:
I guess we can get under way. We have somewhat of a lengthy agenda.
I want to welcome again today witnesses from the department—Mark Davidson, Alain Laurencelle, and Karen Clarke, who are here to assist us, I would imagine, on clause-by-clause a little later on.
Our first order of business will be the motions.
I'm ready to rule on the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary, and I want to thank members of the committee for their input on this matter.
First of all, I find Mr. Siksay's motion in order. It was reviewed quite extensively. I think the parliamentary secretary had stated in the beginning that the motion as it stood, if we were sending it to the House as is, presupposed that extensive debate and witnesses had already been conducted.
We find that reviewing, studying, examining, inquiring can mean that the committee has considered, discussed, and debated the matter even if it were only for a couple of minutes. There is no rule that says a committee must start by calling witnesses before it can report. Committee members can discuss a matter among themselves without calling witnesses and then report to the House. If a committee feels ready to report to the House without calling witnesses, it can do so.
So Mr. Siksay's motion is in order.
Now, shall the report carry?
:
No, I want to deal with the amendment to the motion.
That amendment would essentially replace a portion and the motion would read:
That the standing committee review and report to the House with respect to the issue of placing an immediate moratorium on deportations of all undocumented workers and their families who pass security and criminality checks while a new immigration policy is put in place.
What I'd like to say is that because the committee is studying the issue of undocumented workers, in fact what should happen is that the committee will indeed do a proper review and then a report to the House, as opposed to directly reporting to the House in the way of the motion, and that it actually use this motion as an addition to the study that's being conducted for undocumented workers and the issue of moratoriums to be placed.
What I'm saying to this committee is that if we're going to do our jobs, if we're in fact going to make a report in the sense that the House can properly consider it, we ought to do what we're doing with the other issues relating to undocumented workers, and that is to combine this as a subheading of the main heading and then actually review the issue. There are two sides to that coin. Some people think it ought to be done and some people think it ought not, for various reasons. Some of these reasons should come before this committee. The fact that we are precluding ourselves from the benefit of that evidence and the benefit of that material when they're already doing a study I think is shirking our responsibility as a committee. It is certainly putting myself, as a member, in a position to have a report going to the House with no basis or foundation to that report. I think the committee ought to take its work far more seriously than it has.
I have certainly made the point that we should combine this particular motion with the study that we're proposing on undocumented workers, and if we were to adopt this amendment to the motion it would then preclude the report from going directly to the House. It would actually cause us to do a report in the sense that it's meant to be done. It is meant to be based on something. It's meant to have the recommendation, if you will have it, by way of motion, based on something this committee has seized itself of.
I realize that you may say perhaps there may be some other evidence in some other committee, at some other time, in some other place, but then we should have that other evidence or other material brought to this particular committee for the purpose of its review, for the purpose of its decision, with the opportunity, I might add, for additional witnesses to be called. By the same token, I think if we're going to do a report in the proper sense of a report there should be an opportunity for a dissenting report, as opposed to a unanimous report.
In order to do a dissenting report, there would have to be some basis upon which to make a dissenting report. That would mean the opportunity of having material presented to this committee, and eventually to the House, that has some basis or foundation to it and upon which I could write a dissenting report. Obviously, I would be railroaded, so to speak, in having this motion in some sort of a vacuum, without any evidence being called, sent to the House without an opportunity, on my part, to be able to present various points of view and to write an opinion on it.
When we look at Monpetit and Marleau, it actually refers quite extensively to what a report ought to look like. It envisions a fairly stringent procedure where the committee chair eventually signs his name to the report, saying we've met the requirements of the report and this is what we're putting to the House. It also gives the opportunity for other parties, including someone like myself, to write a dissenting report, but it has to be based on something. It can't be based on thin air.
What we're asking this committee to do is to take a motion that's passed by someone on the sheerness of a motion without anything else. If we were to ask, what is the evidence before us, the only evidence we have before us is the fact that a motion was put forward before this committee, nothing else, and we're calling that a report. I think we're doing ourselves an injustice in this case and in future cases if we wish to take that.
It's one thing if you have unanimous consent because you wish to proceed on that, but it's another thing to take a motion out of thin air and have it brought before us as a report, when we all know that in fact it is not a report under any definition that we can find anywhere, including the simple Oxford dictionary, which defines what a report might look like.
So I'm saying we should consider the amendment to the motion, which actually puts it where it should be. It should be before this committee, by way of a study and a review, as we are doing with the other issues, because they are not technical issues; they're not anniversaries. This is a very substantive issue that relates to and has effect on the major cities of Canada, on various ethnic groups, on various immigrants, on those who are undocumented. It is a very, very critical issue. It is a substantive issue. It is an issue of such importance that we need to do something relative to that area, and not do it in a knee-jerk reaction.
We don't need to do it on the basis that we will take this step without doing the necessary due diligence to get there. I think this committee owes it to itself, and certainly owes it to an individual member like myself, to have a proper study.
There's nothing to be gained. By putting this motion in the form that it is to the House and we will not get a reply for 120 days, particularly at a time when we're adjourning for the summer recess, this motion is not going anywhere. In fact, if the same response is given to this motion as the degree of due diligence that's given to it to pass it forward, the response will be in kind, in like manner, and will not in fact solve anything and will not bring this matter to a place where we can actually make some reasonable, reasoned, cogent arguments and basis upon which a recommendation can go forward.
I think it's really an abuse of this committee's authority and what it's sanctioned to do to proceed in this fashion. That's why I would ask the members to consider an amendment to the motion to say the subject matter is important, the subject matter is real subject matter that needs due consideration, but we need to review it along with the other things we're reviewing in that same area. Then we can make a reasoned, logical recommendation to the government for some action based on what we have heard.
As we all know, there is more than one side to every story. There are two sides to every story. We want to hear what those two sides are and make a decision that's based on reason.
So I would submit to all honourable members to consider whether this motion is really necessary, to go to the House in the form it is in. It will eventually get there, and it can be in the form in which we have it here, after due consideration and due deliberation.
There is no useful purpose to have it to go to the House at this time in the form it is in. It can go to the House in essentially the same form, if that's the conclusion we come to after we hear all of the appropriate evidence and have the opportunity for someone like myself and others to call witnesses, interest groups, or stakeholders to put their cases forward.
If I disagree with the conclusions and it is truly going to be a report, then I ought to have an opportunity to write a dissenting view for the consideration of the chair to present to the House, to present the other side of the story. This, in the form it is in now, would not allow that.
So I would ask the consideration of the members to amend the motion to preserve the substance of it, but to put it to the committee for study along with what we will be studying in position number two. We decided that refugees would be the first thing we'd study, and the second thing we were going to study was undocumented workers.
It certainly captured national attention, so its importance is there. This is not a procedural thing; this is a substantive matter that needs our due and proper attention. So I would ask that the committee consider in good spirit that this is an issue, and the substance of the motion is fine, but the manner in which we want to take it to the House, without due deliberation, is not.
This motion would allow us to come to the same place, perhaps unanimously, after we have heard the evidence and the particulars. It's such a significant issue that I would even move it ahead of the refugee issue, if I had my way, in terms of us returning in the fall to consider this matter--because it needs to be considered; there's no question about that.
When you look at what has happened in the former regime compared to what has happened here, it's an issue that government has struggled with. Certainly it's something that is of significant substance that I would urge all parties to treat with the due respect that I think it deserves.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't support the attempt to amend the guts out of this motion, Mr. Chair.
With respect to the parliamentary secretary, I don't for a second believe that I'm shirking my responsibilities, that I don't take the role of the committee and my responsibilities here seriously, that I'm trying to railroad anybody, or that I'm doing a knee-jerk reaction. I really must take exception to some of the expressions the parliamentary secretary has used.
This is a very important issue that's affecting many Canadian families, many workers in Canada, and many of our communities. All this motion is doing is asking the government to put a moratorium on deporting people who have been making a contribution to our communities and to our economy and whose families are settled here in Canada until there's a review and a policy in place that deals with their circumstances. I think that's entirely a reasonable thing for this committee to suggest to the government. It's a recommendation to government. It's not a full study. We have, in fact, committed to doing that full study later on, but in the meantime, I think this is an entirely appropriate action to take.
Especially in Toronto but also in other communities, we've seen families being uprooted and workers in very key sectors of the economy--workers needed by companies on building projects, among other places--being deported. They're being uprooted and sent away, and this is an unacceptable situation.
I don't for a moment accept that this is somehow shirking our responsibilities; I think this is owning up to our responsibilities and suggesting to the government a reasonable course of action, given the seriousness of the situation. Yes, we'll do that study, and we'll perhaps come up with more extensive recommendations. We certainly hope we will do that when we return in the fall, but in the meantime, this is a very necessary course of action. I'd urge other members of the committee to defeat the amendment and support the original motion.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to say that I understand the parliamentary secretary's point of view. It is always important to hear both sides, as he mentioned, and to study an issue in depth.
However, I wonder if there are not two possible solutions that would be half way between what the parliamentary secretary is requesting and what Mr. Siksay suggests. I would have two proposals to make which are not mutually exclusive.
First of all, could the committee send to the House a motion rather than a report? I would like the clerk to comment on the technical aspect and to tell us if it would be possible.
Secondly, I too believe it is important to study this issue in depth in the fall, if everyone agrees to make this our top priority. I also agree, given what the parliamentary secretary just said, that there might be major technical problems. However, the motion is not about technical considerations, it is about human beings and families that are being separated. These human beings are being hastily deported, people are losing their jobs and employers are losing their workers.
There is certainly a substantive issue that goes much deeper than just the issue of those individuals who have been deported or who will be deported very soon. If we look at what is before us today, I wonder if it is possible for the Committee to pass a motion simply asking the government to stop the deportation of this category of people pending the report of this Committee. This report would be more or less along the lines of what the parliamentary secretary envisages.
In other words, I am not opposed to undertaking the review that the Parliamentary Secretary proposes. However, there is an immediate problem that is affecting human beings and we have a responsibility to deal with the real tragedy that these people are going through. How might we deal in depth with an issue and protect, at least for a limited time, people who are being arrested and who will be sent away very shortly?
I would like our clerk to respond on the technical aspect I have raised.
:
Mr. Chairman, one could say that the committee has had problems with the parliamentary secretary's report before on this committee, particularly when they want to write minority reports to the committee. I remember the same thing happened at some point last year.
Be that as it may, the reality is what we're trying to do is to get this report to the House. If the parliamentary secretary were really keen on writing a minority report, he would have been better off to have supported the motion on Monday, because I think it's very much the intent of this committee that this report be tabled in the House before we go for break.
The reality is that the previous committee has heard all sorts of evidence on this particular issue. We heard about it in committee; we heard about it as we went across the country. I dare say that if it had not been for the inopportune election, if you will, this issue would have been addressed; it was, as I mentioned before, a top priority for the previous Minister of Immigration. When we had the present Minister of Immigration, I saw some hopeful signs in his looking at this whole issue of undocumented workers.
One thing we did say as well is that instead of dedicating resources to rounding up undocumented people and getting them out of the country, the government essentially should focus on something everybody on the committee agrees on. We've got two or three thousand criminals who should definitely be rounded up, and priority should be given to them, so the government officials can continue in that, but we need to find out the extent to which we are cutting off our nose to spite our face if they continue with the deportations. We're taking people who are contributing to the economy. They're keeping the economy moving, they're paying taxes, and they're settled here. They will be greatly missed by the economy.
The committee has always been on this issue, and I think we could all agree that we should have a priority on those two or three thousand people. Those are serious criminals that we really want to get rid of, as opposed to getting rid of the bricklayer or the carpenter or the mechanic. That's the message that we want to see happen.
You cannot say you want to add a report and you need so many days to frustrate the will of the committee. It would have been better had you not objected to the motion, which was proper and was found to be proper; then you would have had some more time to do that.
The fact is that tomorrow is the final day, and we want to leave a very strong message with the government that we want the deportation of contributing members of undocumented workers stopped.
:
There's no question that the government has treated with humanitarian and compassionate grounds those that are undocumented. There are many of them; they've contributed significantly, and we've talked about the issue of the need for the system itself to be looked at. That's what we were saying we were going to do to ensure that these individuals who are great contributors to our society can come in legitimately and in the proper channels.
There needs to be a way found to deal with the situation as we have it on the ground. Everybody understands that it is a significant and important problem, but the previous government has not done any fewer deportations than have been taking place here. Certainly all due consideration has been taken into account.
This motion had been put forward, only to be pulled from this committee after it sat here for maybe a week or two, if I'm not mistaken, by Mr. Siksay, and then put down unannounced to the steering committee, for whatever reason I don't know. It was jigged with two or three other motions. Then it resurfaced here just recently, on Monday, when I took the objection, which was the first time there was an opportunity to object to it--on, I think, appropriate grounds--and the ruling came the first meeting after, so we're talking a pretty rapid succession.
Let me tell you that everyone in government and on sides opposite is aware of this issue. Outside of trying to make some extra noise on this issue, given that the House is adjourning and rising in very short order, I think that it would not change a whole lot of matters to have it go forward in due course.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken on this particular motion--and it may have changed since it came from the subcommittee--I think the request was that the House report back to this committee after 120 days. I'm not sure if that's still being pursued, but it was pursued initially.
:
I made my full point on the matter of procedure. But to direct to Mr. Telegdi's point, certainly you can do it if you want to amend the other act or incidentally amend it through this legislation. But at this stage, that's not something we can do, because the bill came forward to this House with a main purpose and a main intention, and the main purpose and intention was not to provide an appeal process in a substantive form. Now, we may want to do that, but the government didn't present the bill in that way, nor are we able to amend another act to make an allowance for it.
The fact is that the judicial review process is always available to everyone, not by statute, but by other means. People can appeal on an administrative basis or on another basis to the Federal Court for a judicial review, and they do, in many cases, when an appeal is not provided. But that is a procedural matter. It's not a substantive appeal, as is suggested here, where you have a hearing de novo where you actually represent the evidence and so on.
While I'm on that point, if you were going to amend this act at this stage to have a substantive appeal process, as was discussed by the Canadian Bar Association, where you would actually have another hearing or a re-hearing of the matter, it would require additional expenditures and additional administrative personnel. And I think it would obviously constitute an expenditure of funds, and it's something this bill has not provided for and has not contemplated. As I read Marleau and Montpetit, if it's going to require an additional expenditure of funds or is going to become a charge in the public treasury, that amendment would not be allowable at this stage, after second reading, before we put it to the House.
There is no question; the kind of appeal we're talking about is a substantive one. It's one that actually would allow for lawyers and others to appear and present the evidence and new evidence--it's called trial de novo--so it's quite a substantive change to the way the process works and would involve additional people, additional facilities, and quite a new view.
And if you were going to do that in this area of the act, for this particular situation, you would have to ask what we are going to do for parents and grandparents. And what are we going to do for others who say, “If you're going to provide a level of appeal with a re-hearing in this case, how are we different, and why shouldn't we have the same process?” Then we're looking beyond the context of this bill, and we're looking at something far more major.
It's easy to make an amendment, but we need to think this thing through. My sense is that at this stage of the game, we're changing the very purpose and essence and context of this act in a way we never envisioned or thought to in the first place, and I say it can't be done.
From a point of procedure, I'm saying that this would be inappropriate at this time, not that it can't be done. It can be done under different circumstances, in a different way, and at a different time. If we want to get this legislation we've put forward through, then we should do it in the fashion it is in now. If we want to do something very different, then there is another time and hour and day for that, but not here, at this stage.
The government has the option of deciding if it wants to change the appeal procedure, of course. It can amend the act, or it can consequentially do it, but it needs to present the bill in that fashion here and now. It hasn't done that. This is so substantive that I think it's inappropriate, and on a point of order, I would ask that the amendment not be allowed as it stands in this case.
I can caution this committee that if it is allowed, it's a dead-end street. Who are you going to appeal to? Who is going to hear this? Who is going to provide the facilities? Who is going to provide the judges? Who is going to provide the hearing officers? Because there is no mechanism and no act that allows for that. That act is somewhere else.
[Translation]
My comments relate to amendments L-1, L-2 and L-3. We could discuss each one of them in turn, but the same logic applies to all three age-related adoption categories.
For example, there are adoptions of children younger than 18 years of age, adoptions of young people aged 18 to 22, and, between the two, there are children who, when the adoption process is launched, are younger than 18, but have reached this age by the conclusion of the process.
It seems to me that for the latter two categories, namely those adoptees who are older than 18 and are therefore adults when they are accepted as adoptees, the applicants should be treated as adults under the legislation. This is where these sections come into play, for purposes of security and criminal record checks.
Therefore, amendment L-1 to Bill C-14, stating that "[...] be issued a certificate of renunciation [...] because there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person will engage in activity [...]", deals with the security and criminality checks that are normally carried out for adults.
[English]
In fact, it's the same logic that prevails for all three of the amendments. It's simply that they come in at different places within the act.