Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 17th, 2018

[barbara findlay]

I concur.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We've come to the end of our time. Mr. Tabbara, you can have a minute or two from Mr. Maguire.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I was going to speak to what my colleague mentioned on the article, but I have limited time so I'll go straight to Ms. Robinson. Maybe you can follow up and collect all of the suggestions you made to this committee.

Of your suggestions, number three is how to apply a psychological approach, and one of your last suggestions is about a lack of follow-up training. Could you elaborate on what you meant by those suggestions?

[Cheryl Robinson]

I think that the training has to be better trauma-informed, and that means really understanding. There are a lot of generic tropes that are applied at the board. There is this idea that somehow trauma is going to sharpen your memory. This gets trotted out a lot in questioning. If it's so important, why wouldn't you remember it? To me, that speaks to a lack of understanding of how trauma actually works on the memory and the ability to verbalize. Having some training in that, and working with mental health professionals who work with individuals who have experienced trauma, would help.

We often put pieces of evidence in psychological reports. How effective they are and how much they're taken up by the board members gets a variable response. Learning how to read...what that might impact, or how that applies to an individual claim, would be helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think we have to end there. Thank you.

Thank you very much to the witnesses; that's helpful.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, before you adjourn this section of the meeting and go in camera, I'd like to just raise two issues of questions of privilege if I may. One is related to this particular study with the IRB. You'll recall, Mr. Chair, that on February 27, 2018, Mr. Aterman was before this committee and I asked Mr. Aterman to provide the interim third party report by Neil Yeates. It is said that the report is comprehensive and that it would have potential content within it that addresses the issue of training, appointments, and complaints. Mr. Aterman responded by saying that he had to go back and check and see whether or not he could provide that report to us.

Since that time, we have received a written response from Mr. Aterman on the undertaking and there is no mention of this report or this request. I just want to note that if an appointed third party reviewer directly provided a report, interim or otherwise, to a quasi-judicial body at arm's length of the government, it is unrealistic to consider that this document is protected by cabinet privilege and it's unacceptable for the document to be outright ignored at the request from this committee as an undertaking.

If cabinet privilege is to be cited as the reason why this report can not be provided to the committee, then I think committee members deserve an explanation as to how that is indeed deemed to be cabinet privilege.

I'd like to get a response from Mr. Aterman on this request. We've had situations before where IRCC officials just outright ignored the undertakings given to them from committee. I just don't think that's appropriate and frankly it impedes my work and I would say the committee's work as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I don't believe I read anything that cabinet privilege was being invoked. I haven't heard that. Would it be okay if we instructed the clerk to go back to the IRB and ask for a clarification with respect to our request?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I would like to have that. On February 27, when I requested a copy of this report, Mr. Aterman's response was, “This is a report; it's advice to the minister. It's been shared with the board. To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure whether it's the board's to table.”

I then made some arguments about why it should be and precisely because it was given to him and not to the minister from a third party. Therefore, in my view, it should fall outside the realm of cabinet privilege. It's a report that's been shared with the board and because we're studying this very issue, the board should be able to table this report to us for our review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Would it be okay if we consider some motion from you to request the clerk and the chair to request an explanation with respect to this report from the IRB?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I can make it official, Mr. Chair, if that's what you prefer, to move this as a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It would read something like “in relation to the study on the IRB complaints...process, the committee send for this document from the IRB and that this document be provided to the committee by such and such a date”. We can make a motion like that. That's not quite the motion I had in mind. It would be a motion to ask us to first ask for an explanation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

No, sorry, it would be first to ask for the report and if it's not provided, then there needs to be an explanation as to why.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay, that's fine.

I'm happy to entertain. That motion would be in order if you want to make that motion.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would make that motion, Mr. Chair, because the undertaking has been given to the IRB and their job is to fulfill that undertaking. They have not in their response to us and there's been no explanation whatsoever.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I would like to put a date on it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

The date ought to be that before we actually deliberate on this committee report. Otherwise, we would have missed the boat, if you will, in not getting the information. I'm not sure what the date would be but that would be the date I would use. Maybe it should be just to say that prior to the committee considering the draft report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Since we haven't set that date yet, we have a tentative schedule, is a week reasonable, 10 days, two weeks?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Why don't we just put in the motion “prior to” the committee considering the draft report, whatever that date is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Sure. We expect to be considering that draft report in June, so by early May. I'd just like a date, so May 1.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

May 1 would be fantastic. I would accept us receiving the report by May 1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

They, obviously, can decline, but they will tell us.

(Motion agreed to)

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On another point of privilege, if I may, this dates back to another study, Mr. Chair, on February 15, when the committee had the deputy and the minister at this committee.

At that meeting I had asked for the deputy to provide us the details on the consultation process with respect to the caregivers review. Ms. Marta Morgan responded:

The nature of the consultations has not yet been established, but we will make sure that committee members are aware of it so that they can provide that information to caregivers. We will also directly provide information once we have a consultation process set out.

Mr. Chair, then we received a response from the IRCC officials to my question on the consultation process. This is the answer that I got, and let me put this on the record:

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is undertaking consultations in March and April 2018 to inform the development of permanent residence options for caregivers, as well as considering input provided in the past.

That is the information that was provided with respect to the consultation process.

I have since found out that in fact consultations have taken place. Not only was this committee not informed, but also that information was so secretly held that many people didn't know about it. There were, at least to my knowledge, six consultation meetings that took place in Toronto. There was a consultation meeting that took place in Ottawa, which I was informed about by a stakeholder, and I made a request to the minister's office to see whether or not I could attend that consultation meeting. I was advised, or my staff was advised, that it was not a consultation meeting and that my request to attend that meeting was declined.

Further pushing this issue then, subsequently, consultation meetings were held in Vancouver. In fact, yesterday a consultation meeting was held in Vancouver. I was notified of that consultation meeting on April 10. I wasn't notified that I could attend that meeting until late Friday afternoon of that week.

I attended that meeting yesterday. I showed up at the location that was emailed to me. The location had changed. It had gone to a different location. I had to go to another location in order to make that meeting, and then through that process I found out that there was another meeting that was scheduled that afternoon as well as one this morning.

My point is this. A clear undertaking was given to the IRCC officials, to the deputy no less, who had committed to this committee that she would provide this information to all of us, so that we might inform the caregivers of the process, so that they could engage in this process. That was not done, in my view. The answer that was provided to me and provided to the committee to say that consultations would take place in March and April is frankly meaningless.

I am disturbed about this pattern of behaviour from officials, who seem to think that it is okay for them to ignore the request of committee members with their undertakings. I don't think this is an onerous request. It's simply to ask for basic information on when consultations would be taking place, and none of that was provided.

I would like to have an explanation as to how this will be rectified in the future. It is not acceptable. I hope it is not acceptable to you either, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think your point is well heard.

However, I'm going to say that, in terms of privilege, the speaker is quite rigorous in reminding us as members that we have the right to ask questions. But if an answer is given, the speaker does not judge the answer. We may not like the answer, but an answer was given. On this one, I think your point has been made. It will be shared, obviously, through our record of proceedings. However, I don't believe that is a breach of privilege. The committee could decide otherwise but I do believe that an answer was given. We may not like the answer, but it has been heard.

That is how I would handle that one.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I would challenge that. We have had experiences in the past where officials would provide an answer that was frankly not an answer. In a committee setting the undertakings are different and officials are responsible for providing accurate information to committee members to answer the questions. Vague answers are entirely inappropriate. To me, that is a breach of my privilege. It actually limits my ability to do my job. My job is to ensure, in part, in the study of caregivers, that they know what is going on so they can provide the input. The late notice I got for the one meeting, that I was finally advised of, was too late for many of the caregivers to even attend. It was not possible or feasible. How is this a consultation process? It's meant to be helpful, to ensure the government receives the information so that they can come back with the best policy to address the concerns impacting caregivers.

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I would challenge that ruling.