Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Jan. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

We will resume in public. We had two people on the speaking list. It's Ms. Lalonde, then Mr. Dhaliwal, and then we will come to Ms. Kwan.

Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As we were having a conversation, we were talking about the motion that we are to study as soon as possible. There have been lots of efforts on the part of the clerk in trying to reach out to the ministers. I know one of our ministers has agreed. Maybe the clerk could clarify with this committee, through you, Madam Chair, whether the invitations to ministers were for specific dates or for a range.

My second question would be whether they could have the officials come for one hour next week in order to not lose our scheduled time. If no one is available on that specific day, members of this committee who want to work may just want to have it cancelled. For the officials next week—in order not to lose any scheduled time—would it be the plan to have officials come back for a second hour when the ministers appear? If the ministers, in the end, decline the invitation, the officials would come back for that second hour anyway.

I'll give an example, through you, Madam Chair. Was the Minister of Justice—and that's particularly relevant to my first question—given one date and was the next meeting date offered to GAC, etc., or was each minister offered one of the four dates?

I think it would be important to clarify that for our members.

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'll ask the clerk to please clarify that. Were the ministers given a range or some specific dates?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Stephanie Bond]

Thank you.

The way invitations are normally issued, it's per day. Upon a decline by the deadline, an alternate date is provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

To clarify for the members before we go further—and I have people on the speaking list—the schedule of the committees came out, I think, about 10 or 12 days before we resumed. The clerk can start working on booking the ministers only once we know which days of the week we are meeting. The calendar was not very clear about whether it would be Tuesday, Friday, Monday, Wednesday or whatever day. When the calendar of the committees came, the clerk started going into it.

I have a speaking list. It's Mr. Dhaliwal, Ms. Kwan, Mr. Kmiec and then Mr. Redekopp.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Carrying on with what Marie-France said earlier about the dates, were the dates that were given to the ministers specific dates, or were they given a wide range of dates? That is very important. I don't think the clerk has clearly indicated that, even though she said that one date was given and then the alternate date was given. I would like to clear that up.

Secondly, as you said, Madam Chair, for this committee and its business, the number of days and the days we can work came out recently. I want to know, because I have previously seen the ministers appear here on very short notice as well.

This the first time I'm hearing, on this committee, that ministers are not coming and that they're trying to avoid it. I don't think that is the case, because the ministers have always been accessible to this committee. Sometimes, in a month, I have seen the Minister of Immigration appear three times.

Hopefully, we will start working, and all of the ministers will be given ample opportunity to appear on different dates that are flexible and with enough notice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

The clerk sent out the invites for February 6 to GAC, for February 13 to Justice and for February 15 to DND. These were the dates they were given. They have declined. Once a minister declines, only then can the clerk give them the second date and start working on that.

The Minister for IRCC has accepted for February 8, but the other three ministers are not available on February 6, February 13 or February 15.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

It's very clear, Madam Chair, from your deliberation, that the ministers were not given open days. They were given specific dates and probably less than two weeks' notice. It's very reasonable that we should give ministers open days for all those meetings. Give them to all the ministers and see which minister can fit them into their schedule instead of just going to one and then waiting for them to reject it.

We would not have this issue here in this committee if we had handled it that way. I think we should certainly give ministers leeway to put this into their schedule. I'm certain that they will be very happy to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

We will try to work...but at times we have to give them specific days in order to get answers.

I have a speaking list. Next is Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Just to be clear, this motion was passed by the committee on October 7. Since that time the committee has had 12 meetings. One would assume that since the motion had passed we would be inviting these ministers to come to the committee.

What are we talking about? We're talking about Afghanistan—the report that was done by the Special Committee on Afghanistan. We're talking about the 37 recommendations that committee had made to the government, and their response to it.

Meanwhile, we have Afghans who are being hunted down by the Taliban. Their lives are in grave danger for the simple reason that they helped Canada with its missions.

Meanwhile we have a third country, Pakistan, which has issued an enforcement for people who are there without a visa or with an expiring visa. They will be jailed or sent back to Afghanistan.

I have information that has been provided to me that the police in Pakistan have raided a hotel where they generally know that some of the Afghans have been staying, waiting for the processing of their application to get them to safety.

The situation is very real. Some people have already lost their lives, by the way. Some of the family members have not had any contact with what's happened with these individuals. We're talking about a gravely serious and urgent situation.

The committee passed the motion to ask for four ministers—the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and, of course, the Minister of Immigration—to come before the committee for two hours each. That includes officials. So far we have had none. The only minister who has given a positive response is the Minister of Immigration. He offered to come before the committee, but that happened to be at the time when we needed to do the supplementary estimates as well, and we needed to deal with them in time.

Therefore, we deferred that time, so I'll give credit and recognition to the Minister of Immigration, but where the heck are the other ministers? Why can't they make their schedule available? How many meetings do we need to offer them? I get it that in this new session we have now offered them four meetings—the 6th, 8th, 13th and 15th. Not one of them is available, with the exception of the Minister of Immigration.

I thought the Afghan file was a whole-of-government operation. The recommendations involve all these ministers. The Afghanistan committee no longer exists, so this is the only place we can engage in this dialogue to see where the government's at and see what's happening and what other action needs to be taken to bring people to safety. We owe these individuals this much.

I don't accept the idea that the ministers are not available. They are busy people. Well, we're all busy people, but let me say this: Most urgently the people who are being hunted down are people who are waiting, and what are they busy with? They're trying not to get killed.

Let's get on with it. I don't accept it. I want to know from the clerk, Madam Chair, through you, how many times we invited each of those ministers to come before the committee before the holiday break, since October 7, when the motion was passed? How many times have they rejected or said that they were too busy, that they couldn't come? What do we need to do to make sure they come?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

In regard to your question, for December the ministers were contacted to come on December 2, 6 and 9. Three dates were given to them—December 2 to DND, December 6 to GAC and December 9 to Justice. They were not available. Then they were given these dates—February 6, 13 and 15.

To clarify again—I have said it earlier also—we could start working on these January/February dates only once we knew when the committee would be sitting. We were not able to start immediately after the new year to start working on the dates available, because we had no idea which day the committee would be sitting.

I'll go on with the speaking list. Next is Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

It's not often I do this, but I'm going to agree with my New Democratic colleague. I know that's a shocker, but I was going to say many of the same things. The member is absolutely right.

This motion was passed on October 7. There have been many opportunities. The ministers have exempt staffers and directors of parliamentary affairs who literally know when the schedules of committees are. It's not a surprise that we meet between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., or between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. There are set times in the week when that happens, and they've been offered many opportunities to appear. The immigration minister, to his credit, appears at this committee when it's requested, but on this particular file, like Ms. Kwan said, this is supposedly an all-of-government approach and because there is a foreign affairs component to it, the global affairs minister should be here. There is a component for many other departments and there's ministerial accountability and responsibility attached to it.

In the calendar, when you go through it, there are only four free days. I noticed that the main estimates are not in here, and the supplementary (C)s are not in here, where we should dedicate time for the Minister of Immigration to return to the committee and explain the spending, both for the end of the last fiscal year and for the upcoming fiscal year. That doesn't leave a lot of extra opportunities for other ministers to come in with their officials to explain themselves.

If the ministers haven't been willing to provide their time to appear before this committee—because usually in my experience here on Parliament Hill, committees request the appearance of a minister, and most ministers feel that they have an accountability role to play for any parliamentary committee—they could be summoned as well. If they have to be summoned, they should be summoned to appear by the committee. We're asking for accountability.

We haven't reached a target of 40,000 Afghans brought to the country yet. I have emails in my inbox from people all over Pakistan, people in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan who have fled the Taliban and are hiding and have made applications to IRCC that are not being processed. Some of them either worked directly for the Canadian government or worked for a third party organization that was partially funded by the Canadian government in Afghanistan.

It's incumbent upon us. These ministers have an accountability that has to be honoured not only for the parliamentary committee reviewing their department but also other parliamentary committees. We're not lesser parliamentarians because we're not directly involved in the day-to-day policy issues that they have. If they're refusing to appear or they are making it extra difficult, this committee doesn't have that many extra days to consider it. We have four according to what the calendar indicates here, four free days, and we have other motions to consider. Like I said, we have estimates and supplementary (C)s, and if they're refusing to appear, then this committee should consider simply summoning the ministers one by one to appear before the committee when it's convenient for us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We'll go to Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On this issue of accountability, I also want to put in my two cents. We have an issue, as has been stated, with the Afghanistan situation, where we had people who worked for us. We all know the situation, as has been said today, of people who are literally worried for their lives and working to save their lives while we're, frankly, wasting time here with this.

The ministers have the responsibility to show up to talk to us. They've been given that opportunity. I just want to make sure they understand that they need to come here and that if they don't, we will work to summon them.

As has been said, this has been going on since October, so there have been lots of opportunities. There are a few constructive things that I would say.

I think we should offer them whatever date they want. We'll be happy to rearrange our schedule around them if that's what it takes. If that's the only way we can get the ministers here, then they should tell us what they can do and we will accommodate them if they can't accommodate us.

The other thing I would say is that on this issue of officials, I believe the motion said minister and officials together. That would mean two hours of both. I don't think there's any point in having one hour of officials. We want both at the same time. I think if we had the officials for one hour, that's just a waste of time in my mind, because we still have to get them back for two hours anyway, and we don't have a lot of extra slack in the schedule. I would say if we can't have the minister and officials together, then we can't meet on the subject.

As I said, we definitely need the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice. These are the three who have not responded to us. Those are the ones we need to respond and to actually come to the committee.

Madam Chair, while I have the floor, I would like to move a motion. It's the motion that I submitted to the committee on Friday. I don't know if you want me to read it or if we can—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, I would like you to read it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On a point of order, I just wonder if we can finish this business and get to the next, for consistency and cohesion purposes. We're just about done here in terms of giving direction as to what to do on the Afghan piece.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Is there a motion on the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Redekopp has the floor. If he wants to move the motion, then we will have to go there.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

We'll try to do this quickly. I can read it:

That, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and (2), the committee order

(a) the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the clerk of the committee, in both official languages and within three weeks of the adoption of this order, and notwithstanding any non-disclosure agreements which might be applicable, with respect to each contract entered into with McKinsey & Company since January 1, 2011—

Do I need to continue reading this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, you can read it.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

(i) requests for tenders or other procurement requests related to each contract, (ii) tenders, bids, proposals or other applications received in respect of those procurement requests, (iii) contracts entered into, including any amendments thereto, (iv) all correspondence and electronic communications, including emails, text messages, message app communications, and handwritten notes pertaining to these contracts, (v) statements of work performed by McKinsey & Company under each contract, (vi) all work product provided by McKinsey & Company under each contract, (vii) invoices provided by McKinsey & Company, (viii) records of all payments made to McKinsey & Company, (ix) the hourly and/or daily rates McKinsey & Company charged for each employee working under each contract, and (x) the names of project managers and/or project authorities from McKinsey & Company in relation to each contract, provided that these documents shall be circulated to the members of the committee forthwith upon receipt; and

(b) McKinsey & Company to provide, to the clerk of the committee within three weeks of the adoption of this order, and notwithstanding any non-disclosure agreements which might be applicable, with respect to each contract entered into with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada since January 1, 2011, copies of (i) all records referred to in paragraph (a), (ii) all records concerning the details and descriptions of work performed under each contract, (iii) time sheets documenting work done under each contract, (iv) the hourly and/or daily rates McKinsey & Company charged for work performed under each contract, (v) the names of project managers and/or project authorities from McKinsey & Company in relation to each contract, (vi) all records concerning subcontracts issued by McKinsey & Company in relation to each contract, including tenders, contracts, or memoranda of understanding (including any amendments thereto), invoices, payments and evaluations, (vii) all correspondence and electronic communications including emails, text messages, message app communications, and handwritten notes pertaining to these contracts, and (viii) the complete client list of all organizations McKinsey & Company has worked with since January 1, 2011, provided that these documents shall be circulated to the members of the committee forthwith upon receipt and translation into both official languages; and

That the committee report the foregoing to the House forthwith with a recommendation that it concur in and adopt the same, provided that

(c) references to “clerk of the committee” be read as “Speaker of the House”; and

(d) references to “circulated to the members of the Committee” be read as “laid upon the Table of the House and stand referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration”.

This is a very critical thing. We all know about the McKinsey situation with this government, which has given tens of millions of dollars, maybe $100 million or more. We heard in question period today that the Prime Minister refused to answer that question of how much was given.

We know there has been a significantly large contract given out to the IRCC department. That's specifically what we are after here, to look into those contracts and be able to have that information.

It's critical that we be able to do that here and that we get this information. That's the reason I want this motion to be adopted by our committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Redekopp has moved a motion.

I need to suspend to get some advice from the clerk. The meeting is suspended for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

Mr. Redekopp has moved a motion. We are on that motion.

Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

It's my understanding, upon conferring with you and the clerk, that in order to make this very important motion fly, for it to be technically correct, there needs to be a small amendment, which I will move.

I move to amend the motion to delete the entirety of the motion read after the word “and” in section (b)(viii). That would strike the following words from the motion:

That the committee report the foregoing to the House forthwith with a recommendation that it concur in and adopt the same, provided that

(c) references to “clerk of the committee” be read as “Speaker of the House”; and

d) references to “circulated to the members of the committee” be read as “laid upon the Table of the House and stand referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration”.

It's my understanding that this amendment is necessary, but I will continue to speak to the main amendment. What the amendment functionally does is ensure that the production of these documents is made to this committee. I would like to talk to my colleagues about why it's so important for these documents to be produced to this committee. My colleague, I believe, is going to speak to this as well.

These documents came to light and these contracts came to light due to something called an Order Paper question that another one of my colleagues put forward, where it came to light that there were close to $30 million of contracts put in place with this consulting company—which is not an insignificant amount; it's a very large amount for a consulting company to get—specifically around the issue of service transformation strategy.

Now, this committee has spent a long time, Chair, reviewing the very large backlog in Canada's immigration processing system. We've heard from witnesses, experts, over the last session, really hearing about the impact of the backlog on the Canadian economy and on our social and cultural fabric. For me, when we see the amount of money that was spent to bring in an external consultant to transform service delivery, and then we see service delivery get functionally worse, part of our jobs as members of Parliament is our fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer. We are the board of directors for the taxpayer, and to me it seems that service delivery got worse in spite of the government's paying tens of millions of dollars to a consulting company specifically for consulting that would ostensibly have made the backlog in the processing system better.

Something went wrong here. To me, on the surface there is a very big value for money issue that goes beyond just the taxpayer issue and actually affects lives. These are people who are languishing overseas; these are people who are unable to reunite with family members; these are businesses that can't get workers. The reason it's so important that this committee look at these documents is that we must be able to ascertain whether or not there was value for money that was spent, and whether or not the recommendations in this report or whatever deliverable this company purported to achieve actually would have made a material impact on the service delivery of immigration. I would argue at this point no, but I'm happy to be proven otherwise by this document. Also, if there were recommendations put forward by this company, where did they go? What happened to them?

This is a lot of money; this is an issue that is integral to the functioning.... For everybody in this room who does not have a government appointment, our number one job regardless of political stripe is to hold the government to account on issues like this so it doesn't happen again. We have the responsibility and the authority to produce documents as, in fact, that's one of the most important functions of parliamentary committees. We need to be looking at these contracts, we really do. The correspondence that my colleague has outlined in this motion is also integral to understanding how and why these contracts came about.

I'll close with this.

I would hope that everybody in this room understands that this company had to pay a lot of money in settlements due to its role in the opioid crisis in the United States of America. That is unconscionable. We also should be questioning whether or not it is right and just for our government to be giving taxpayer dollars to a company that has had a hand in activities like promoting the opioid crisis.

I understand that this company has also had other scandals abroad. I believe there are some issues around election interference allegations.

If we as parliamentarians do not request documents like this and do not undertake to correct situations like this, nobody will. The check and balance for public service officials who are involved in procurement is us. It's the people in this room. They have to know that they can't just rubber-stamp things and let tens of millions of dollars of contracts go through to a company with questionable ethics and then not have a deliverable and let service delivery get worse.

We are the check and balance. The public service is not managing to profit and loss in this situation, but it is managing to our diligence. That's why this is so important.

The amendment I am making here allows the committee to get these documents and this correspondence, to undertake this diligence and hopefully to provide some recommendations to the government to ensure better business practices, better value for money—for tax dollars—and some accountability for ensuring that service gets better and not worse in some of the most critical components of our government.

Thank you, Chair.