Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please.

The subcommittee on agenda and procedure met a couple of days ago. We agreed on the following report, the sixth report, and to place it before you for your consideration.

On Tuesday, March 27, we would adopt the draft report on the study on detention centres and security certificates. We would then go into Bill C-280, which you have before you, and receive testimony from departmental officials on Bill C-280. We would move to clause-by-clause on Bill C-280 on Thursday, March 29.

On Monday, April 16, we'll have the draft report on the loss of Canadian citizenship.

On Tuesday, April 17, and Thursday, April 19, it will be immigration issues and the IRB appointment process. We'll hear testimony from Jean-Guy Fleury, the former chair of the IRB.

I won't go through it all. You can go through it to see that this is what we're recommending and what we agreed to at the subcommittee meeting.

On Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, we'll again have the draft report on refugee issues, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be invited to present on the main estimates.

Are there any comments on the report?

Ms. Faille.

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

As for Québec law society, the association of lawyers for immigration is called Québec Immigration Lawyers Association or AQAADI.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. Are there any other comments on the report?

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I'm going through it for a minute. I have a point I want to make.

I notice that Bill C-280 is set for Tuesday of next week, with respect to evidence from departmental officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, it's Tuesday and Thursday.

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

Is there any reason the committee is not prepared to allow some witnesses to be called? I'm thinking of someone like the present or acting chair of the IRB.

I obviously haven't discussed it with the chair or departmental officials for implementation or otherwise, but we usually call some witnesses. I see there is no provision for witnesses here. Why aren't you calling witnesses? Can we think about that to see if we want to call them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, for Tuesday, we say “receive testimony from departmental officials”.

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

Yes, and then you're going into clause-by-clause. But do we not want to allow the opportunity for witnesses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you want more individuals?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

How many more witnesses, Chair?

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

There will probably be couple of witnesses anyway. This was not put on the agenda until now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. Mr. Siksay has a point to make on that.

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

Chair, we discussed it at the steering committee. We'd just come from hearings on refugee issues, where one of the main topics of the hearings was the Refugee Appeal Division.

I think our opinion was generally shared at the meeting that we'd heard lots of witnesses on this topic. We were more concerned about hearing from the department on any technical problems with the bill. Otherwise, we were prepared to go ahead to try to deal with this as expeditiously as possible, given all of the work we've already done on the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Mr. Telegdi, and then back you, Ed.

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

For that meeting, perhaps it would be very useful, Mr. Kitching, if you could get us a summary of all the witnesses related to the RAD, which you're getting for us anyway.

[Andrew Kitching, Committee Researcher]

That's right.

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

We could have it for the meeting and members could have it as a backgrounder.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Oh, I'm sorry.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

There is no question there were witnesses called on the overall refugee issues, and that was a perspective it's coming from. But we're dealing with a specific piece of legislation, a private member's bill that just came through the House. It may or may not have necessarily made it to the House, but it's here before the committee now, and I'm not taking away from any of the witnesses that were called. Certainly, their testimony could be incorporated.

But far be it from me or from anyone to say that you can't call some witnesses who may give a different perspective or have a different point of view on this issue, particularly when we've taken all the time we've taken, for instance, as we have on the lost Canadians. No one has been barred from testifying on that issue. We've gone the extra mile. We've incorporated four meetings, a great number of witnesses, and have been as cautious as one can be when we're dealing with something as significant as we are here.

I know that somewhere along the way there was some potential raised that we may want to streamline the operation of the Refugee Appeal Division and how the cases are handled, even by one of the former critics of this committee. There may be ways—I'll finish, and then you can make your comments—to improve upon the refugee process within the implementation of RAD. If we're going to implement it, let's not be short-sighted about it. There may be a way we can do it that is good for everyone in this room, refugees in particular, and it can be an enhancement to the system.

I don't think we necessarily want to—I'm getting there—not allow witnesses who would bring that perspective to the table. Certainly not too many, but I'm thinking of at least two or maybe three witnesses who could be brought before the committee to look beyond just where the bill is with the potential for constructive amendments perhaps. If we don't go there, that's fair enough, but I don't think we should take it away from this committee. I know it has not been implemented for some time, and I know that a number of ministers have not gone that way, but there may be a place where we can actually make things work better.

I know we're looking at the lost Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Is there any...?

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

The point I'm making is just building the case for why we shouldn't push something through when it's been around for years under various ministers. Allowing two or three witnesses to come before this committee is hardly being unreasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's the point I was going to make myself. Is there any problem with bringing a couple of extra witnesses before the committee if it is deemed appropriate? I'm hearing that there is a problem.

Mr. Wilson.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I would just like to say, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Komarnicki has raised the point twice or three times on the same issue. Go around the table and hear other people's points of view, because we have a steering committee to deal with issues like this. This is not a committee of the whole that's going to decide we're going to do this, this, this, and this.

This discussion has already been taken. We're hearing it a second, third, or fourth time. It's wasting valuable time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Ms. Faille.

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

I have been a member of the Committee since 2004. During that time, the Department has had many opportunities to do so. Ministers succeeded to Ministers. And they also had many opportunities to come before the Committee to express their vision. There is absolutely nothing new in Bill C-280 if you compare to the present legislation. All we are asking is to implement the provisions. You had one year to do so.