Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This motion brings us back to the period before the summer holidays. You may remember that, at the time, the Auditor General was before the committee and that I had asked her if she had the power to audit some aspects of CSIS activities related to immigration.

She had answered that she could but that it would be preferable for the committee to make that request. My objective is to show the motion to the Auditor General of Canada so that she can begin an analysis of the processes and methods used by CSIS in its investigations of immigration cases, the type of information it gets, the way it gets that information and the way it analyzes it in order to make recommendations.

I believe that most of us around this table receive in our riding offices many requests relating to parents wanting to immigrate in Canada. We know that the investigations carried out by CSIS are long and complex and that the results do not always seem to correspond to what we are told by the families or to what is in the files.

I have raised this matter several times with one minister or another, without success since the investigations of CSIS are confidential. We do not have access to them. In any case, the process is long and the results seem to be biased.

I don't want to go any further with this except to say that the Auditor General told us quite clearly that she could have a look at the methods and results of CSIS but that she would have to have a good reason to do so. This motion would give her that reason. Considering some of the events that happened two years ago, I believe it is high time that we have a closer look at the methods used by CSIS and at its conclusions in immigration cases. The Auditor General of Canada is the only person able to do that.

I very much hope that the committee will vote in favor of this motion so that this mandate can be given to the Auditor General.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Madam Folco.

You've heard the motion.

Andrew, please.

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

One of the more difficult situations we're faced with as members of Parliament when we're making an inquiry on any client is when we're told that a security investigation is going on. I'm at a loss, most of the time, to figure out what it's about. My experience has been that this just delays the case processing a great deal. I think it would certainly help the many families that are trying to be reunited in Canada to have a process that's much more expedient. Just stamping “security” on something, without any kind of oversight, essentially halts the program.

It so happens that I have a request with the minister right now. There's somebody who was married a year ago in India and is trying to get over here. I had the occasion to meet this person in India. She's a school teacher, and I can't for the life of me, from what I know about the case, figure out what, if anything, it has to do with a security situation. Once the stamp goes on, it becomes very difficult, and it really slows the process down.

So yes, we do need security clearances, but given the hardships they cause the individual and the families over here, I think it's something we'd have to make much more efficient.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Is there any further debate?

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I reviewed the motion, and initially my reaction was, is it our responsibility to tell the Auditor General what to do? But it's in the form of a recommendation. It deals with issues between Citizenship and Immigration Canada and CSIS, and it talks about methods and processes, the type of information used, and how that is working. So I think it has a connection, certainly, to our committee and to our department, and it's something I would be supportive of.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, if there is no further debate, we're ready for the question.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You're welcome, Madam Folco.

Go ahead, Bill.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chair, I wonder if a motion to report both these motions to the House separately would be in order. I'd like to move that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Now for the committee budget. This is the good part of it all. Do all members have a copy of the operational budget request?

I would imagine that this is quite standard, is it, Mr. Clerk?

So you have the budget before you.

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

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Andrew moves the budget.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Now what else do we have here? There is a motion about committee travel to Kingston. Do we have a copy of the motion for committee travel to Kingston?

That the Chair be authorized to seek an Order of Reference from the House of Commons for the Committee's travel to Kingston, Ontario from October 30, 2006 to October 31, 2006 so the Committee can continue their study on Refugee Issues and visit the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre.That the membership be composed of two Conservatives, one Liberal, one Block Quebecois, and one NDP, and the necessary staff accompany the Committee. That the Chair be authorized to plan and finalize the budget and itinerary for the Committee's travel to Kingston, Ontario from October 30 to 31, 2006 and present the budget to the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets of the Liaison Committee.

Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I only want to correct a typo in the English version where Block should be replaced by Bloc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, thank you. Unless there is some discussion on it--

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I would like to raise a few points on this issue. I know this was on the agenda that was passed in one big hurry moments before we broke. I have to say we really didn't have the kind of discussion on the agenda that I think we ought to have before the committee. Not to say that the agenda is not in basic good form, but certainly I think we left the meeting with the understanding that we'd come back to the agenda, have a further discussion on it, and maybe revisit it. I'm not so sure that we shouldn't have this motion put forward for another day and discussed in light of the bigger agenda.

Secondly, and I'm a little bit irked by this, when I try to put a motion on procedure I was told you have to have 24 hours' notice or something like that, and then we get a motion that can't be any different from my procedural one, put before you just as you're sitting here, without being given a chance to think upon it.

I feel the motion should be put forward when we have a look at the agenda, which I assume we will at some point, in the sense that we as a committee haven't had an opportunity to express our views whether indeed we want to travel to Kingston.

I know that the subcommittee, at least, felt they should, and my recollection is a one-day visit. And I'm not sure that we won't end up going there, but we as a committee as a whole we haven't discussed whether we want to make that kind of a trip. When it comes to making trips outside of here, we should at least probably discuss it around the table.

Those are my passing thoughts, that it should be combined with the agenda. If indeed we pass the agenda exactly as it is and we're going to go to Kingston, and that's the decision the committee makes, then we can appropriate the funds to do it.

I would prefer to see it combined together in the motion, to see it moved over to another time when we're dealing with the agenda itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

How does the committee generally feel about the parliamentary secretary's remarks? We could postpone it and have a meeting on it probably after our committee meeting on Tuesday, and sit down in a room close to our committee room and have a discussion on it.

It's a reasonable request, I suppose.

Bill.

I'm sorry. I'm going to have to get a wider vision here. Mrs. Folco is first.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

You're turning to the right too often. You should turn to the left very slightly from time to time. No, I understand.

My comments and those of the parliamentary secretary can be summarized in the following manner. When we took a vote on the discussion and on the recommendations of the steering committee, thare had been no debate on these matters. Therefore, I had understood, perhaps mistakenly, that next week we would take the time to discuss those recommendations in committee. One of those recommendations relates to the trip to Kingston.

I would move that we take the time to discuss all the recommendations of the steering committee in order to see if the whole committee wants to do all those things. That would include the discussion. It seems to me that we should consider that trip in the context of all the other initiatives that can be taken by the committee and not as something separate.

In conclusion, I recommend that we not vote on this motion. Personnally, I do not intend to vote for the motion. I suggest that we wait until we've had a discussion on all the recommendations of the steering committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Madame Folco.

Any further submissions on that?

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chair, maybe you can offer some advice. It seems to me that what both the parliamentary secretary and Madame Folco are suggesting is that we reconsider the passage of our motion we passed at the last meeting. We've already done that, and outside of a motion to move back and reconsider, I don't know how we proceed on this.

As a committee we've accepted the work plan that came forward from the agenda and planning committee. The motion was passed, and I think what we have now are administrative motions to put that plan into operation. This is a very important trip that we engage.

I know the parliamentary secretary's been concerned that we hear from the department before we undertake some pieces of the work and in this case we did schedule the department to come to talk to us about the holding centre and the policies that surround it before we go to Kingston. It was one of the issues on our priority list that the whole committee agreed to and voted on back in the spring, and at the agenda committee there was all-party agreement that this was an important trip to take.

I strongly support this motion and would like to proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. Our subcommittee recommendations contained a recommendation to go to Kingston, and we've already passed our subcommittee report is what you're saying, which is true.

Parliamentary Secretary.

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

However, Mr. Siksay would agree that what happened at the last meeting was a discussion regarding the agenda, which is the essence of the committee. One minute before break somebody made a motion, and it passed without any discussion about the substantive part of it, without any input from any of us as to whether we agreed or disagreed or had some input, and we had a steering committee composed of a very small group.

To suggest that as a committee we can't revisit it now.... I thought the understanding when we left was let's pass this now, but we can revisit it later if we have some issues with it. At least that's how I understood it. I didn't have an opportunity to even speak to the motion, because everything was closing down.

I say this: It's not so much the subject matter of the agenda that has significant problems, but there are areas that need to be discussed. If we take the approach that we can't have input on how we organize ourselves or add or supplement what you've put together in that motion, what have we done?

If it takes a motion to revisit it, then I would move that we revisit it in the proper fashion where there's give and take and discussion. I don't mind losing on the motion, and I've done that often enough, but I do mind not having the opportunity to speak to it and have my views put forward so somebody can hear them and agree or disagree with them. To suggest that what happened at the last meeting was any kind of discussion at all is not so. It happened on the spur of the moment.

To be fair, this committee should revisit the agenda as a whole and this item as well. Obviously, if we decide we're going to Kingston, that's what we're going to do and we'll need the money to do it, and you'll have my agreement that it should be paid for. But I think it should be dealt with in the context of the whole agenda. Obviously, there are some holes in it.

It's a very sketchy rough particular document and it needs to have some debate. I would ask the committee to reconsider putting this thing to a vote now. I don't disagree with the essence or the content of this particular motion, but just the way it's coming forward. In the end, I may be able to support it, but only after we've had the opportunity to bring this thing back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, and just to add, I did give some indication at our last meeting that the subcommittee agenda--and I had it written on my subcommittee agenda--wasn't written in stone, that we could visit it and talk about any changes we might want to make in the subcommittee agenda. I remember making that statement last time. In any event, the committee is master of its own affairs.

Andrew is next.

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

We got into this mess because of the timing. We normally always discuss in the greater committee what comes out of the subcommittee, but this didn't come up until very late in the agenda and the motion was put forward: let's move it. I think the motion came from over there.

We should make sure that's what we do in future. In the present circumstances we should spend time discussing it, because otherwise it will seem as if we rushed the motion through. Legitimately the committee members want to have an opportunity to think about it and absorb it, and they didn't get the minutes until the meeting.