Evidence of meeting #105 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was irb.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Laverne Jacobs  Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, As an Individual
Michelle Flaherty  Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
France Houle  Associate Dean, Undergraduate Studies, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, As an Individual

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I'll just interrupt to explain to the witnesses. This happens at committee from time to time. Just to let you know, it doesn't mean your testimony hasn't been heard or hasn't been important. It is the member's right to do this.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

For my colleagues, I believe it is in order. Even though there is a motion on the table, can I move a point of privilege?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I know you can't do it the other way around.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I know, but I did—

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Could I get advice? I need to get advice on that. This is the first time I've had that.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I'm just asking for clarification.

On a point of privilege, I realize we have committee business later today, but reviewing the blues of the last meeting, I noticed that one of my colleagues opposite said the following, “Again, the Conservatives filed notices of motion last week with respect to this.” The Chair actually said, “I was going to remind the committee members that we do have notices of motion which have been duly received by the committee.”

The notice of motion that I filed is under committee confidence, and that was discussed in public. I'm sure it wasn't a deliberate attempt, so an apology would be great. It was discussed in public, and that's why I am moving it in public today as opposed to in committee business. I apologize to the witnesses, but such is committee procedure.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

I'm happy to unreservedly apologize for that error.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you. As would I. I was confirming it, but yes.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I'm happy to proceed accordingly. Perhaps we should all be a bit more careful about what we talk about in public. Again, I realize we have committee business, but here we are, and so here we go.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

To the member, I would just say I'm not sure we revealed the nature of, or the wording of, the notice of motion. The fact that notices of motion have been received.... I would have to get some advice on that.

An apology is given.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

We discussed content. Here we are, then, in public.

The reason I believe this is very timely and that we need to study it is that it is an issue affecting all of our constituencies. It isn't a one-party issue. There was news received this week. I believe it was reported in TVA that it is anticipated that 400 persons per day will arrive at the Lacolle, Quebec, border crossing from the U.S. I think that is something that now forces us as a committee to make this issue a priority between now and the end of June.

Also, you don't have to take my word for it. The provincial Liberal government in Quebec called the federal government's response to this unacceptable. I would like to think that the federal government wishes to solve this issue because it is unsafe and does not promote orderly migration. I also think that if we're not talking about this as a committee or if the government doesn't table a comprehensive response prior to the summer months, we're going to have a serious issue.

I'm also very worried about public perception of Canada's immigration system right now. I would like to think that Canada's debate around immigration is much different from that in other parts of the world. I think most Canadians would say they very much value the fact that Canada is open and welcoming to the world's most vulnerable and that most Canadians would say they acknowledge that we're a country of immigrants. But I think that what's happening at the Quebec border, as we see people crossing in these large numbers day after day.... More importantly, this is about the trickle-down effects that unplanned migration has on our social programs, such as that we don't really have a plan to deal with the costs of this or with integration or, frankly, with the backlogs in the IRB that we're seeing right now. So it is incumbent upon this committee to take a pretty detailed look at the issue right now.

If we don't get some action on this, I think the Canadian public is going to very quickly lose faith in Canada's immigration system, and frankly that's not something I want. I'm proud of the fact that the debate in Canada is around how we do immigration, not whether we do immigration, but if this continues unabated with no plan, Canadians rightly will question it.

There are a few things, then, I would like my colleagues to think of in terms of why this is the case. A daily rate of 400 people puts a huge strain on affordable housing and social programs. We know that the Quebec government has put forward to the federal government basically the bill for the last year; it is only going to rise. If we have 400 people per day, there are going to be 48,000 people this summer. Summer in Canada is short, so I'm not sure what summer is defined as, but in the context of that TVA article, it's June through September. These 48,000 people are just at the Quebec border alone.

Right now I think the number of people claiming asylum through illegal channels is actually greater than the number of people claiming asylum through legal channels. That's not something we want. I think it's a very bad message to the Canadian public, that we're not managing this appropriately.

I also think that if this continues unabated with no plan, we are going to have serious backlogs within the IRB. We already know that the IRB is very backlogged, and 48,000 cases in four months is crazy. How are we going to deal with that number? How are we going to process these people?

If the IRB is functioning properly and can turn cases around in a very quick period of time for those who have a legal right to be here and to have asylum, we should have a plan for supporting their integration. It should be fully costed. We might have political differences on how to do that.

The fact that the IRB has had to throw their hands up—and this isn't an indictment of the people who are working at the IRB—and say they can't process them.... They're giving up on the two-year legislative timeline. They don't know how many years it's going to take. I think it's completely unfair to send a message that with regard to the people who are illegally crossing into the country, who won't have their asylum claim heard for many years, there is no plan to deal with the burden that has on our social programs in this country or the impact it might have on other processing streams.

Many of you will have casework in your office. I'm working on a case of a privately sponsored refugee from Eritrea. The wait time for PSR through the Djibouti embassy right now is 89 months. Think about that for a minute. That's over seven years. Seven years response time to get a PSR claim is just not compassionate; it's ridiculous. The whole thing is that if you're trying to flee a situation and someone's saying you have to wait seven years, it defeats the purpose.

But I digress.

We have to solve the issue at Lacolle, Quebec. We cannot let this go through the summer, so I would like to explore some potential solutions. I don't want to speak on her behalf, but my colleague at the end of the table and I have started a healthy debate on what those solutions could be. It's the “how”.

We might politically disagree on how, but we need to study this right away. Some of the things I'm interested in looking at are ways that we can potentially enforce the safe third country agreement, for example. Yesterday in the House of Commons, I asked the minister if it would be possible to designate the entire Canadian border as a legal point of entry technically for the purposes of enforcing the safe third country agreement.

Has the minister even broached the topic of the safe third country agreement with the Americans, including that loophole? Is this a side conversation with NAFTA? What is happening here is clearly unsustainable. This is only going to become more of an issue, and I do not want this to be a conflated, partisan issue, because at the end of the day, we're talking about people who are making a very unsafe journey. When we are essentially setting up refugee camps on the U.S.-Canada border, I can't believe that anyone around the table here would think that is a positive optic or a good idea.

I don't want this to become a conflated, partisan issue, because I genuinely think that is going to reduce buy-in from the Canadian public for humanitarian immigration, and that is not something I want to see. However, in my role as critic for the official opposition, if the government is not going to take action on this.... This has been a problem. We're going into the second summer on this. I have a job to do.

I'm starting here. I am asking for permission to have the study happen right away. I don't want this motion to pass and then have it happen right before the election or something. This has to happen today. It has to happen before the summer. I think it has to take precedence. Otherwise this is just going to get worse and worse and worse. We are not going to be able to address the backlogs with the IRB because we're not reducing the demand.

Quebec is only going to get more cheesed. This isn't just Quebec. This is Manitoba. This is going to start happening at other border points. The other thing is that we're hearing from unions. The CBSA is saying they don't have enough resources to do this. My colleague, the shadow minister for Public Safety, raised the issue that people have been instructed to put 400% less time into screening people crossing the border, so it's also a public safety issue.

Under no circumstances can anyone think it's reasonable that 400 people per day illegally crossing into the country and claiming asylum is sustainable.

I look across the way and say to my colleagues that this has an impact on their Quebec caucus. The Liberal Party has a large Quebec caucus. I would be very curious to understand where they would be on....

I know typically what happens with these motions is that debate is adjourned or these sorts of things. I really think this should come to a vote today. I would think the Liberals' Quebec caucus would like to see this issue addressed before the summer, when they have to go back to their ridings and take a lot of heat from the province, especially going into a provincial election, on this being an issue. For what it's worth, I'm not trying to filibuster; I'm trying to make some legitimate arguments that this needs to happen, seriously.

I just want to read few headlines. I'm not sure if my colleagues opposite have been following the number of articles in the last few days, but it's been super high: “Canada needs more border agents to avoid summer crisis, union insists”. I understand the government has said it is putting in almost $200 million just to process the paperwork. Is throwing $200 million into this the best way to deal with it? I would argue no, but the reality is that we haven't had people in front of our committee to talk about these things. I find it very bad that our response is to say let's just put a bunch more border-crossing agents there. I think we should be finding solutions to fix the problem so that we reduce the demand on the system. Again, this is something that was in the Montreal Gazette, “Canada needs more border agents to avoid summer crisis”.

The Quebec government, Premier Couillard, has been in the media quite a bit in the last week, and he's said that “Ottawa’s response to his request for assistance on the refugee crisis reflects 'a complete ignorance' of what’s going on at the border between his province and New York state.” From my understanding, and I've been to the border in Manitoba, it's just a flood of people every day. I think we also have to ask ourselves at what point this starts becoming a route for human trafficking and human smuggling. I'm hearing anecdotal stories of this. We've seen people who have entered the country through this route, who have been found in possession of child pornography. I believe there was a child pornography smuggling ring that was also utilizing this route to enter Canada. We're hearing from border agents that they can't keep up with the volume. Even if you put one million border agents there, is that the best use of resources? No. What is their ability to actually screen people?

This headline is what really...: “Quebec says 400 asylum-seekers a day could enter province this summer”, and the article says:

Officials said...it is expecting...400 people to cross the border through forests and wooded areas every day this summer—up from 250.... Quebec Immigration Minister David Heurtel explained 50.2 per cent of asylum seekers enter Canada via Quebec, but not many of them are staying in the province.

That is my rationale for the main motion. I would like to propose first, though, an amendment to the motion. I move an amendment that the committee begin its study immediately and that the committee table its response prior to the House rising for the summer, and just to put a date on it, let's say by the end of the first week in June.

11:55 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Jenny Kwan

If I may just interrupt for one second, Michelle, I do not believe that members who've moved a motion can amend their own motion. I think another member would have to do that.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Fair enough, Madam Chair.

I'm going to put on the record that my worry is that if—

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

You can yield the floor and have someone move it.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Oh, can I? I would like to yield the floor to my colleague Mr. Maguire.

April 19th, 2018 / 11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Madam Chair.

I was on the list to speak, and I would have done so at this point, but certainly I am prepared to make the amendment to move expeditiously on this committee work on immigration. I think it is extremely important that this be done immediately, and so I'm pleased to be able to amend this motion that we proceed immediately with a review, with a study, and that we table the report by the end of the first week of June.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

We now have an amendment on the motion, but you have the floor.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

I am prepared to turn that back over to my colleague.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Okay. Again, the reason we have to do this right away is that the crux of the issue is going to be during the summer months. However, in terms of anyone saying, “Is this going to be a problem; is it hyperbolic?”, I would point out to you the data from the first three months of the year. We know that in the cold months of the year, between January and February, 2,000 people crossed the border. That is a huge increase over the same time period last year. If 2,000 people are going to cross the border in January and February, it shows that there is definitely evidence for the accuracy of the projection from government officials on the 400-per-day number. If the committee is not undertaking this study right away, then essentially what's happening is that we're deferring the work until after 48,000 people come in. I think this needs to happen right now. I would like us to have some consensus on how to proceed prior to the summer, and I am in support of that.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Okay.

Before going to Ms. Kwan, I'll just let the witnesses know that we're now at noon. You had been booked until noon and it is absolutely fair for the three of you to say that you are happy to leave now, recognizing that the committee did not get to ask you questions, but you can stay or leave.

Ms. Kwan.

Noon

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just on the point with the witnesses before they take their leave, from time to time if debate ends in this manner, we have the opportunity to resume the discussion at hand, and then we can continue on with questions to the witnesses accordingly if the chair deems that we can proceed that way. However, if the witnesses leave, then of course we will have no choice but to end that component of our committee meeting. I just put that to you. I know that people have busy schedules. You allot your time accordingly, and then this situation occurs and it might disrupt your other appointments down the road.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I will just remind the member that unfortunately she now has to speak to the amendment.

Noon

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Chair, I am happy to speak to the amendment, but I was raising that as a point of order—

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I know. It was gracious of you. Thank you.

Noon

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

—for clarification for our committee members, because often what happens is that this occurs and then we don't get to ask questions.

All right. On the amendment to the motion, and then the motion as well, I would speak to both of those items briefly.

I generally would support this approach, for the committee to engage in a study on this critical issue. In fact, on Tuesday when we had committee, I actually wanted a couple of minutes of the committee's time to put notice of a motion on the floor. One of those motions was in fact that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study examining the ongoing influx of irregular border crossing and asylum seekers continuing to enter Canada through the southern border; that the study examine the impact of the safe third country agreement on the situation; that the study examine the impact of the increase in asylum claims on the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, the IRB, and NGOs and provinces that provide settlement services in areas where these crossings are more frequent; that this study be comprised of no fewer than five meetings; that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and IRCC department officials be in attendance for at least one of the meetings; that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and Public Safety Canada department officials be in attendance for at least one of the meetings; that officials from the IRB, CBSA, and RCMP be in attendance for at least one of the meetings; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

Unfortunately, as you know, on Tuesday I was prevented from providing this notice of motion at the committee. In that context, I have a similar motion, that I would like to proceed with this study. I do think this is important. We know that from 2017, the number of irregular asylum seekers increased. In fact, in 2017, those numbers were at 20,593. Right now, at this stage in 2018, the RCMP so far has intercepted—