Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 10th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm going now to Mr. Komarnicki.

You have five minutes, Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

There's one point I'd like to make. I don't think the length of time one is on the committee is directly proportional and equivalent to one's ability to understand an issue. That probably should be clarified.

Having said that, it seems to me from what I hear that what is actually happening on the ground in practice is not altogether far from what the motion, at least, by Ms. Chow specifies, except that it leaves a measure of discretion to the department to exercise it when need be. Would that be a fair statement?

[Rick Stewart]

I would concur with that. Yes, that's a fair statement.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Then from what I hear from your testimony, the existing measures actually strike an appropriate balance between family reunification objectives, which have been espoused, and the need to maintain the integrity of the immigration system. I think Mr. Khan raised some issues there. It may not be perfect, but it's a kind of balance that takes us to an equitable type of operation to ensure that the system works well and yet people are given due consideration.

[Rick Stewart]

Indeed. When we put that public policy in place two years ago, it was with that objective in mind: to be as fair as possible in a way that still protected the integrity of the system.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The very narrow window I see that maybe raises some question is whether, for those who have been pulled beyond the 60 days and are being looked at on an expedited basis in the first application, there is any merit in extending the removals in those cases.

I'll leave that with you.

[Rick Stewart]

Let me just comment on the question of the automaticity, because it has come up a couple of times now.

The reason, in these cases in which we have put a time window on cases where people are out of status as opposed to just providing an automatic stay in Canada until a decision is made, gets at the heart of the question Mr. Khan was posing about the risk or the incidence of fraudulent relationships entered into seemingly for the purpose of getting here in the first instance.

I think the view is that the lack of an automaticity is a signal that you're subject to removal, but we're going to defer the removal—as opposed to staying the removal—for a period of time to allow ourselves to determine the authenticity of a relationship. I think the concern is that a move to pursue an automatic free stay in Canada until we decide sends a signal.

We can have a debate about whether it's a substantive or significant signal that significantly affects behaviour or not; that's a question of policy debate. But the perspective of having the possibility of removal there in some sense sends a signal that there is no free pass, as it were.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

And that's essential to preserve the integrity of the system and at the same time to deal with these issues whereby you can have multiple applications and actually abuse the system. I find it somewhat remarkable that applications can go for three or four or five or six or seven years, with a variety of applications of various kinds, and not yet be disposed of. Even the most reasonable-thinking person would have to ask whether we have allowed too much in the system, for it to be abused to that extent.

This is one of those protectors, I suppose, and still fairly wide and equitable.

[Rick Stewart]

It acts in that regard, while supporting the objective of family reunification, yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Those are all the questions I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We've completed our seven-minute rounds. We've completed our five-minute cycle as well. Now we go to five-minute rounds, and we'll go in the usual sequence. We will go to Mr. Telegdi, Mr. St-Cyr, Ms. Chow, and then continue the same as if we were on seven-minute rounds.

So I'll go first of all to Mr. Telegdi.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, our meeting finishes at 5:30. Can you put aside a bit of time so that we can have sufficient time to consider the motion prior to the conclusion of this meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you mean to deal with the motion itself?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Yes, that's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Well, the motion is in order to deal with that because it relates to the hearings we have, so we can do that.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Perhaps we could have at least 20 minutes for the motion, or 15 to 20 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Is 20 minutes too much time or too little time? I'll ask the committee.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Give her half an hour, Mr. Chairman.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Was that half an hour? Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's half an hour for the motion. Okay, then we have five minutes left in our hearing, so a five-minute round will go to Mr. Telegdi. Then we will adjourn to deal with the motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Telegdi.

Order, please.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I have had a little problem, going back--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order.

We'll see what we can do to accommodate those who never got an opportunity to speak. Since I've recognized Mr. Telegdi, I'll give Mr. Telegdi his five minutes. Then, since Mr. Batters never got a chance, I'll give him a couple of minutes as well. Then we will adjourn and go to our motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Telegdi.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I want to get things back on the motion.

We are talking about is not marriages of convenience and fraudulent marriages and multiple applications and all that stuff; what we are talking about is getting a determination of the case for the person who has applied that this is legitimate or not legitimate before removal is made. That's all we're dealing with. Nobody's interested in having fraudulent marriages that are able to stay. It is the determination when the applications pour in, and it's your department, Mr. Stewart, that makes the decision on it.

The only thing the motion talks about is that until that process is completed, we do not waste time having the border security in, but make a determination on that case. Once that case is completed, if there's a need for border security to be in, then they are in. Until that takes place, having border security involved seems to me to be a real waste of bureaucratic time and a misspending of resources.

From my end, I go back to the parliamentary secretary. It seems to me--and I'm sure Mr. Khan would agree--that the security check should begin immediately, as well as the medical. That just seems to be prudent. All the motion talks about is that once an application is made and until a determination is made on it, border security has no business being in there. Any time they spend on it is totally useless. They should be out there looking for the criminals. That should be the priority, because we have a legitimate process going forward.

Just because CIC is slow in coming to a resolution, the family and the person who made the application should not be penalized. If the determination is that this is not an authentic relationship, then by all means remove the person. That is what we're talking about. Getting in there about fraudulent marriages and marriages of convenience....

You know, the whole issue here is very simple: it's to make a determination. Given the fact that 90% of the ones that are decided upon are legitimate, I think we should make sure everybody gets the opportunity to have their case heard.

I really would like to have statistics on that 11%, because nobody around this table wants to facilitate marriages of convenience. I think any suggestions to that effect are wrong.

What we want is a determination made on those cases that go before you, and you're going to have to say yea or nay on the authenticity of those applications.

[Rick Stewart]

I guess what I'm saying, sir, is that I recognize that, and with respect to direct reference to the objective of the motion, the provisions that we have under the act, under the regulations, and the flexibilities we've put into place were designed to be able to get us to a position to make a determination in virtually all cases that we can get to. Will it cover exactly 100% of all cases? Can we offer that guarantee here today? No, because there are going to be specific circumstances around some cases that mean there is going to be an objective or a reason to move on removal, and you referred to a couple of them in your comments.

What are those factors that lead us to not being able to make a determination in 60 days? We look at that--on what basis are we having difficulty reaching a final decision?--and we determine whether or not to proceed with the removal. I'm sure there are many cases where we've hit that 60 days where we've determined that it is not expeditious or efficient or effective to move forward on a removal, and we will wait to provide the time for our final decision.

So most of the conversation, I think, is really focused around a very small percentage of cases where, for some reason, there was a compelling reason, and the specifics of the case will have to dictate what that looks like, I think, when we've decided to move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

I'm going to give Mr. Batters an opportunity to ask a question or two.