Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics of the House of Commons.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application.

The committee is meeting at the request of members who signed and delivered to the clerk a letter pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), and we are here to discuss the request to undertake a study on the use of public funds in relation to the Roxham Road crossing.

I understand that earlier today, Monsieur Villemure supplied the clerk with the wording of a motion that he would like to move pursuant to the request for a meeting on this topic.

I will give you the floor, René. I ask you for your remarks, or to move the motion if you are planning to do so.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to present the following motion further to the notice:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)h), the committee undertake, as soon as possible, a study to assess the ethical standards relating to public office holders related to the awarding of contracts for the reception of refugees and the development of infrastructure to receive asylum seekers in the province of Quebec; that the Committee allocate a minimum of 6 meetings to conduct this study; the committee invite the Ministers of Immigration and Public Safety, representatives of the RCMP, Public Services and Procurement Canada including Teresa Maioni and Lyne Roy, respectively responsible and coordinator of Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP), officials of the Canada Border Services Agency including Dan Proulx, Executive Director and Chief Privacy Officer, and Mr. Pierre Guay.

All committee members have received a copy of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you. We had notice of the motion in advance, and it is in order.

So far, I have Ya'ara and Iqra to speak. Members can wave if they want the floor, and I can maintain a list.

Go ahead, Ms. Saks. You have the floor.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to colleagues for today.

I want to thank Monsieur Villemure for putting forward this motion. However, he raised this in the House some time ago. It was December 14, if I'm not mistaken, when he asked his question in the House with regard to Roxham Road. It has been quite a bit of time. We're at nearly a year since that first question in the House was raised by Monsieur Villemure.

I don't disagree with him: The issue of refugees and asylum seekers.... as Canadians, we proudly make space for those who need refuge here in Canada. It is an issue of concern for many Canadians, including me, that they have safe passage and safe access in ways that both protect them and make sure our border services are doing the job they need to do.

From December until now...it seems like quite a bit of time has passed since first raising that question. There has been a lot of good work done in committee since I've joined it, including the recent facial recognition technology report we did, which was a request put forward by the NDP. I was happy to support that study, because it was an important issue. We've explored many important issues here, and I'm just trying to understand the urgency that Monsieur Villemure is seeing at this moment in time.

Nothing has changed in Roxham Road in the last 10 months or so. The property is the same property. The set-up to assist asylum seekers has been the same set-up all this time. The variables haven't really changed from when he first raised the question in the House last December until now.

We have a lot of important work to do here. We've made space for important work and other studies. I've enjoyed my time in these studies. I'm just trying to ensure that the work of this committee that we've committed to in our work plans and the questions that we need to ask are really the ones that we're putting forward and the studies that we're planning to do.

That's the first part of what I'd like to clarify with Monsieur Villemure, but also, what is it that we're asking about here? Are we looking at the issue of Roxham Road itself as a point of entry and its continued use as a point of entry? It is one of the safest points of entry for many asylum seekers, as opposed to some of the horrific stories we've heard at crossing points in Manitoba and Saskatchewan in the dead of winter, which have been heartbreaking stories of those who are seeking safe haven here.

If it's a matter of the point of entry at Roxham Road, and if those are questions about how it's managed and how that's being done, then I'm not really sure that this is the place, that we should be exploring it at ethics. That's really an immigration question, and I think there are important questions that we should be asking there in the management of points of entry for asylum seekers.

However, I'm really unclear as to—if none of the variables have changed from his question in December until now, and looking at the importance of having these points of entry like Roxham Road—why we're entertaining these questions here. I'm really unclear as to what we're trying to get at in entertaining a study of six meetings in the middle of our own work plan. I just want to make sure that our time here is used well and wisely, and that we're really getting to the heart of the questions that need to be addressed in this committee.

I thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to share my comments. I will pass the floor back to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Ms. Khalid, you're next. Go ahead.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it. I'm going to continue a bit on what my colleague, Ms. Saks, was referring to.

We've been sitting here with opposition parties for about a year now. We've engaged on some really important questions. We've put forward motions that I think are really important to study and we have done them. We had the FRT study, which the NDP proposed and we completed. We had the mobility study, which the Conservatives proposed and we completed. We had the RCMP study, which the Bloc proposed, and it's completed.

We've been waiting about three years now to get one of our studies started. I realize that the ATIP study, which was up next, was proposed by the Conservatives. I'm happy to get that done.

Calling a 106(4) when we've had ample opportunity to have discussions, to put this on the list, to actually do the job of this committee, whether it's to hold government to account or to ensure that the public is well aware of what we're doing.... I think we could have handled this situation a bit better.

On the second point of Ms. Saks, with respect to the scope of what this motion presents, in the letter, it is kind of all over. Are we looking at whether this is an immigration issue or a public safety issue, or we are looking to see what the general procurement process is? We need to have those conversations. We need to engage with each other.

I have noticed over the past months and months that I, or we, have put in an effort to make sure we're having those conversations. We want better government. We're sitting at the table and we want to engage with you folks. It is very strange to me that you, members of the opposition, got together and had your substantive discussions and put together a letter, and now we're sitting here in a 106(4) situation when we could have just included this as part of our study agenda for the year.

It's not uncommon. Obviously it is the way that the odd committee has operated. We talk about being open and transparent. We talk about holding government to account. Well, the opposition has a responsibility to do that too, folks. We're here; we're ready to engage and we would love for you guys to engage right back and have those important conversations.

I absolutely agree that we need to have these questions put on the table. We need to ask these questions. We need to have the study, absolutely. However, to Ms. Saks' point, what is the urgency right now? Why are we doing this at this given time? Why could we not have, in an open discussion, put this within the framework of what we're doing for the year?

I personally have two motions on notice and I'd like to get those on the agenda too. I'm willing to work with you guys to see how we can push forward these issues. I want to have those conversations. I want to be included in the conversations that you guys have with each other. It would be nice to work together. We talk about open and transparent government, and I would love to see an open and transparent opposition also and see how we can bring it all home.

I have some specific amendments that I want to propose, but perhaps I'll cede the floor to other speakers to get their initial thoughts in first.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Next I have Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments from Ms. Khalid and Ms. Saks, and I want to thank Mr. Villemure for bringing forward this motion. I think it is an important motion.

We want to make sure the study is very tight in how we approach it. We don't want to be crossing over into the mandates of other committees. The issues around the contracts and immigration are things that will be dealt with by other committees if they so choose. This is very specific about the ethical behaviour of public office holders and how those contracts were awarded. That's what we're going to be digging into here.

I think what Mr. Villemure has brought forward is very succinct. As a committee, we have been very successful, for the most part, in getting reports into the House and good work done. I believe that even though we have the access to information study starting fairly shortly, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can run two different studies concurrently. I think we have plenty of time between now and our Christmas break to get this work done.

The Liberals are saying that this is important. I invite them to participate in this, to support it, so we can get moving forward.

Some of the motions Ms. Khalid has put on notice may be successful. Who knows? We have to get them on the floor and have that discussion. There may be time by the end of this meeting for us to have those discussions, if she chooses to move those for further debate.

I think there is a spirit of collaboration around the table. We have shown that in studies over the last few months. I think there is an opportunity here to put together a good report and get down to the bottom of some of the accusations that were made.

Ms. Saks asked why there is an urgency to do it now. There were some accusations made in the media last week that changed the scope of what has been happening down on Roxham Road, and that's why I think we need to look at the behaviour of some public office holders in relation to those contracts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Next I have Monsieur Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is in fact quite a specific matter that clearly pertains to ethics.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which considers contracts, and have served on the Standing Committee on National Defence, and various other committees. In this particular case, there is a clear ethical issue and that is why I think this committee should conduct this study.

People have asked why the urgency. Let us not forget that, in the past five years, half a billion dollars has been spent in response to the Lacolle and Roxham Road situation.

Today, there are also specific questions about the Lacolle sector. Liberal party donors are involved in this and there are hidden contracts. National security reasons are cited, and yet the purpose of the contracts is to install tents and equipment. It is ridiculous. The information we have received raises an ethical issue. That information is from Radio-Canada. We did not make it up. Research has been done. When a media outlet such as Radio-Canada does a full report, with specific facts, the least we can do is shed some light on this matter as soon as possible.

It is urgent because contracts are renewed for five years, and we have some very critical questions to ask. That is why this committee is the best place. I would go so far as to say that there should be a number of ethics committees. In fact, there are often ethical issues that we never get an answer to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Next I have Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I don't have a whole lot to add, but I agree with my colleagues, Ms. Khalid and Ms. Saks, that it seems this motion is coming out of the blue. I've been hearing the Bloc Québécois talk about it in the House for months now, every day, and I don't understand why we have a study that says, for example, that this needs to be “as soon as possible”. I am interested in the ATIP study that we have scheduled to come up next, and I'm interested in getting to the bottom of that study.

I'm also not sure why this study fits with our mandate here on the ethics committee.

Those are my main points. Roxham Road is also a valuable resource for a lot of people who don't have other ways to come into the country, and I know there's a member of Parliament who arrived in the country through that access. As far as I understand it, the government was responding to the need when it invested in the resources to help vulnerable people access the country.

I want to reiterate the points made by my colleagues. This seems like it's coming out of the blue. I don't know if we have seen collaboration around the whole table or just among the members of the opposition. I would prefer to move on with some of the studies we already have in the hopper, like the ATIP study.

It seems that I have lost the attention of members opposite, so I will pass the floor back over to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Okay. I have Iqra next.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll just pick up on a point that Mr. Bezan made, which I think is really important, with respect to tightening the scope of the study. In the spirit of collaboration, while I would like to ensure that I'm able to have my motions studied, I would also like to make sure the issues the opposition feel are so important are also studied. Mr. Bezan is absolutely right that we have to narrow these to the scope of what this committee is all about.

I read the original 106(4) letter that went to you, Mr. Chair. It talks about a whole bunch of things that I think are out of the scope. We are not here to talk about processes with respect to how IRCC is working or what the function of Roxham Road is or what the procurement processes have been in this respect, whether or not this is a good use of resources, or whether or not there are enough resources. The letter indicates that we have to make sure government is open and transparent and resources are being used effectively.

I think we're okay to keep things within that scope and, in the interest of ensuring that we have enough time for other studies and are not just saying, over so many meetings long, the same things again and again, I will perhaps seek to amend the motion as presented by Mr. Villemure for the removal of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship as a witness. I agree with Mr. Bezan that some things may be being studied in other committees and that we need to be cognizant of duplicating certain work. I would propose it—the removal of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship as a listed witness—as an amendment to the main motion, just to make it tight and bring it within the scope of what we're doing here in ethics. That's in the spirit of collaboration with Mr. Bezan and to try to get done concretely what Mr. Bezan has said he would like us to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We have an amendment, and it is in order. Is there any discussion on the amendment?

On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Just to clarify, the amendment is to remove the Minister of Immigration but keep the Minister of Public Safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Yes. Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you so much.

I was hoping that members might want to see if this was a proper scope for an amendment. Is it proper to limit the issues that we want to talk about here specifically with respect to Roxham Road?

There was one other thing that really struck me in the letter, which kind of speaks to this amendment also, and that is the indication, for some reason, that the gentleman who is involved, Monsieur Pierre Guay, is “a businessman known for his donations to the Liberal Party”. I found that to be a little strangely placed within the letter. I'm sure Monsieur Villemure, as he was drafting his letter, would have known that Monsieur Pierre Guay was also a donor to the Conservative Party.

Again, within the scope, we're talking about transparency and trust in public institutions. We're talking about how we narrow that and study the issues that matter, and I think the way this letter outlines it really shows that we're indeed not focused on the right issues. By virtue of continuing to say again and again that this is eroding the public trust or there's no trust in government institutions, I think the opposition members are doing that part of eroding the trust themselves.

Again, I go back to my initial point, which is to say look, folks, we want to play ball. We want to make sure what we're doing is effective as a government, that the way we do it is open and transparent, and that we are continuing to provide not only the support that Canadians need but also the principles and the importance of providing the humanitarian support as needed. We need to do this without scapegoating and without calling into light people who may then not want to play ball in the future, or who may be scared off and say, “Oh no, should anybody engage with government or political parties or what have you, now, all of a sudden, they're going to get targeted.” That is not a precedent we should be setting here.

I think the way to move forward is through my amendment to limit the scope of what we are studying. Having the Minister of Public Safety and having the RCMP and the other officials as listed in the motion would keep the scope to the issue that is in front of us right now. I'm hoping I can get the support of members opposite for my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I will take a moment just to remind all members that we are debating the amendment, not the general motion. I would ask that remarks be specific to the amendment. Once the amendment is disposed of, we can certainly take additional time to debate the rest of the motion.

With that, go ahead, Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank Mr. Bezan for the agreement, at least in principle, of making sure we are tight on scope, particularly with the work of this committee.

With regard to the amendment of Ms. Khalid in terms of questions of Roxham Road as a point of entry for asylum seekers, those questions would be far better placed at immigration than here.

In terms of what we do here in this committee, particularly on the issues of procurement, this has been a place that funds have gone into for the past five years to address the needs. We have to be cognizant of what we're looking at here.

Roxham Road came into existence not because CBSA decided to set up a point of entry there. It's that asylum seekers have been going there for years, as Ms. Hepfner mentioned. For one of our colleagues in the House, actually, her point of entry into Canada was through Roxham Road. It is known as a place for asylum seekers. Since it is known, and known internationally, and because of the sheer volume, the demand, the need, and also the climate there—you know, it is cold through the winters—the need to facilitate safe entry for those who are seeking safety is critical, and that costs money to our border services. It is up to our agencies, like procurement, to ensure that we provide a safe space for asylum seekers when they arrive there.

When we're looking at a span of time and the costs and needs that are associated with that, I would ask again if those are necessarily scope questions that we ask here. Surely we would want to ensure that the services provided.... I have no issue with the Minister of Public Safety coming here to discuss what reactionary implementation has been put into place at Roxham Road to address the volume of asylum seekers who are coming into that place. However, are we asking the question of whether this is a new border crossing, or are we asking the question...? I'm just trying to be clear on who is coming to the table to impact the questions that we want to ask on the monies that are spent at this site to facilitate people's having safe entry when they come here seeking asylum 12 months of the year through rain or shine or freezing cold winters. They should be able to arrive to safety with dignity and compassion.

Again, in terms of the transparency and accountability, I'm with you. We absolutely want to make sure that we have that in all the things we do, including the operations at Roxham Road. Also, we must have a deep understanding of why we do them. Being the third-party country that we are in accepting asylum seekers, when folks arrive for safety here we are able to provide them with the services and tools they need when they arrive at our border.

I just want to be clear on keeping the scope where it needs to be and ensuring that the funds we allocate provide services and tools there. We also have to understand who's there. The Government of Canada did not choose this as a border crossing or point of entry; asylum seekers chose it. Who, geographically, was in the area? What buildings and landowners are around there whose land is being crossed through? We need to understand these things to ensure that we're finding the right balance of making sure those who cross are protected and also recognizing that if this isn't a federally mandated border area, we have to work with who is there. In this case, it's Monsieur Pierre Guay, who I understand is one of the main land owners in the area who owns some of the buildings. How do we ensure, if there is only one sole proprietor in the area, that the contracts are negotiated the way they should be?

We need to provide services for those who arrive and use the tools that are available to us with deep consideration and, of course, transparency and accountability. Again, I certainly hope that we are all working collaboratively to ensure that the questions we want to ask are the right questions and that the scope is clear.

I'll cede the floor back to you, Mr. Chair. Those are my thoughts at the moment about the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I see Ms. Khalid.

Go ahead.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I want to perhaps outline what exactly happens within the centre and why I think that removing the Minister of Immigration helps us to scope this motion effectively. IRCC, or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, is responsible for accommodating claimants who arrive there until they're transferred to the province, including the 14-day isolation period, which was then mandatory for claimants without a suitable quarantine plan, for example. In addition, IRCC supports the CBSA's eligibility determination processing.

Given that IRCC is playing more of a supporting role with respect to the functioning of this centre, I believe it would be outside the scope of our mandate. Imagine if we brought in a minister responsible for this specific file, what kinds of questions we would be asking the minister. Would we be asking them about how they process, how they support, how many files they go through on a daily basis, what their day to day looks like? I think that would fall completely out of the purview of our committee—looking at the scope of what it is we're trying to do here—and take it into a rabbit hole that would overlap with work that other committees would be doing.

That's why, again, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to remove the Minister of Immigration from this list of witnesses. As I said, I have no problems with other witnesses as they're listed; I think that having the Minister of Immigration within this motion would broaden the study to a point where it would fall outside the scope of the work this committee is mandated with and should be doing.

I'll leave it at that, Chair. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

All right. I see no other speakers to the amendment, so I'm going to call for a vote.

In a hybrid session, we do this in reverse and I ask whether there is anyone opposed to the amendment.

As there are members opposed, we will go to a recorded vote.

There is a tie. I vote against the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

With that, we will move on to the main motion.

Are there any speakers to the main motion?

Go ahead, Ms. Hepfner. You will be followed by Ms. Khalid.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Given that my colleague's motion didn't pass, there is another part of the motion that I want to address.

I see that we have in this motion “that the committee allocate a minimum of 6 meetings to conduct this study”. To me, that sounds like a lot for this study, given the number of witnesses that we have listed, given the scope and given the fact that we have so many other studies in front of us that we should get to. I'm not sure that six meetings.... It seems like a little bit too much to me. It seems like a lot of time that this committee would be spending on something that we've just addressed. That would be my point. I would maybe request....

Can I put forward a motion to remove it or to switch it to a minimum of, say, two meetings to conduct this study?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

You have the floor. While you have the floor, you're entitled to move any amendment you wish, as long as it's in order. If you wish to make an amendment, go ahead and do so.