Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

He's good with it, so now the debate will continue on the amendment by Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Does everybody agree to the amendment?

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to have a recorded vote.

I agree with the comment that newcomers are not to blame, but I do not agree with the way in which the motion is framed. I would prefer it to be very clear and concise, like the motion I tabled.

I would like to have a recorded vote on the amendment and then a recorded vote on the actual motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Debate has not adjourned yet, so first of all, is there any debate on the amendment?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

It's a friendly amendment. Does it require a vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Even though it's a friendly amendment, it requires a vote.

Go ahead, Mr. Ali.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Is this a vote on the amendment?

[The Clerk]

Yes, exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment is carried.

We will now have the debate on the motion as amended by Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Kmiec has the floor.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Now that we've fixed the problem that the NDP mentioned, I agree that the the motion is very clear.

Why are we here? The ministers have been making multiple policy announcements and pronouncements in the media, either blaming international students for their decisions over the last eight years or pointing the finger at newcomers and immigrants, and they've said that the housing crisis is their fault.

I have a bunch of articles, and I'm going to point out why we say in every single part of this motion what other people have said, which is why these ministers have to come in to explain themselves. It's because they've contradicted each other and they have blamed newcomers and they have blamed immigrants. I'm glad that the committee is now going to pronounce itself on the housing crisis by calling the two ministers in and asking whose fault it is, which is eight years of Liberal government decision-making.

This is the Prime Minister's fault. It's not the immigrants' fault; it's the Prime Minister's fault. He made the decision, and it's his government, so he's the one who needs to be held accountable. The cabinet ministers are the ones following his lead and doing what he has asked them to do. They have mandate letters; they're making those decisions.

I have five articles I'm going to mention, because they have key quotes from these different ministers who are responsible for both the immigration file and the housing file. Let's start with the first one.

Global News reported on January 15 that “Tying immigration to homes [was] a 'good' idea” according to the housing minister, formerly the senior immigration minister. It quotes him, and this is a direct quote: “'Is the idea of tying the number of people who come to Canada to the number of homes available a good one? Yes. In fact, it’s one of the factors we have considered over the past number of years,' said Fraser during a housing announcement in Halifax on Monday.”

I'd like to know how he considered it. How was that taken into consideration?

There's a briefing note that's been talked about. Journalists have referred to it—they've asked me about it—that says that housing was part of the formula to set the targets. I've never seen this briefing note. I don't know where it comes from. I don't know the date it was issued. I don't know its content or the advice given in it, so I want the minister to explain to me what was going on.

On immigration specifically, again this is Sean Fraser. I'm going to call him the senior immigration minister, the supposed housing minister: “Fraser says temporary immigration programs are putting pressure on the housing system and creating a 'serious issue we need to address'.”

Obviously, that relates back to newcomers. He's pinning the blame directly on them.

The next article is from the National Post. This is a direct quote from the immigration minister, the current one, Marc Miller. “'Out of control': Immigration minister says he wants to reduce international student arrivals”. In the article, the journalist goes on say, “The increase is considered one of many factors leading to housing shortages and rent hikes across the country.”

On CTV Question Period on Sunday, January 15—these are direct quotes from the minister—he said, “'That volume is disconcerting. It really is a system that has gotten out of control.'” This is, again, the minister saying this, not us Conservatives. These are the minister's own words. He's saying that after eight years, the system is out of control.

He goes on to say, “'The federal government is the only actor here not making money off of this”. That's the minister's quote, as if making money off international students is somehow a consideration in whether the program should be operating or not. I don't know why that is, but the minister chose to say that on CTV's Question Period on Sunday.

National Newswatch from The Canadian Press said, “Federal government announces two-year cap on international student admissions”. It goes on to say here.... Again, these are the minister's quotes, but I have to say which one, the junior or the senior minister for immigration. This one is the junior one. “'It’s a bit of a mess,' he said of the student visa system. 'It’s time to rein it in.'” He goes on, “'It is not the intention of this program to have sham commerce degrees or business degrees that are sitting on top of a massage parlour that someone doesn’t even go to and then they come into the province and drive an Uber.'”

That was a direct quote. Here's another direct quote: “If you need a dedicated channel for Uber drivers in Canada, I can design that, but that isn’t the intention of international student programs.”

He kind of implies that there are sham commerce degrees or business degrees for which the federal government—IRCC, the Liberal government—has been issuing visas, visas for sham commerce degrees, sham business degrees. Obviously these persons, when they come into Canada, need a place to live and need services.

I've shown already that this is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. They bear responsibility for all of these decisions, which is why this motion must pass.

Another quote from is Bloomberg, because we've captured international media attention with the bumbling: “Canada to Cap Foreign Student Visas Amid Housing Shortage”. Again, it goes on to quote numbers and figures. It does mention that there are now over one million international study permit holders in Canada. That was based on an Order Paper question by one of our colleagues.

The minister says he blames the provinces, which is why he's putting a cap on the provinces. In this particular article, it says that “Miller has already pledged a designated-institution framework that will prioritize visas for post-secondary schools that provide higher quality education and adequate supports, including housing”.

He says, “including housing”. I'd like to know, then, why housing is so important to the international students' stream. A briefing note has been circulated. There's a deep connection being made by the minister between newcomers—international students—and housing. Some Conservatives were making the connection. It's the Liberal government ministers who are making this connection. We just want to hold them accountable. We want to find out information.

That's why this motion needs to pass. The fix proposed by the Bloc member has addressed all of the concerns that the New Democrats had and mentioned. This motion doesn't blame newcomers. It doesn't blame immigrants like me. It basically says that the ministers have been making these comments. They've been alleging it and they've been connecting the two together, and they've been doing it since August. However, they've really ramped up the rhetoric in the last 45 days.

The last one is from the National Post, from journalist Jamie Sarkonak. She says, “Crackdown on student visas is a welcome change, but will it be enough?”

Then the article goes on to relate the numbers. It talks about “exploitation of international students” going on in the greater Toronto area, and mentions two specific studies. It mentions how common it is for extortion, exploitation, sexploitation. It mentions that a specific “international education industry magazine echoed [these findings], reporting that a number of Toronto massage parlors were advertising Indian students for sex.” When did the ministers know about stuff like this? And it goes on and on in this format.

This motion is very specific. It refers to what ministers have said repeatedly. It now has a very good amendment from the Bloc MP, whose suggestion is exactly our point, which is that this is not the fault of newcomers and international students. They have been the targets of exploitation in some cases. Some of these plaza colleges do not provide legitimate education. The post-graduate work permit system has been abused in some cases. The ministers have been pointing fingers at each other, and at international students and newcomers, blaming them for the housing crisis.

We need to pass this motion. The two ministers must appear. They have to explain themselves on why this is the situation and how they made decisions and why they made these types of comments in the media.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

We have Madam Kayabaga, then Mr. Redekopp, and then Madam Kwan.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will not be supporting this motion for lots of reasons, one of them being that the words the minister said were actually taken out of context. I have gone back to the quote that the colleague has raised. The minister actually said that he recognizes that this has “added pressure”. Saying “added pressure” means that there was pressure already existing in the housing sector in our country. As far as I'm concerned, the housing minister has been working towards addressing that pressure that exists in the housing system of Canada.

These are also files that directly lie on the different provinces across the country, which are currently mainly led by Conservative premiers. The housing accelerator fund has been a system that we've been using to support municipalities. We're working with municipalities directly to give them money to build housing faster, housing that is green, and to make sure that people get affordable housing in our communities. Where are the provinces across the country on that? These provinces are led by Conservative premiers.

For this motion to point out all the comments that our colleagues have made, comments that have been misinterpreted.... There is a comment here that says the minister has said his department has agreed that they're responsible. That is not what was said, and that is misleading. That is misleading to this committee. It's also misleading for Canadians to think that housing shortages are caused by immigrants. That's not factual. Housing crises are caused by the fact that we're not building more on the land that we have in our provinces. Maybe we need to have conversations with the Conservative premiers to tell us why we're not building fast on the land that we have. We are addressing that through the housing accelerator fund, through the different initiatives that we've put forward through housing to make sure we have more housing, not just for immigrants but for all Canadians.

To another point that he made on the international caps, the cap is specifically to international students. We've studied this in our committee here. We've talked about where the challenges were, and we're taking action and actually responding to some of the motions that they've brought forward.

This motion is very misleading. They are choosing wording that is specifically pointing to immigrants being the problem. I will be voting down this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Madam Kayabaga.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting to hear the Liberal perspective on this. It's, “You have to take what the minister said, but you have to understand it in a certain context.”

The exact words the minister said, to the point of my colleague, were these: “Fraser says temporary immigration programs are putting pressure on the housing system and creating a 'serious issue we need to address.'”

You can find this in videos in numerous places. It was the senior immigration minister and housing minister, Sean Fraser, who said this specifically. I'll read it again. It says, “Fraser says temporary immigration programs are putting pressure on the housing system and creating a 'serious issue we need to address.'” That's pretty clear.

If we back up a bit, your point is valid and it really reinforces that we need to bring the ministers here to talk about this situation. You're talking about your interpretation. The way you're hearing it is one way, and we're interpreting it in a different way, according to you. That's a reason why we need to get these ministers in here. It's to clarify it and figure out what they're saying.

I am absolutely happy to add in the amendment from my colleague Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, because I don't want to blame this on immigrants either. We need to find a solution.

You talk about the provinces. In my home province of Saskatchewan, we need solutions as well. In my city of Saskatoon, we need solutions to this situation. Fortunately, Saskatoon doesn't have quite the high housing prices that Toronto has, but even so, it's very difficult to find a place to live in Saskatoon. Rents have gone up significantly after eight years of this Liberal government. We definitely need to have solutions for housing in Saskatoon and right across the country.

My home province wants solutions to this too, and wants to make sure that we're bringing in the right people. We don't want to shut down immigration in any way, but we need to make sure that we have housing. That's where we, as Conservatives, have thoughtful plans that are going to work to build more housing. That's what we need in this country and that's where we're going to go.

In the province of Saskatchewan, and every province, there are certainly needs, but what the federal government is pushing on them is not working. That is why we absolutely need to bring both of these ministers here to clarify these questions, clarify the comments and clarify these quotes. As I said, these are their quotes.

We have to make sure that we are getting to the bottom of this and truly understanding what's going on. Our job here on the immigration committee is to understand these things and make sure that we help and support the government in putting forward programs that actually work for this country.

Starting from the words right out of the ministers' mouths, these programs aren't working. We need to do what we can as a committee to help support them and make them better.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

I have Madam Kwan and then Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

If you look at the motion and the language and the tone of the motion, even though there's an amendment—which is why I supported the amendment to say that newcomers are not to be blamed—the tone and the insinuation within the motion already blame them.

Let me just put it on the record, because I don't believe that the motion that was moved was actually put on the record in this language. Let's break it down so that we understand what the insinuation is in pointing fingers at newcomers, and yes, at the minister too, and they do need to explain.

However, I want to be very clear in the way we do it that we do not leave any room for misunderstanding with respect to who is ultimately responsible. Here's the language:

That, given that:

a. The current Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities was the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship when record high immigration targets were set, and that he has now admitted that those immigration targets helped to fuel the housing crisis, in a press conference on January 15th.

That language in and of itself already blames newcomers, as though newcomers, with the immigration targets, are the people to blame.

The motion goes on to say:

b. The current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship admitted that his department was responsible for fueling the housing crisis when he admitted that his department is running a “system that's run a bit rampant for far too long and is causing an impact that is not unappreciable,”

The Minister of Immigration will have some explaining to do, but again, this directly ties the housing crisis to the newcomers, as if to say that the newcomers are responsible for the housing crisis.

Then it goes on to say:

c. The Premier of Quebec has described the immigration system as putting Quebec “very close to the breaking point due to the excessive number of asylum seekers arriving in Quebec month after month [and that] the situation has become unsustainable;”

Here we're tying asylum seekers to other streams of newcomers to Canada and tying it all in to say that newcomers are to blame for the problems that provinces are faced with and for the housing crisis that Canada is seized with.

It ends with saying that:

The committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities to appear separately for two (2) hours each to explain their remarks, within 14 days of the passage of this motion.

That's what it says.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

On a point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I just want to point out that you forgot to mention paragraph “d.” as part of the full amended motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Let's carry on with the debate.

Madam Kwan, the floor is yours.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just with regard to that point, I did mention the amendment, and I said that the amendment in and of itself does not negate the language in the motion, which already insinuates and points the finger directly at newcomers, Mr. Chair. If Mr. Redekopp was listening carefully, he would have caught that.

However, let me go on to say this: I do think that it is important to talk about Canada's immigration system. I do think that it is vitally important that we also address the housing issue. As it happens, I'm the NDP housing critic, and this issue was brought up in study at the housing committee through different motions and in different ways. Most certainly the NDP has been going after the government with respect to its lack of action in addressing the housing crisis and its failure to make good on its own promise that housing is a basic human right.

Now the reality, of course, is this: We have had successive Liberal and Conservative governments for the last 30 years, and what has happened in the last 30 years? They heavily relied on the private sector to deliver housing, housing that is not affordable for Canadians. Hence, we have this housing crisis because successive Liberal and Conservative governments cut housing programs.

How does that tie into immigration? It ties in because when you don't ensure that housing is developed, you do actually create a crisis for both domestic people—Canadians and people who are already in the country—and newcomers. There's no question.

With regard to this point more specifically on immigration, what do I think needs to be done instead of engaging in a process that continues the narrative that blames newcomers? Mr. Chair, I think that we need to be very specific and say what we need to have the minister come and address.

I want the minister to come and address the work of the task force in addressing the exploitation scheme targeting international students. Many students are still reporting that they are in limbo and have not heard back from officials about their status. That is an issue that all committee members were seized with. We have had the minister come back to report, to say that, yes, there wasn't good enough communication, and we asked for a bunch of information. However, do you know what? The situation is not finished.

I just talked to some students who are faced with deportation. They have gone before the task force and still have not had any outcome. That, to me, Mr. Chair, warrants ongoing study. We need the minister to come back to explain that and why students are still in a state of limbo. Why isn't the task force engaging in communication with these students?

I think we need to continue to have that, Mr. Chair. I think we need to understand from the government the measures that are being taken by IRCC and institutions to help prevent and protect international students from fraud schemes. We know it's happening, so what is being done? I think the public needs to know. I would like to know. I think the students deserve to know. We need to have a serious conversation with respect to that.

I think that we do need to have the government, and the minister more particularly, provide information to the committee on what the justification is for increasing the financial requirements for international students by more than 100%. I want to be very specific about that, because that was an announcement that was made. What is the justification for that, Mr. Chair? I think we need to have a conversation about that and we need to be able to ask the minister questions about it.

I also think we need to have the minister come to talk about the justification for the cap on international students. There are a lot of repercussions, by the way, with respect to the cap. It's not just to say we're not going to let international students come in anymore, and the insinuation is that somehow they are responsible for the housing crisis. There are international students, for example, who are elementary students. Many of them actually come into a homestay environment. Are they captured as part of that cap? They per se are not renting apartments. Many families take on homestay students for additional income to help with their mortgage and so on. Is that all going to be shut down now, Mr. Chair?

What about international students who have a scholarship with the institution, a scholarship that provides all the resources and support that they need when they come? Are they also eliminated? I know there are a number of Afghan women who won those scholarships and whose costs are all taken care of. Are they now also excluded? There are many questions with respect to the cap.

Then, of course, there is this whole notion that international students are to be blamed for the housing crisis. There is no talk about the contributions by international students either, or of how Canada is constantly on the record—both the Conservatives and the Liberals have said this—as saying that we want to attract talented young people. What are the implications of this with respect to that, Mr. Chair?

I also want to talk about the responsibility of governments with respect to housing for students—the federal government, the provincial governments, the territorial governments and the institutions. What plan is in place to ensure that housing is provided for students? I want to be very specific about the work that needs to be done and the issues that need to be addressed, with no innuendos, finger pointing or blaming, as though somehow those things will help solve the problem, because they won't. All those things will do is hurt people even more and escalate this idea that newcomers are to be blamed.

Lord knows—and I've been around long enough to know—that I am literally blamed for everything because of who I am, all the time. With COVID—Jesus—people called it the Kwan virus. Do we really need to go down that track with innuendo that will escalate the tensions? It seems to me that whenever there are challenges in the community, the easiest people to blame are newcomers. We have to stop that. We have to be responsible for that, and let's be clear on what we need to study and not put in language that frankly inflames the situation, as opposed to de-escalating it. As an elected official, I take that responsibility and that part of the job very seriously. I think about how I can help address the issue and not just do it for political calculus and a political win. If those are the only reasons we're here, Mr. Chair, then we should not be here.

I will not be supporting the amended motion, because the thrust behind the language of the amended motion is dishonest, in my view. I really do appreciate my friend's, my Bloc colleague's, amendment. I really do, because it does add that, but that is insufficient because the main motion itself is problematic.

I do want to say thank you to my colleague for his valiant attempt to make it right, but I'm sad to say that even the amendment doesn't make it right. I do appreciate the effort, which is the reason I supported the amendment. I want to say thank to my Bloc colleague here for that.

For that reason, Mr. Chair, I will not be supporting this motion. At the appropriate time, when there's a chance after this has been dealt with, I would like to move an alternative motion that brings both ministers to this committee so that we can get answers from them in a responsible way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Madam Kwan.

The speaking list is like this: Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, and then Madam Zahid, Mr. McLean and Mr. Redekopp.

I will give the floor to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I do not want to take too much time because I think we already know how the vote will turn out. Let me simply correct what my colleague said. The Liberals and Conservatives have been taking turns in power for not just the last 30 years: it has actually been 157 years. It is not easy.

Some people have said that this motion blames newcomers for the housing crisis. I have to disagree with that. We have actually made an amendment that clearly states the following: “and considering that newcomers are not responsible for the housing crisis in Quebec and Canada”. It couldn't be any clearer.

This is the citizenship and immigration committee. The housing crisis is what everyone is talking about right now. We have heard that public servants warned the ministers and that the immigration minister capped the number of international students as a direct result of the housing crisis. Since this is in the public domain, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has a duty to look into it. Everyone is talking about it and it is in all the newspapers right across Canada.

In Quebec, we began that dialogue a long time ago. At the time, people were calling us all kinds of names. Now that the rest of Canada is talking about it, people think we are more honest than they were before the discussion in Toronto.

So it is our duty to look into this.

Looking at this motion, I do not think it blames newcomers; rather, I think it raises questions about the targets and government policies that were established. It was indeed the government that decided to set those targets. I am not blaming newcomers; I am simply wondering whether we have the right to ask questions about immigration policies and levels, regardless of the program, whether we are talking about temporary or permanent immigration.

In a G7 country, can we have this kind of debate without throwing insults at each other and accusing each other of attacking newcomers? I am not attacking newcomers. On the contrary, I would say that, since we in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of immigration, we want immigration to be successful and to support newcomers.

Moreover, if you look at the statistics carefully, you will see that the first victims of the housing crisis are often newcomers, for the simple reason that they do not have any family or friends and do not necessarily have a network when they arrive here in a new country. Similarly, refugee claimants really have no network. When there is a housing crisis in a given jurisdiction and people arrive without a network or contacts, they are definitely the ones who will suffer first. This has to be studied and we have to make recommendations about it.

As to immigration targets, that is something to be discussed in the House of Commons once the policy discussions have matured. We have to be able to discuss immigration there. We mustn't bury our heads in the sand. It is bad for newcomers and for all communities. We also have to try to understand the special characteristics of Quebec and of francophone communities outside Quebec. We have to make sure that those people are part of the discussion. I am very interested in the foreign student issue. I will therefore be voting for Ms. Kwan's motion when we get to that.

We know that a cap has been set on the number of foreign students we can accept, but we don't know how that affects the numbers for Quebec. A measure was also announced. The only thing that was clear in the minister's announcement is that open work permits for a student's spouse will only be available if the student is at the master's or doctoral level, or if they are studying medicine or law because, as the minister said, we want to keep the brightest people.

That is tantamount to saying that a nursing student from Cameroon enrolled at Cégep de St-Félicien is not as bright as a law student at McGill.

I have to question that.

I know a lot of law students who attended McGill University. Comparing them to women from Cameroon who enrol at Cégep de St-Félicien... I'll leave it at that. There is certainly a difference in their IQs, but I won't say who is brighter.

We have to call attention to this. Decisions have been made without consulting Quebec, the other provinces, people from postsecondary institutions or educational institutions, in Quebec or the rest of Canada. This warrants our consideration. We have to ask those ministers some questions.

For my part, I support the motion. If it is defeated, I will support Ms. Kwan's motion, but the ministers have to appear to answer those questions. Once again, I invite my colleagues to be responsible and stay above the fray on the sensitive issues of immigration and immigration targets. We owe that to our constituents and to newcomers. No one should be ostracized. It is our duty as parliamentarians to act accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

I want to bring to the attention of committee members that we have with us Ms. Kingsley and Ms. May, officials from IRCC. If there is no consent for them to appear before us, I have to let them go. They can appear some other time. Therefore, I would like to get direction from the committee regarding consensus.

Do you want to carry on with the witnesses for the second hour or do you want to continue the debate?

[An hon. member]

Continue the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I am hearing to continue the debate.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan