Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 5th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, we will have a vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal.

(Amendment agreed to)

We have the motion by Ms. Kwan, as amended, on the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to mention that I spoke, today, with the students affected by this, and they are growing extremely impatient for some action. They'll be very happy to see, finally, that this committee is taking some action.

One thing I think we have to be very careful about, at least from the Conservative perspective.... We are all for not immediately deporting these students, because there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. We are also certainly open to their obtaining PR status. However, we are concerned about creating a special pathway for these particular students. We have the pathways that are there. I think what all these students want is to be considered, like anyone else, for permanent status. They're not asking for something special that way.

I have a subamendment that I would like to propose in this regard.

Towards the end, the current one reads, “waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation and provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted”. I would like to delete “an alternate pathway to permanent status” and replace it with “a path to reapply for permanent residency”.

It would read.... I'll start at “call on the Canada Border Services Agency to immediately stay pending deportations of affected international students, waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation and provide a path to reapply for permanent residency for those impacted,” and it carries on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Please just let me write it down. Is it “a path to reapply”?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

It's “a path to reapply for permanent residency”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It will read “on the basis of misrepresentation and provide a path to reapply for permanent residency for those impacted”.

We have a subamendment by Mr. Redekopp on the floor. Mrs. Lalonde wants to speak to it.

To bring on record what Mr. Redekopp said, this committee adopted a motion earlier. Everyone was in favour of it, that the legislation would have priority. Based on that, we had to get through the legislation to get on to any other business of the House.

That's why the committee has been going through meetings on Bill S-245. It's because of this motion the committee has passed, that the legislation holds a priority. I just want to put it on record that we had to get through that legislation before we could do anything else.

Next we have Mrs. Lalonde and then Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

I'll let Mr. Dhaliwal go first, and maybe I'll share some thoughts after. I really want Mr. Dhaliwal to speak on this issue that is very important to all of us.

I know my colleague would really appreciate the opportunity to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Redekopp, Brad, on the other side for bringing this forward and for the way he's thinking. In fact, the way he's thinking is that the students were here. They already went through school. They got their diplomas or degrees. They got the experience. Basically, the way he's saying it is that students are not just beggars who take immigration for granted. There are many other people who have gone through the same path as well. There are probably hundreds of thousands of those other students who will feel that it's fair.

I think that is the approach he's taking. They are competing with other students who came through other means. That's what it meant.

I would like Brad to reflect on this one, please, on if I'm right about the way he's thinking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mrs. Lalonde, do you want to speak?

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

I just want to understand the member's decisions for this subamendment. I hear my colleague, who is an expert in this and is certainly closer to the file from an emotional.... I would like to hear a little more, because my understanding is that we're asking to delete “alternative pathway” and add “provide a path to reapply for permanent residency”.

I know the member mentioned that he spoke to several of those students. Does he have assurance that they already have...? Are they reapplying? Have they applied already?

Maybe he can share some thoughts.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

As you were speaking, one thing that did rise in my mind that we should maybe think about is that probably not every one of them has applied. That is a fair statement. I think most of them have, and that's when this issue came up, actually. It was when they applied. That's when the CBSA finally went and actually looked at the papers from five years ago and realized they'd made a mistake five years ago.

Maybe it should say “a path to apply or reapply”, but I think the key point is that I don't think anybody's asking for any special treatment. They just want to have the ability to apply for permanent residency, or reapply, as is necessary.

I would be fine if we wanted to say “a path to apply or reapply for permanent residency”. That would work, too, because that's the intent of it.

I would agree with what Mr. Dhaliwal said; he's correct.

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

What's the difference? That's my point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I have a speaking list: Ms. Rempel Garner, Mr. Ali and then Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Rempel Garner is next.

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

Just to build on Ms. Lalonde's question, I think what's happened in this situation is that there are some parallels to what we were seeing with the facilitation letters in the Aghan study that we were looking at, where people thought they had applied for programs, but they didn't actually apply because.... I'm looking at Mr. Redekopp for confirmation. They thought they had applied, but essentially they were scammed in this circumstance. Is that right?

On the words “reapply” or “apply”, I think it's all being used in the same context, in that there was intent by these people to apply formally. They thought they were applying through a correct path, but they were scammed. I think the spirit of Mr. Redekopp's text and Ms. Kwan's original text is the same thing, from what I'm taking. It's just that for my colleague Mr. Redekopp, what I think he's trying to say, Ms. Lalonde, is that there doesn't need to be a separate special program. The pathways already exist, so let's use the existing pathways that already exist to allow them to come in, rather than creating a special program.

That's my understanding, and I would hope there would be unanimity on that. I think the key thing here that we all agree on is that at the heart of the issue these people were scammed. We have a duty of care to ensure that doesn't happen again, that they're not in a position of vulnerability and that due process is still applied. I don't think anybody is saying that due process shouldn't be applied. In that context, that's why I would support Mr. Redekopp's amendment.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that would be my understanding of what happened here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Next is Mr. Ali.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This issue is really important, especially in Brampton. I see many students who are struggling to deal with their situation. I have sympathy, and my office is assisting some of the students who fell into that situation of being banned for five years. Our constituency office is assisting those students.

I think it's a record as a government: In 2016, we had 264,000 students, but in 2019 there were over 400,000 students. We had a situation last year. There was an article on IELTS. For some students, the IELTS was not genuine. There was an article about a college in Niagara.

Now this is happening. Some students may be innocent or some.... We don't know until we go through a study on it. I think we should allocate the time to a study on this, to find out where something went wrong and how we deal with this issue without compromising the integrity of our system, of IRCC.

There's one more question that I wanted to ask Mr. Redekopp. He said that we should give PRs to people who were here for five years, but then, who applied or.... Yes, they can apply, but my point is, do we deal with the refugees who have been here for the last five years in a similar way...? Would that open another door?

I wanted to hear your thoughts on that, but yes, this issue is really important, and I think we need more time to discuss it as a committee and to bring forward suggestions or solutions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Ali.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The situation with the students is devastating. I think we all agree with that.

I've talked to a number of the students now, quite a number of them, actually, in the last number of days. Some of them have made an application to have their TRV extended, and now their system is hung up. Others are going through a process of trying to access and build towards a permanent pathway, which is ultimately what they want.

In this motion I've tabled, I'm saying to the government that we should acknowledge the suffering these students have undergone. One student I spoke with racked up $20,000 in legal fees as a result of this situation. They paid the fee to the unscrupulous consultant already. They paid student tuition to the school they were supposed to go to. However, they didn't end up going to it because they didn't know there was a fraudulent claim with that, so they went to that school to try to get access to the school and couldn't. Then, they went to another school after all of this, so they paid double the educational fee in this situation.

They have sold their land at home. They've sold everything they own at home. They have nothing at home. This is the reality they're faced with.

I think my motion calling for the government to provide an alternate pathway for these students is the right thing to do. Alternate pathways could mean a humanitarian, compassionate stream. They'd still have to go through the process in their application. I think it is the right thing to do, so I don't support the amendment. I'm sorry.

The Conservatives have taken a different point of view for a long time. In their other motion, they said to suspend deportation only until they get a chance to testify. I don't agree with that. I actually think we should suspend the deportation, not just until they testify but until there is a full remedy for the problem, including the waiving of inadmissibility based on misrepresentation and for that pathway to materialize.

I'm sorry. I don't support the amendment, and I would like my motion to stay as is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly feel very bad about these students as well, and particularly the ones who are facing deportation and have to go through this, but the way I see it is this. Some members of the committee might not know the system and how it works. What happens is that the student gets a letter from the school and then the admission is done. The student pays fees directly to the institution. What happens—single cases have come to me—is that they will do this, but this will also somehow be done by the agent. When they land here, they find out, or the agent tells them, that they didn't even have admission to that school, or it didn't even exist. What happens is that the student takes admission into another school. Basically, they start their life at some other school, like the 400,000 students Mr. Ali mentioned earlier. They are in the same lineup.

The main focus that I see right now is the fraudulent letter. What damage did that fraudulent letter do to those students? They took their letter, and now they're facing a five-year deportation ban. I would support Madam Kwan on this one. This should be abolished right away. This should not be on their record. They were not aware that this letter that was given to them was fraudulent.

On the other hand, our dear friend Mr. Redekopp on the other side has brought a motion forward. Basically, I think he's saying that they got in here, for example, on this letter they were issued, and we are already dealing with that. That fraudulent letter should not put a five-year ban on those students. If those students have already taken admission in the other college, and they have gone through that process, they already have the number of hours they need, the qualifications they need, the exams they need and all the other requirements—medical, criminality check—so they are the ones who should be given immigration instead of a blanket being put over the whole thing.

If we go with a blanket thing, we're not certain; they're now saying there are 700 students, but I don't think there are 700 students. The number I see is about 200, or whatever the number is. Out of those 200, some of them might have already gotten their immigration and gone through the system already. Some of them have already completed all the requirements they needed to make sure they have the required number of points for express entry, or they have applied under some provincial program, such as BC PNP. There are a lot of pathways that students have already followed, but the major issue they are facing is deportation and this fraudulent letter. If they got the admission here, they are in the same lineup as any of the other students, the 400,000 or so students who came in, because that letter was the only thing. Now that letter is not going to have any impact on their application.

Is that the line Mr. Redekopp is thinking along, that it's fair to these students who have come under this fraudulent letter and it's also fair to those 400,000 or so students who are already here studying?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Next I have Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief.

I just want to address Mr. Ali's concern on fairness, which I think is fair for us to talk about.

The motion as it was originally worded reads, “provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted”.

The amendment that Mr. Redekopp is suggesting is, “provide a path to reapply for permanent residency for those impacted”.

I think it was Mr. Dhaliwal who suggested perhaps a subamendment to this amendment, which would say, “a path to apply or reapply”, but the implication that Mr. Redekopp's amendment catches is the fairness one, Mr. Ali. It suggests that we're not going to create a special stream for people, but we're going to allow them, if they were deemed inadmissible because of the fraudulent letters, to reapply or apply, as the case may be, through normal processes and due process.

I think it's really important for us to accept this amendment—and not just in this case. I don't know what's happening—'tis the season—but our committee this session has been seized with fraudulent letters of all sorts. I think we, as parliamentarians, have to be careful to not inadvertently create a pull or an incentive for ghost consultants to say, “Well, it doesn't matter. I'm going to issue these fraudulent letters and then I'm going to tell people that, guess what, the committee is now going to say that they have an alternative pathway.”

I don't want to put words in her mouth. I know that's not the spirit of Ms. Kwan's amendment, but I think it behooves us to be precise and say that we understand the humanitarian nature of the situation, but we also want to make sure we are using existing processes and due process, so that we're not being unfair—to Mr. Ali's component; that we're being equitable—but we're also not creating a pull factor by saying that when this type of fraud happens, we're going to create special circumstances. Frankly, that is what we risk happening in the Afghan letter cases as well, because there are civil cases right now.

I think we just need to be precise as a committee. We shouldn't be binding the government in a pull factor. I think that's the spirit of Mr. Redekopp's amendment here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Next I have Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to be very clear, I think we're all saying the same thing. We want the process to be fair. Mr. Dhaliwal said it should be fair to everyone, and I agree. We don't want anybody to have special treatment. By the same token, we want these students not to be penalized by a five-year wait because of something they had no control over.

That's why I think it is important they have a chance to apply or reapply, notwithstanding the fact that they potentially have this five-year issue.

I think we're all saying the same thing. If you like my words, great. If you don't, that's great too, but I suggest we vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I have a speaking list, so we will have to exhaust the list.

Mrs. Lalonde.