes and said, you see, the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada listen to us.

Well, the fact is that we took our sweet time for at least about a week or ten days more, and now that some initiatives are starting to happen, everybody's starting to get a little ticked off. Well, I'm proud of this report. I'm proud of what we've done. There's a lot of good stuff in this report that I hope respective governments of the world, including Canada and the United States, will adopt.

Yes, nobody likes to see their work pre-empted by other groups. Well, the government has the right to govern. We have a right as a committee and as parliamentarians to do our best work and to give advice to Parliament and hopefully governments.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I wasn't quite finished, though. Now you've just taken me off course in what I what I wanted to say.

The Chair: Good.

Steve.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But let me come back to the process around this report. I know you would like to table this tomorrow in the House. Is it tomorrow?

The Chair: Thursday.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thursday. And you've indicated you'll be saying there's broad consensus for the report.

The Chair: I'd like to.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think, Mr. Chairperson, you should look at the dissenting opinions before you make that statement. I will be consistent in my minority report, as consistent as I was in my comments and participation at the committee, and take strong umbrage with safe third countries, coordination of visas, and use of biometric identifiers.

The Chair: That's fine.

• 0920

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: If those are key items in terms of your report, then you should know that.

The Chair: I'd like you to say that publicly if you want, Judy. That's not a problem with me. I think we understood that. For the bulk of the report, listen, we're all going to have differences, but I respect your points of view on those three issues.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Here's the other point I was going to make before I lost track of my thoughts. The minister, knowing this was in the works, could have come to our committee and said, I know you're in the middle of this project, we're moving on some of these same areas, here are the timelines, and if you can get your report in earlier, that'll be great. Just a heads-up. There wouldn't have been a big problem with that in terms of feeling as if our time has been wasted.

The Chair: I don't think our time has been wasted, but you're absolutely right. Had I known a bit of the schedule too, I might have been able to talk to the committee and say, I think we need to do something a little quicker. I'm not sure everybody has control of the agenda. I think Art said it very well. The Americans are doing certain things, they wanted to conclude an arrangement with the Canadian government, and that's what happened. Timing is always an issue.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Timing is what politics is all about—and other activities in life I won't mention—

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —because I can't remember them.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Am I blushing?

A voice: You're as red as a beet.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I have some sympathy for the point of view Madeleine put across, but I think we should also recognize that we weren't working in a vacuum. The minister was well aware of what our debates were in discussions and what our findings were. Every committee, obviously, is monitored by the ministry. They have people here who report back, and rightly so. She was fully aware that the safe third country was the majority sense on the committee—not unanimous, but it was one of the issues that was pushed quite strongly by me and others.

As to the coordination of visas, the same thing could be said. In fact, everything that's in the accord that was signed yesterday, you could say, comes out of the work we've done. The minister did tell us she was in the process of negotiating safe third while we were having our meetings and hearings. She said that when she was here, that it was under discussion.

Yet I have some sympathy, and in a perfect world, as Joe says, we would release the report, a week or two later they'd sign an accord, and it would look as if it was our report that drove the issue. I don't think we should castigate ourselves.

I don't think we should forget either the great work we did in the tour we took on behalf of the people on the front lines. They very much appreciated the presence of members of Parliament who came out to the front lines to meet and talk with them. I think it was a positive thing we did.

Maybe some things could have been done differently, but I'm not sure we would have been privy to negotiations at that level in any case. Government-to-government negotiations can be very sensitive, and I'm quite sure that Mr. Ashcroft and the American government didn't just openly and warmly say, oh good, let's do a safe third. We've been fighting with them over that for many years. It was probably too sensitive for the minister to come and say, we're this close or we're that close. It was probably not doable.

That being said, it may be that taking us into their confidence somewhat would have avoided the feelings we're hearing expressed here today.

The Chair: I don't want to get into a big debate about this. I want to get on with finishing some of the technical matters of the report.

I'll go to two other people, Jerry and Madeleine.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make a very quick comment. We were charged by the House of Commons to do a task, and that's the task we're doing. We're reporting on the task we're doing. We're not charged by the government; we are charged by the House of Commons. Therefore, this is a House of Commons committee and a House of Commons report.

If the government concurs through actions the government takes, I think that's to the credit of this committee. I don't think there's any taking away from what we did, and I don't think there's anything you can say that will change my mind. My task derives from the House of Commons asking a group of people on this committee to study the problems and come back to the House with a report. That's exactly our goal and our purpose.

• 0925

If the government, again, concurs by taking action this committee has recommended, well, the government is working in sync with this committee, and everyone knows that. Everyone knows the government has reported here, has listened to all the comments, and has looked at what has happened. I think it's probably a compliment rather than a taking away that the government is acting in concurrence with this committee's recommendations.

The Chair: Thanks, Jerry.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

I agree, Mr. Chairman, that the government is there to govern, and I agree with Jerry that the committee's work is to be presented to the House of Commons, but everyone would agree with me that there should some connection between what committees do and what the government decides. Otherwise, why bother?

The second part of the first point I raised was a request to withdraw my dissenting opinion in order to add to it. You did not respond to that, Mr. Chairman, so I will ask again in the hope that given your great respect for members of your committee, you will respond favourably.

The Chair: No, I will not.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You will not support that?

[English]

The Chair: No, I'm sorry. I'm sticking to the rule.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Well, fine.

[English]

The Chair: If you want to retract your thing with the concurrence of the committee.... I don't even know what's in your report. I might even like what you have to say in it, but I don't, unfortunately, have a copy beside me, so I don't know what it is you're saying. If you want to remove it, remove it. It's your report. But I'm tabling the thing on Thursday with or without your stuff.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I wanted to add to it, Mr. Chairman, in light of what has happened. I believe it was Steve who pointed out that the committee had made site visits to meet the people working there and tell them that we appreciated their work. The committee made a particularly positive gesture by doing that. That may be the only good thing this committee has done.

[English]

The Chair: I'm not delaying the report any more. If you want to withdraw yours, by all means do so, and then you could table something, somewhere, somehow at another time. If you want to keep your report, that's fine, but this report is getting submitted on Thursday.

Now, can we get to page 21, where there's a technical matter to change? With regard to safe third country, I wonder, Jay, if you could point out...I think what we need to do is add a couple of....

Mr. Jay Sinha (Committee Researcher): The recommendation on page 21 as it now reads could be a bit misleading, because right now and under Bill C-11, legally the only way a direct-back can occur is when there's really not a senior immigration officer present.

The suggestion is to change the recommendation by adding words after “Pending the establishment of a safe third country agreement, which would be preferable, direct-backs be used”. We would insert after that “where possible” before “as an alternative to detention when initial checks cannot be completed expeditiously.”

Mr. Art Hanger: I don't see that in my report. Is there a change in this format. Is that under paragraph 2.33?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It is not always the same page in French.

The Chair: Okay, I understand.

Mr. Jay Sinha: It is just before paragraph—

[English]

The Chair: Just wait a minute. It's on page 21, just before paragraph 2.27.

So we're just adding two words so it says “direct-backs to be used where possible as an alternative to detention when initial checks cannot be completed expeditiously.” I don't think that takes anything away from the motion. Essentially, it is that administratively it needs to be correct, because you have to have senior immigration officers in order to make that happen. So we'll make that change.

The other one...Madeleine, do you have that in the French part?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I see 2.27. Where exactly is it?

Mr. Jay Sinha: It is just before 2.27. It is the recommendation.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It is just before 2.27. It is in the recommendation. Is that right?

Mr. Jay Sinha: We are adding the words “where possible”.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay.

• 0930

[English]

The Chair: Okay, the next one we're going to do is on page 25. That top paragraph there has to do with NEXUS. Perhaps I'll read it so that everybody has the coordinates here. It says:

A key security advantage of NEXUS is that the person is directly linked to a specific car and this is checked each time the person crosses the border.

And then it says:

NEXUS was scheduled to begin operation in November 2001.

That's wrong. What we need to say is:

NEXUS is a pilot project at the Sarnia-Huron border crossing port of entry but has been put on hold following the events of September 11.

We need to clarify that it wasn't going to happen in November 2001 at the Windsor-Detroit port of entry, but in fact it was a pilot project of Sarnia-Huron. So we're going to strike out those words, “to begin operation in November 2001 at the Windsor-Detroit port of entry” and add the words, “is a pilot project of the Sarnia-Huron port of entry, but has been put on hold following the events of September 11th”. That's to correct the facts.

Are there any particular questions on that one? It's a technical change, so it's a lot more factual.

Then there's another little one, 2.33, right in the middle of the sentence that starts, “Both CANPASS and its U.S. equivalent, the INSPASS....” We have to insert the word “Airport”, because that is the CANPASS airport system...and its equivalent, the INSPASS, “use biometric hand geometry proximity cards”.

The only other technical one that I have is on page 30, 2.41. In that paragraph it says:

Effectively patrolling the 8,895 kilometres Canada-U.S. land border poses serious challenges of distance and resources, especially between ports of entry. One innovative solution developed under the Border Vision program has been the creation and implementation of Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs)....

We have to delete the words, “developed under the Border Vision program” because that's not factually correct. It's true that it was a solution, but it wasn't developed under the border vision program, it was something that had been created out of a number of solutions.

So in order to be factually correct, let's delete the words, “developed under the Border Vision program”. Everything else can stay the same, but we have to delete those six words.

Okay? Those are all the technical ones I have.

Lynne, I believe Paul asked me a question to clarify the reverse onus of undocumented and uncooperative persons.

On the reverse onus, Steve, I think you want to see exactly the same things. If you go to that recommendation 2.73 on page 46, I think the committee wants to make sure this is there.

Let me read 2.73. It says:

As a general rule, asylum seekers should be detained in very few situations. However, the Committee realizes that some individuals should be detained as a matter of course, such as those who refuse to assist in establishing their identity. This recommendation was made in our March 2000 report.

Therefore:

The Committee recommends that:

CIC ensure that undocumented refugee claimants who are uncooperative in establishing their identity....

And the key words were “are detained”. I think we wanted to be firm that if you were undocumented and uncooperative, we believe you should be detained. I think that was where we left off and that was the final thing.

I know Paul wanted to ask me to clarify that.

Okay, I'll go to Lynne now.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): He wanted to put reverse onus, so there was some onus on them to...so just include those words.

The Chair: Yes, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Am I to understand that in the recommendation, the “and” is replaced by “or”. Is that right?

• 0935

[English]

The Chair: No.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We are talking about the recommendation at number 2.73.

[English]

The Chair: The recommendation at 2.73 says “are detained”. I think there are no changes required there.

I wanted to clarify for Lynne what the committee's position was.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay, fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Does anybody else have any particular questions or technical...?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have done a careful reading of the report. I found about a dozen corrections that need to be made. They are typographical errors and words that are not French. I will give them to Jay. They are clearly indicated.

[English]

The Chair: Are they only technical in nature, Jacques?

The Clerk of the Committee: Yes, they are editorial.

The Chair: Are they correct, because I trust Madeleine's interpretation of the French?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: For the French...sometimes as well for the English.

The Chair: That's true, too.

Anybody else?

Lynne.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: There were some technical things that Paul picked up on that he wanted changed.

On page 1, he wanted the word “potential” deleted in the third sentence of the second paragraph, beginning with, “We have realized our potential”. So it would read “We have realized our vulnerabilities”.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I agree there.

[English]

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: He wants to go down to the fourth line past that, where it says—

The Chair: Hang on a second.

Any problems with getting rid of the word “potential”?

All right.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Then down to the bottom where it says “facts”, he wants that to be singular, not plural, and a comma put in.

The Chair: Where are you?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I'm going four lines down.

The Chair: So “anxiety be based upon fact” as opposed to “facts”?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes. Then he would like the whole last sentence deleted, struck out. It reads, “There is no evidence that a failure of Canadian border security measures in any way contributed to the tragic events”.

The Chair: I don't know. Even Ashcroft indicated that yesterday. I think that is a statement of fact. To tell you the truth, I'd prefer to keep it there, because it was confirmed even by the Attorney General yesterday.

I think that's an important statement, and it's confirmed.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Does he have evidence that the reverse is true?

Ms. Lynne Yelich: No. He felt it was something he would like to see out. That's all he said. He just put a strike through it. He really didn't have a very good argument.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Perhaps we could say instead: “There is currently no evidence”. So as of today, December 4, 2001, there is currently no evidence. We could do that.

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, "currently". I too feel that it will stay like that.

[English]

The Chair: We have no evidence as of December 2 or December 3 that there is...on the tabling of this report. I think there is no consensus to delete that. So we'll move on.

Lynne.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Then he goes on to the next paragraph. In the second statement he wants to say, “conducted this study in an expeditious manner realizing”. So take out the words“as possible”.

The Chair: That's true. Okay.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I would like to go back. There are suggestions made of taking the word “potential” out of “potential vulnerabilities”. I think it is potential. I don't know that we can determine all vulnerabilities or not, but we've looked at it and there are potential problems here. That seems to me the accurate word to use.

The Chair: It also says we have realized our vulnerabilities, which essentially means we....

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Potential.

The Chair: But present vulnerabilities....

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, we are still vulnerable.

[English]

We are always vulnerable, even when I drive my car.

The Chair: I think “potential” is probably inferred by the fact that, at present, we feel vulnerable. It means that potentially we might feel vulnerable too. I don't think that word adds or takes anything away.

We're deleting that one anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Is there another one?

Ms. Lynne Yelich: On page 2, in the bottom paragraph he wanted “presenting at a port of entry”. Instead of having “rather” in there, delete “rather” and start a new statement, “We must look at the entire process”.

• 0940

It would be:

We must not focus solely on individuals presenting at a port of entry. We must look at the entire process involved....

The Chair: Fine.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: On page 3, there are two “musts” in the bottom two bullets that he would like changed to “should”. “Canada should continue to provide asylum” and “Canada should continue to welcome immigrants”.

The Chair: He wants to change those “musts” to “shoulds”.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Change both of those “musts” to “shoulds”.

The Chair: I don't know. I think “must” is a little more assertive than “should”. Is that what you...?

Ms. Lynne Yelich: I think it is, but—

The Chair: But “must continue to provide asylum” and “must continue to welcome immigrants”—no, I'd get a little nervous by saying “should”.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: I think “should” invites—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The French version quite appropriately uses "must" in both cases.

[English]

It suggests there's some sort of commitment.

The Chair: But I think “must” is probably more. If Paul wants to essentially do what he wants to, “should” takes away from that. “Must” is much more firm, I think.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: It might be firmer, but I think what he wants to say is that maybe there ought to be some sort of commitment. You know, you are saying you should do it. If you say “you must do it”....

The Chair: I think it's stronger, but I—

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Okay. The other one actually takes “religions” out of that second statement. Canada should or must—yes, I like “must” as well—“continue to welcome immigrants from all cultures and national origins”. The word “religions” should be taken out.

The Chair: Yes, but cultures and origins don't necessarily reflect religions sometimes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think he's right. We don't seek people out based on their religious beliefs. We seek them out.... We welcome them here from different parts of the world—their national origins. Religions should be irrelevant.

The Chair: I would strike “religions”.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: And at the end I would like to see the definition of refugee put in, including the 1951 definition, with the addition of torture, just to have that clause. That's at the end, on page 4, another bullet, the addition of the actual definition of refugee by the convention, just to have it included in there.

The Chair: Right at the end of that page you want something added.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Yes, a definition of refugee.

The Chair: Another bullet.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Yes, that's it. Just to have it reinforce what guides us in refugees, including torture. The one that—

The Chair: Well, maybe we can take what's in Bill C-11 and insert it.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: The UN definition.

The Chair: Okay, the UN definition.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, the first bullet refers to refugees. If we are including the definition of “refugee”, it should be in connection with that. It is fine to include a definition, but it is not a point in and of itself; it is a reference. Perhaps it could be a footnote.

[English]

The Chair: The first bullet on page 3, for those who are trying to follow this discussion, says:

Canada must continue to provide asylum to those facing persecution in their home countries in a manner that complies with the high standards we have thus far established.

Lynne was suggesting that we have a fourth bullet that essentially talks about the UN definition of refugee. Madeleine is now suggesting that perhaps after bullet number one we put a footnote that might refer to what that definition of refugee is.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Because it guides our refugee system.

The Chair: The office of the high commission for human rights, the convention relating to the status of refugees...our researcher, Jay, has just pointed out that chapter 1, paragraph 2, essentially defines, as of January 1, 1951, that convention.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: That's exactly the one.

The Chair: So we'll put that in there. But I think maybe we can add it after the first bullet. That might be the most appropriate point.

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Actually, I suggested it to Paul and he just put it there. We didn't know where we should put it.

The Chair: We'll put it in brackets after the first bullet. Is that okay?

Ms. Lynne Yelich: Yes.

The Chair: This is a reference note we are talking about.

Okay, is there anything else, Lynne?

• 0945

A voice: Is that in the definition, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: I have a point here that I'd like to bring up—

The Chair: Okay, sure.

Mr. Art Hanger: —and I noticed this in the conversation of the minister yesterday—concerning the importance of recommendation 2.48 on ICOs.

There is a number that is attached here. There are presently 44 ICOs working the airlines and...I guess, overseas anyway.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: Then there's the indication that the minister plans to increase that number twofold. Does that mean 88?

The Chair: Twice, yes. In fact, last Thursday we wanted to insert that. You raised exactly the same point I did, that factually we have 44 ICOs now. The minister has publicly stated—I think before this committee, but at least publicly—that she intended to double that number. So we wanted to put that commitment in our report. Therefore, our recommendation says more immigration control officers be hired to work overseas and that this be a top priority.

We asked that those words “top priority” be added to ensure that from a resource standpoint we believe it to be a very good investment. Without putting a number on it, we did want to say it was a top priority of ours, for ICOs. So at least double, if not more, ICOs.

Mr. Art Hanger: I guess that's one or maybe two more people overseas. Is that right?

The Chair: No, no. That's moving from 44 to 88.

Mr. Art Hanger: No. I mean for each individual who goes over there, does it mean more than one person when it comes to assistants? Does it mean...?

The Chair: I know what you're getting at.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

The reason I'm pointing this out—something that I think is very important, and the minister has certainly made it evident that this is the direction she's moving in—is when I was in the Ukraine, one of the major problems they had was space. That's not uncommon in a lot of overseas offices. Even if they tried, they couldn't jam another person into the offices over there. Yet the need in that security end of things is substantial.

When it comes to this kind of issue, is there to be adequate funding along with it, to make sure this is going to happen? Will it include increased space, increased assistance, or are they going to throw bodies out there and just let them flounder around?

The Chair: Your question is quite right. We would assume, obviously, and perhaps we might repeat it here, that when you add a person, you obviously need to have the support, the administrative stuff, as well as the space for them to work in. I don't know if it is anywhere in this report. I think we talk about administrative resources as well as some of the flexibility and other things, but as far as space is concerned, I don't know.

You may want to add to this recommendation that not only are we talking about people, but we're making sure they have the adequate resources.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes. I guess “resources” means money—

The Chair: Yes, it does.

Mr. Art Hanger: —and I think that's been kind of addressed, but....

The Chair: David.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): To go a little further on that, Art, I think what was actually announced yesterday was the need for the ICOs, American and Canadian, working together overseas in the airports themselves. That's what we were looking at, because that's where we've seen a lack overseas.

You're right, there has to be a look at the whole picture as to how they're going to handle this and how they're going to work together. There has to be some infrastructure included in there somewhere.

The Chair: I think it's assumed, under resources and everything else, if there's a way of being able to.... We could say more immigration control officers be hired and related infrastructure resources be provided, if that will—

Mr. Art Hanger: Forthwith.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I think it's inferred. But if you want to further clarify it, we could include that we understand that we need some additional physical or other resources.

• 0950

Mr. Art Hanger: I think of all the issues and even the comments.... And I gather the minister really has zeroed in on this particular point too, as have the Americans, and I trust they're going to throw those resources in there, because it seems like that's the most logical thing to do. I don't know if that's the case.

The Chair: That's the best bang for the buck. I think you said that very clearly, because 44 people stopped 6,000 people from entering the country last time, and therefore we all agree it's a great investment to make. So if you can stop them from getting on a plane and arriving here before the fact, obviously the whole system saves money, so to speak.

Anyway, let's add those words, because we want to add a little further clarity, that the associated resources be attached to those people.

David.

Mr. David Price: Joe, I'm a little bothered about why we took out “religions” on the second bullet there.

The Chair: Can I just finish up with this one?

Mr. David Price: Yes.

The Chair: Then we might go back to that one.

We'll add those words, as reflected by Art, into that recommendation.

Let's go back to where? Refresh our memories.

Mr. David Price: It's on page 3:

Canada must continue to welcome immigrants from all cultures, religions and national origins.

It sounds like we're narrowing things quite a bit; if we take out “religions”, we really should take out “cultures” too. We want to welcome everybody, so we should be enlarging, not narrowing. I find it's narrowing. If we're going to say that, then we should just say “national origins”; “cultures” is grouping too. So it's either put them all in or take....

An hon. member: They should basically be treated as cultures.

Mr. David Price: You have different religions within different cultures.

The Chair: Order, please.

Yes, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If an order is being established, in French, religion is an integral part of the culture. When Quebec was very Catholic, that was part of French- Canadian culture. If the word "religion" is removed, I will not lose any sleep over it. I do not think it will be narrowing. That is my impression, at least.

[English]

The Chair: Can I ask for further clarification? Obviously, I think this term has been used a lot, “cultures, religions”, and so on. Jay, do you have any comments?

Mr. Jay Sinha: The reason for putting it in initially is because it is in the convention definition, but there are many other things also in the definition. So we could mention everything or—

Mr. Art Hanger: Why don't we just say “according to the convention definition”?

A voice: It's about immigrants.

The Chair: No, we're talking about immigrants now from all over the world. Whether or not you think it's limiting or whether or not it's expansionary, I would agree. I'm just saying the practice has always been to talk about cultures, religions, and national origins. If you talk about eliminating religion, somebody can say let's eliminate cultures, let's eliminate national origins. Maybe we should just say Canada must continue to welcome immigrants; it doesn't matter how you define them, we must continue to welcome immigrants. I'm at your pleasure.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd accept that Canada must continue to welcome immigrants, but every conflict that's going on in the world right now seems to be based on religion. I don't see it as an issue in terms of our defining our policy, because if you say that, does it mean the other side of the argument would be argued against it?

The Chair: What about the atheists?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, what about atheists? We don't make a decision based on their religious belief; it's their own business.

The Chair: Let's strike “religions”. David, are you satisfied that I think it's not limiting in how we're speaking about it, but in fact we're talking about all cultures and national origins without trying to...? All right.

Lynne, did you have any comment? Art?

Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: It's on page 25, and this is just something I can remember at the airport talking about CANPASS, so I don't even know if it's important. But in regard to small planes coming in, I thought there was something mentioned—

A voice: Lynne, can you indicate to me the paragraph?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I'm sorry, I'm talking about on page 25 this—

A voice: I need the paragraph because I—

The Chair: She's not talking about a paragraph right now.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: No, I'm not talking about a paragraph. I just want to bring up the fact that someone had mentioned small planes entering the airport. Are those persons going to be checked as well, as you indicate each person in the car is checked? What about small planes when you refer to it as being CANPASS at airports? That was mentioned I think at Dorval. I thought somebody mentioned that, but I don't remember.

• 0955

The Chair: Lynne, good question, but even if you are coming in with a small aircraft, you still have to go through customs and everything else. So I would imagine if you have a CANPASS card, airport card, or whatever, and you've been pre-cleared, and you come in on a small commercial aircraft as opposed to a scheduled aircraft, you're going to be able to expedite the process by having such a thing.

So I don't think we need to mention that, because regardless of how you get to an airport, you have to prove to someone where you came from and what you're doing.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I see.

The Chair: Anything else? Art.

Mr. Art Hanger: Going back to comments the minister made yesterday at the press conference in reference to these agreements between agencies, can we take that to mean and cover all the recommendations this committee has made on pages 30, 31, 32, because she wasn't specific about anything apart from the fact that the FBI and the RCMP were mentioned by Ashcroft?

The Chair: I think if you read our document, we talk a lot about—

Mr. Art Hanger: We go beyond that.

The Chair: We go beyond that. We say, not only does there need to be sharing of information technology resources between both governments, but also between respective departments within both our governments. We felt there wasn't an awful lot of communication, working together, sharing of information on the American side between, say, the FBI, the CIA, and INS and customs people, and it's the same with our side; there needs to be an awful lot of working together on that, and also cross-country.

I think our report goes beyond that. I think we emphasize that everybody needs to share that information in order to make sure everybody's on the same page. And while she might have been talking about IBET, the integrated border enforcement team, I think we go beyond that in our report.

There's a section in Canada-U.S. that in fact starts, if I'm not mistaken.... Where is it?

Mr. Art Hanger: I think it starts on page 30.

The Chair: Yes, but I think there's a global one. Hang on a sec. If you look at page—

Mr. Art Hanger: Page 29.

The Chair: No, it's even before then.

Mr. Art Hanger: Governments of Canada and the United States?

The Chair: No. If you look at page 17, that first recommendation, 17, starts with “Canada and the United States place an increased emphasis on the speedy implementation of joint initiatives developed, and continuing to be developed”. Then, if I'm not mistaken, pages 27 and 29....

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

The Chair: Those are all those recommendations in terms of working together that the committee felt were essential.

Mr. Art Hanger: I went to a press conference where there was a coalition of business interests, and they made a presentation yesterday morning. They spoke about the broad security as well as flow of goods and services back and forth. A recommendation they made was to have border or security checks being made not at the borders but away from the borders.

The Chair: Yes. We say that too. We say in our report that a lot of things can be done pre-cleared, people as well as goods and services. It should be done not necessarily at the border, with all that infrastructure, but rather it should be done away from the border in a way that could be expedited because the infrastructure might be a little better there. Let's face it, bridges and roads sometimes do get clogged up and so anything you can do before the border in terms of pre-arrival, pre-clearance, pre-checking, obviously would facilitate movement. With pre-clearance, goods and people would be able to flow through without having the border be the place where you do all of these administrative things. If you can do them before the border, it would be preferable.

Mr. Art Hanger: I know this report speaks more to the security side of things, but—

• 1000

The Chair: No, I think we tried, and that's why the title even reflects—

Mr. Art Hanger: We touched on it.

The Chair: —that we need an open and efficient border, because goods and people should flow as quickly and easily as possible—

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

The Chair: —but at the same time being very conscientious that it has to be secure and safe.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

The Chair: I think we say that.

Is there anything else?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Regarding the last recommendation on page 36, because we had so much talk about having the RCMP and CSIS—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Give me the number of the paragraph.

The Chair: It's paragraph 2.53, deux, cinq, trois.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: It's paragraph 2.53, on page 36.

I thought we should have CSIS and the RCMP included in the passenger lists provided to Immigration Canada, but also include CSIS, the RCMP, or whoever would be wanting those lists, any security agency.

The Chair: That's why we mentioned Bill C-42. I can't remember the specifics of that.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes. I know it's in there.

The Chair: Who are those passenger lists supposed to be given to, CIC or security forces? To tell you the truth, I can't remember.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: It is actually in there, and Paul mentioned that, but I thought it should be in here, being that we decided that we want to work more closely with CSIS and the RCMP. If it's in our report, it shows how important it is to us.

The Chair: Can we hold off on that one? We're going to take a look at where those passenger lists have to go. I think Bill C-42 may define that for us, and we want to be consistent.

Yes, David.

Mr. David Price: In the minister's declarations yesterday, she said creation of combined units, U.S. and Canada, to examine the information on passengers arriving in the two countries.

The Chair: Okay. Well, maybe Lynne's point is correct. Maybe in that recommendation, which says “Airlines be required to provide passenger lists to Citizenship and Immigration Canada prior to flight departure”, we might want to put in after that, “or appropriate agencies”.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Or say “that are working with”—

The Chair: I think it's going to be a coordinated thing, but maybe we should put “appropriate”, “and/or appropriate agencies”, so it's just not confined to CIC, but “and/or appropriate agencies”.

In fact, it says the Minister of Transport in Bill C-42, but let's just put “appropriate agencies” in there, and that way we'll cover it off.

So, Jay, if you want to add the words “appropriate agencies” to that one....

Thank you, Lynne.

Is there anything else?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: In paragraph 2.71, on page 45, I'd like to take out of that last line, “including women and children”. Actually it was one of my staff members who thought that.

The Chair: It reads “inevitably results in innocent people, including women and children, being deprived of their liberty.”

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: “Innocent people” are women and children. I don't think we have to set them aside from men. There are only humans to be described in so many ways. So it's women, men, and children. We're talking about “innocent people”. She thought it was a sexist remark.

The Chair: Yes, but you know what we heard in our other testimony...not to prejudge anything here, but remember that when we did Bill C-11 and we were talking about refugee claimants, and so on and so forth, in fact women and children sometimes were victims of the refugee claimant who happened to be male. It could be a spouse. They were afraid sometimes in saying something, because culturally, or for whatever reason, they might have been put into a particular situation. I don't think we want to be sexist here, but I think there's a realization that sometimes women specifically, and maybe children, don't have the recognition. So, to tell you the truth, I'd like those words to stay in, because I think we need to point that out sometimes.

Mr. Art Hanger: Like in Afghanistan?

The Chair: Like in Afghanistan.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: What about “vulnerable people, like women and children”?

Mr. David Price: You can say, instead of “including”, “especially women and children”.

The Chair: Yes. Maybe the word “including” is the problem. What about “especially women and children”?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes, that's good.

The Chair: Thank you both.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: On page 46, are we going to put reverse onus on paragraph 2.73, on “CIC ensure”, reverse onus on undocumented refugee claimants?

• 1005

The Chair: I think we've already done that.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: It has gone by?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Okay.

On page 55, paragraph 2.91, didn't we decide we weren't going to speak at all about pay? How are we going to take all of that out?

The Chair: You don't know? I'll tell you what we did. We reworked the recommendation.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Oh yes, I see it.

The Chair: I think Steve reworked it for us, indicating that perhaps it shouldn't be up to us to start doing this, but we ought to acknowledge, one, that's what we heard, and two, that might be problematic. So we reworked it to suggest that there are better ways of doing this.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Actually I didn't read the recommendation. I just read that and thought, oh, this was all going to be gone.

The Chair: I know.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Okay, sorry.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'd like to discuss that whole point on the front-line workers, if we could, specifically paragraph 2.90.

It was clear yesterday that the Americans had sent their National Guard in to assist customs and immigration officers, mostly due to burn-out. Well, Canada is suffering even greater to that end than south of the border. I would have to say they are when it comes to being overworked, especially at certain points, like in Toronto.

The Chair: Yes, we heard it.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, we did hear it, about certain points like in Toronto and some of your busier crossings.

I don't think we have really addressed the upfront issue. Here it certainly indicates that this is what we're going to do long term, but long term...by the time you get people on stream, you could be looking at a year down the road.

The Chair: No, I think the recommendation speaks to the sense of urgency, that it needs to be now. But also, it says “sustainable resources”.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

The Chair: We added the word “sustainable” because we have short-term problems, but also long-term problems. That's why I think it's essential. We only need to wait six more days and we'll find out how many resources there turn out to be. That's the budget—

Mr. Art Hanger: That was going to be my next question.

The Chair: —which I'm sure will address this whole resource issue from a number of different departments.

But you're absolutely right. It's not only a short-term problem but also a longer-term problem, to get to the resource levels we think we need in order to do a whole bunch of security issues, Bill C-11 deportation....

That's why, Art, if you will see, in terms of resources, we prioritized them in a way in which the minister will have some sort of guidance. We talked about ICOs as being our top priority, but in terms of priorities for resources, we talk a little bit about removal, enforcement, and detention capacity, as well as the front line.

So you have ICOs, front-line people across the whole spectrum, as well as removal, enforcement, and detention.

Mr. Art Hanger: I recognize the various levels required. I'm trying to indicate that maybe our report should reflect a greater urgency for now, too, because even as we speak, there are people within that front-line organization, especially at your very busy points, who are packing it up and getting out. They're absolutely either burnt out or frustrated with the process, and there's no light at the end of the tunnel for them.

The Chair: But if you read paragraphs 2.88, 2.89, and 2.90, all of those set up the recommendations. There was a recognition in those three paragraphs of what we heard and the very things of which you speak, Art, in terms of—

Mr. Art Hanger: I know it recognizes it, but it doesn't really address the issue. That's what I'm saying.

The Chair: I don't mind this, but it says here “The Government of Canada provide sustainable resources to deal with current customs...needs”. You could use the words “as soon as possible” or “immediately” in that first recommendation, if you wanted to strengthen it up somewhat more.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes. I think it would be good if we did.

A voice: We already cut out the word “immediately”.

The Chair: We had the word “immediately” in there and we cut it out for some reason.

Mr. Art Hanger: I see that we did cut it out. I don't know why.

The Chair: I don't know.

Steve, I think you're the one who led the charge about getting rid of “immediately”, but I can't remember why.

• 1010

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The point I think I made was that we're more interested in something sustainable. Trying to micro-manage this thing, saying they have to do this right now, didn't seem to make sense from a committee perspective. We're saying there is a problem at our borders in terms of the workload. We saw it and heard it.

I don't know that we're more stressed than the Americans are. The fact is, we outnumber them three to one at our border points in terms of our resources. It's why they're bringing in the National Guard to help deal with the situation.

I think when you combine the training, the roll-out of Bill C-11, and the new rules, we're going to ensure these people know it and are given the sustainable long-term resources.

Mr. Art Hanger: If I may, I agree there has to be a sustainable structure. I don't disagree with it at all, Steve.

There are points of entry in this country where there are severe stress-related situations and people are quitting. They're quitting right now, and one of them is in Toronto. The Toronto group are probably suffering the most. You're seeing them pack up, get out, and go to police forces and other places. They are trained people.

I don't think we should lose some of the resources we have. It's all I'm saying.

The Chair: There's a lot of overtime being paid out too.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

It may be more than resources. It may even be working conditions. I think an analysis should be made.

The Chair: Can I make a suggestion?

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

The Chair: We might be able to have the best of both worlds here with “The Government of Canada provide immediate and sustainable resources”, if in fact one wants to capture the essence that we need some additional people in the short term. As Steve said, we want to make sure there are sustainable resources to do all the other things that need to be done.

Do you want to add the words “immediate and sustainable”?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No.

The Chair: Does anyone have any ideas?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think you're setting yourself up for a fall by adding the word “immediate”. The reality is this has to go through a process.

We're trying to add to the ammunition the minister goes in and fights with to get the resources she's applying for. We don't know what they are.

This goes back a bit to the argument about numbers. There is a process involved. People make their submissions through the bureaucracy. They call, negotiate, and come up with something they think can be done. Then they line up their ammunition and their ducks and they go to work. They try to get it. I think it's going to happen.

The Chair: I think the second recommendation might add to it. I don't want to get into a heavy-duty debate on the word “immediate”.

I think it's inferred, Art. Monday will probably be the proof of the pudding, so to speak, as to whether or not it's “immediate” or not. Okay?

Mr. Art Hanger: It's fair enough. I'll leave it alone. It is a point where I think there has to be some analysis done, if not jumping right into the whole issue, on the staffing and working conditions of the front-line officers. It should be immediate.

The Chair: We may want to, as a committee. I think we indicated in the report to the minister we wanted better statistics in the performance report to Parliament. We obviously want to see numbers in terms of personnel and so on. It may very well be during the debate on estimates, which we need to do next as a committee, that we do this.

You should also know that once we table this, with the request for government response pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government has to respond to the committee's report. It may very well be, as we talk about personnel, the response must come within 90 days. I can't remember.

Mr. Art Hanger: It's half a year.

The Chair: All right. It's half a year or something. There are a number of mechanisms through which we can ask.

Is there anything else? If not, I will move on.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could I point out something Madeleine might be interested in?

I've done the numbers here. There are 65 recommendations in this report, of which five were addressed in the agreement yesterday with Mr. Ashcroft. Fifty-five of the recommendations have not yet been addressed by the ministry.

• 1015

I don't think our report is a waste of time at all. I think there's a lot of really good stuff in it.

The Chair: All right.

I'm going to quickly move then. As I thought we'd agreed last time on Thursday, it was agreed that the draft report as amended be concurred in and that the chair be instructed to present it to the House of Commons.

Can I have the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It was agreed that the chair make such editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report.

I think you've done it for me already this morning. Thank you very much.

Can I have the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It was agreed that pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee request the government to table a comprehensive response to the report. It's housekeeping.

Is it moved?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It was agreed that the committee will print 1,000 copies of the report in a bilingual format with a distinctive cover.

By the way, this won't be the cover. We're going to have a glossy bound report for every one of the 1,000 copies.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I like the title.

The Chair: Yes. We took a bit from everyone, so thank you very much. I think you all contributed to the title.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It was agreed that the committee will authorize the printing of dissenting opinions as an appendix to the report immediately following the signature of the chair.

I want to make sure, Inky, you have one. I haven't read it, but thank you very much.

Madeleine, do you want to keep yours in or out?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It would be in.

The Chair: Okay.

Art and Lynne, you have half a page or something.

Mr. Art Hanger: I think Paul Forseth put something in.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll move that one in there.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Madeleine, did you have something else to say?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Did you put the question on the report you are going to table?

[English]

The Chair: Yes. You missed it again.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like to say that given my reservations—

[English]

The Chair: It was the first one. It said it was agreed that the draft report as amended be concurred in.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Do you know what? You speak too fast for me.

The Chair: I know.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: When it is an important matter, you should relax a bit. You didn't ask for “those against”.

The Chair: No, of course not. I assumed everyone liked the report. It's why you're all going to have something more to say about it.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I appreciate the work. I don't like all of the report, as you can imagine.

The Chair: Neither do I.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm happy you tabled it, but I'm not for the report. I agree there are a lot of good ideas, but they are not all there.

The Chair: Okay.

Art.

Mr. Art Hanger: Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman, but the deadline for the minority report is today at noon.

The Chair: It was yesterday at noon.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

The Chair: We received it.

Mr. Art Hanger: All right.

The Chair: It will be part of the report.

We'll table the report on Thursday morning as part of the order of the day. I would imagine it will happen somewhere between 10 and 10:15. Then we're going to call for a news conference at about 11.

You're all entitled to be there and express your views. I'd like to be able to say the committee has done some very good work. We agree probably on 90% of the report, but there are some good ideas attached to the report that you may want to expound on.

I think we'll have it downstairs or in the Wellington Building. We'll let you know where. We'll set it up and let you know. It should take place between 10:45 and 11 on Thursday.

Thank you very much for the hard work and great work together. The meeting is adjourned.