Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 31st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It won't be today.

I don't mean to be so flippant; we'll get to it...sometime.

Is there a general consensus that the chairman and the clerk will try to arrange for five and five on Thursday, and we'll keep our fingers crossed that there's peace, order, and good government? I see there is.

Then Ms. Chow's suggestion was that we would then revert to the foreign workers study on the first Tuesday back. Is there general consensus on that? I see a nodding of heads, but no hands. That gives me and the clerk some guidance. Thank you very much.

I would like to introduce two people who seem to be here all the time. From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Mr. Rick Stewart, associate deputy minister of operations; from the Department of Justice, we have Ms. Dawn Edlund, senior general counsel. You are here to brief us on the study of funding of settlement services. Could one or both of you make some introductory comments? After those remarks, we'll proceed with questions.

Welcome to the committee.

[Rick Stewart, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be back again.

I will take the opportunity to offer some introductory comments to set the stage for this conversation today. I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here today and to provide you with an overview of the settlement program at CIC and of the criteria involved in funding service provider organizations that deliver CIC's programs and services to newcomers in Canada.

As members of this committee are well aware, currently litigation is before the courts with respect to a certain service provider. I'm afraid that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on or answer any questions about that matter while it is before the courts.

I understand this may be frustrating for honourable members, but there is a long standing tradition of allowing such matters to unfold in the courts.

Let me put this in context. The federal government has been making provisions in its annual Main Estimates for payments to non-profit organizations since 1950 in order to provide settlement services to immigrants in Canada.

Today, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has some 900 contribution agreements with more than 350 service provider organizations across the country.

In 2006 there was a substantial increase in additional settlement funding in the amount of $1.4 billion over a five-year period to support the integration of newcomers into Canadian communities and the labour market. Previously we also had three separate programs with different terms and conditions for newcomers: the so-called LINC program, language instruction for newcomers to Canada; ISAP, the immigrant settlement adaptation program; and the HOST program, as well as a separate program for refugees, the RAP program. Now we have one overarching program. It combines LINC, ISAP, and HOST programs with a single set of terms and conditions to make it easier for service providers to help newcomers with the best combination of services for their needs. This new approach simplifies the administrative process so that service providers can spend more time and energy serving the newcomers.

Proposals and applications for contribution agreements come to us primarily through calls for proposals, although we also give consideration to entering into new agreements with service providers whose service contract is expiring.

In all cases, proposals are assessed to determine whether they provide good value for money and are aligned with and support CIC's priorities and programs. With the addition of the Multiculturalism program to CIC's responsibilities, the promotion of social cohesion becomes more important.

Any decision to enter into an agreement with a service provider organization involves a comprehensive assessment of the organization, and covers a range of factors.

These include activities in which the organization is engaged, newcomers using the services and quality of services provided to them, use of public and other funds, organizational governance and other considerations that tell us about whether we should be partnering with an organization.

The department also seeks information to verify an organization's legal status and reputation, such as whether an organization is financially and structurally solid. For example, supporting documentation may be requested and acquired, such as governance structures, latest audited financial statements, proof of Canadian citizenship or permanent residence status, minutes of meetings, research papers, and so on. The assessment process is documented to exercise due diligence. Once the review is completed, the application is submitted to the relevant manager.

CIC staff maintain regular contact with service providers and conduct activity and financial monitoring to ensure adequate oversight, service delivery, and accountability. Service providers are required to submit monthly reimbursement claims for services incurred and paid throughout the period of the agreement. These claims are verified by staff before payments are made for services rendered.

To be clear, CIC pays for regular services only after they have been performed.

Contribution agreements must comply with the Treasury Board Policy on Transfer Payments. They must accurately reflect the terms and conditions for settlement contribution programs.

They must also deliver program objectives and results, meet the newcomer needs identified in annual priorities, and represent a sound investment in cost-effective delivery by competent, efficient, and reliable service providers. Once agreements are signed, CIC monitors them to ensure control over the spending of public funds and to ensure that the stated program and agreement objectives are met. Throughout the process, settlement officers maintain a full written record on file. It entails certifying that agreed-upon services are being provided and that payments and advances are in keeping with expenditures and with the terms and conditions of the agreement.

We also ensure that the minister is kept regularly informed of the overall management of these programs. If problems are detected or complaints received, a specially focused review may be conducted to help determine the nature and extent of the corrective action or the amendments that may be required.

It's important to note that agreements are not automatically renewed. The decision to undertake a new contribution agreement takes into consideration a broad range of evidence. This would determine whether an organization should continue to receive contribution funding in accordance with the laws and policies of the Government of Canada. Funding may expire for a variety of reasons. Such decisions are based on the quality of previous service, the need for service, and the ability to deliver services and serve as an effective partner of the department and the Government of Canada. In this regard, CIC may also consider an organization's public policy positions or pronouncements.

Some agreements are multi-year, offering service providers more stability, and CIC more flexibility, in program delivery.

In general, we would not engage in a new agreement if the service provider is in breach of the performance of, or does not comply with any terms, conditions or obligations on its part.

It is incumbent upon the department and the Government of Canada to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent in a manner that is accountable, provides good value for money, and is in line with the priorities and programs of the department and the government.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Merci.

I am pleased to answer your questions now.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just heard the senior official say that there is a court case going on. I also note that I thought the original purpose--I didn't suggest the study, but Mr. Dykstra did--was to look into the funding of a certain organization. Oh, it isn't? Okay.

I notice that a certain organization and some of the folks that are planning to come seem to be dealing with the issue that I originally thought Mr. Dykstra was looking at. If now that is in court and we cannot look into the details of it, can we still talk about funding? It makes the witnesses.... Or does it not? I didn't suggest this study, as you recall. I had some hesitancy about doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't think it's a point of order. The topic is to talk in general terms about the funding of settlement services. Mr. Stewart has made a comment about potential legal matters that are before the courts. I think we all know of at least two. One may have ended yesterday. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. It depends on whether there's an appeal, I suppose.

It's not a point of order, but it's a point. In anticipating that issue, the questions may be directed, directly or indirectly, to matters that are before the court. Members may or may not ask those questions. They may or may not be relevant. I have anticipated asking Mr. Walsh, who is here, to provide, if necessary, an opinion on that very topic.

Your issue is not a point of order, but it's a point. I'm not going to ask Mr. Walsh to address the committee yet, because those questions may not be asked. I have had brief discussions with the witnesses, and the chairman's opinion is that obviously the witnesses are a little concerned about prejudicing some lawsuit, as should we be. They may be good, legitimate questions, but I don't think this committee wants to prejudice anybody.

I'm going to end there and have Mr. Bevilacqua take the floor for seven minutes.

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

I actually called the clerk about that last week when I discovered there was a court case and perhaps we wouldn't want to do this study.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's up to the committee members. I've had my say. You've had your say. Let's proceed with Mr. Bevilacqua for seven minutes.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I think you've raised some very important points that the committee ought to discuss in camera, if that is the will of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is that agreed?

I've raised some issues, and maybe I shouldn't have, but they're out there. I'm going to ask everyone, with the exception of Mr. Walsh, to retire for a few moments. We'll suspend so we can proceed to in camera proceedings.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Order, please. Thank you for your patience.

Mr. Stewart and Ms. Edlund, I thank you for coming. For a slew of reasons, we are going to end your presentations today. I thank you for coming. The committee has decided for a number of reasons, which I am not prepared to go into, that we are going to postpone this study until the future. The committee will decide at a later date when we're going to proceed with this study.

I'm sorry to take an hour of your time this morning. I thank you very much for coming, and you are excused.

[Rick Stewart]

Thank you. We appreciated the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, I'm going to return to a topic that we must set in some sort of order. We do have an hour. It's up to the committee. We have less than an hour, actually; it's 50 minutes. The topic has been raised by Mr. Dykstra with respect to Mr. Calandra's motion.

The chair normally would say, well, we get these notices of motion and we should put them in the subcommittee. On the other hand, we have 50 minutes now.

Ms. Chow.

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

Mr. Chair, I think it is important that we deal with motions as they come to us. I don't think we need to send this to the subcommittee, because the subcommittee deals with agenda items. And if this motion is properly in front of us, given that we have a little bit of time, there's no reason not to deal with it today.

Once you've decided, then I'll speak to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead, Mr. Bevilacqua.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we could have the clerk remind us of a motion that basically embodied the same subject matter, and whether that motion was reported to the House, and then whether this motion is contradictory to the previous motion the committee already pronounced itself on.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Chaplin]

During meeting number four, the committee adopted the following motion:

That, in the opinion of the Committee, the government should declare a moratorium of deportations to Sri Lanka until a safe environment exists there, and that it should expedite any family class sponsorships and refugee claims from the danger zone; that the Committee adopt these recommendations as a Report to the House and that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the Chair present it to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sir?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Yes, basically that's the spirit of it.

Also, would Mr. Calandra like to speak on his motion? I do have some concerns in reference to the language also: “That, in the opinion of the Committee, the Government of Canada should continue to deport individuals to Sri Lanka who may have serious...”. “Who may”?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. The chair believes the majority of members are prepared to proceed with this motion now. We have 45 minutes.

Mr. Calandra, would you formally move your motion.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Yes, sir.

Sir, I move that in the opinion of the committee, the Government of Canada should continue to deport individuals to Sri Lanka who may have serious criminality issues or may have participated in war crimes, and that the recent motion passed by this committee be withdrawn; that the committee add these recommendations as a report to the House and that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the chair present it to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you have any comments, Mr. Calandra?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Yes, I do, just a few comments.

I was hoping, after reflecting on the previous motion, that perhaps the members opposite would seriously reconsider how they voted the last time. It's just an opportunity to redress what I think was a serious flaw.

I speak in particular of instances in my riding where members of the Sri Lankan community have expressed some extraordinary concerns that certain individuals would be protected in Canada who should not be in Canada. There was a recent case of a gentleman—and I can't pronounce his name properly and wouldn't do it justice if I tried—who was a member of a violent Toronto street gang, accused of the fatal shooting of two teenagers, a meat cleaver attack, the trashing of a community centre, threats, assaults, and credit card theft. He was a member of a violent Tamil gang known as the AK Kannan, named after their favourite weapon, the AK-47. The Tamil community in particular was—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Can I interrupt you for a second, Mr. Calandra? I'm sorry.

I consulted with the clerk, and this is what I've been advised: that a committee can reverse itself on a motion. It can do that. Initially it sounds as if your motion is in order, and I guess technically it's in order. However, on behalf of the committee, I submitted a report to the House and that report cannot be changed, as I understand it, unless there is unanimous consent in the House. Your motion is in order, but essentially the committee would be putting two different views forward to the House, which creates a problem.

I'm going to rule your motion is in order, but it's going to create problems for me. I submit these reports on behalf of the committee, and it's going to create a problem when I present that report, if it carries. Your motion may or may not carry. If it carries. then we would have two contradictory reports before the House, unless you can persuade the members of the House to unanimously withdraw the other report. I'll allow you to continue, but that's a problem the chairman has.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can appreciate the position I put you in, but one of the great things about democracy is that people can change their minds. I am confident that upon further reflection and when individuals on both sides of the House have had the time, as we've had, to digest and reflect what we've actually done by the motion, in fact there may be a good chance of getting unanimous support from the House to protect Canadians and make sure people accused of serious crimes—terrorists and other criminals—aren't the types of people Canadians want roaming the streets. I think members on all sides of the House would agree that they don't belong in Canada and that the Government of Canada or the bodies they represent—the IRB, Canadian Border Services—have the opportunity to remove these people.

While I do appreciate the trouble you would be in, I do think it's a very, very important issue we should be looking at, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Calandra.

Ms. Chow.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty with these words: “may have serious criminality issues”—the word “may”. Who will decide whether they have or they have not? Someone tomorrow can say that I may have serious criminality issues even though I don't think I do. It's not talking about conviction. I know I don't. Let's put it the other way.

It also says “may have participated”. So who would decide whether the person has participated or has not participated? It's not talking about conviction. In this country, we want to presume a person is innocent until proven guilty. The wording itself gives me great trouble.

Secondly, it said that the recent motion passed by this committee be withdrawn. I don't think we can do so.