Evidence of meeting #116 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 plan.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
An hon. member
At least two meetings.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Yes, at least two meetings.
Just before we continue Ms. Kwan asked for a copy in writing, so the assistant has just gone out to get copies.
July 16th, 2018 / 1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Your ruling that the amendment is in order. I think it's out of order for the reasons given by Ms. Rempel.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
That takes precedence now. There's a challenge to my ruling. I normally step out of the chair to hear that.
Actually, it's not debatable, so I'm not going to step out of the chair for that.
All in favour of supporting my ruling?
All opposed?
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, I think you have to call them one by one.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We've had a request for a recorded vote by name. The clerk will now call the roll.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
My ruling that the amendment is in order is sustained.
Ms. Kwan, is it a point?
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Yes, it is. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
What I was asking for was that Mr. Anandasangaree read out his amendment again so that we can hear clearly where the changes are made, because I wasn't quite following it.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We'll do that, and then we'll start a speakers list on the amendment.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
And then on the distribution of the amendment, is the amendment translated into French also?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
The amended motion would read:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration undertake a study to review the impact of irregular border crossings at Canada's southern border, including on some provinces and municipalities; that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, be invited to appear before the committee for the purposes of this study; that this study be comprised of at least two meetings; and that this study be completed by no later than August 3, 2018.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
On a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, can we suspend briefly until we get a copy of this in writing? I need to see it.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
My position is always that if we have a request from a member to suspend, we do. The meeting will suspend for a few moments while we're waiting for a paper copy.
2:06 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Michelle Rempel
Given that we have quorum at the table, we'll proceed.
I believe we're debating the substance of the amendment at this point. First of all—
2:06 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Can I ask a question? Sorry, I thought we had just suspended for a few minutes.
2:06 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Michelle Rempel
Yes, but the chair left the room and we have quorum at the table. I believe your colleague just said he'd like to make an airline appointment, so I dispensed with the pleasantries so we could get on with business.
2:06 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I will assume the chair, please.
I may suspend the meeting at any moment, as is the chair's prerogative—just so that members know. Whether there's a quorum in the room or not, it is the chair's prerogative to both open and close meetings, and to suspend them. Thank you.
We have a speakers list on the amendment, which is in order.
Ms. Rempel.
2:06 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, the reason I didn't support your ruling is that I think the words “impact” and “adequacy” actually are material to the scope of the study. This is predicated on my colleague opposite using the term as part of his rationale that the plan by the government is quite clear.
I think that in my opening arguments in support of the original wording of the motion, we went through the amount of data this committee is missing and the fact that the government has been making piecemeal announcements. To me that would suggest there isn't a plan.
In fact, between the time I made my statement and Ms. Kwan made hers, I saw a tweet by Rachel Aiello from CTV News that said, “Minutes before emergency immigration meeting gets underway in Ottawa, feds announce without details that they will 'actively support Toronto through housing support for asylum seekers.'” Again, this is a member of the media, the press gallery, noting that there are no details to this. We have no idea how much of a funding commitment this is at all. To me this is just another example.
I mean, I think it's rather rich that the government is doing this while we're all sitting in this committee here. So for my colleague to make the argument that there is a plan, look, I really don't think anyone's buying that, at this point. I think by sort of changing the language of the motion and suggesting....
There is no plan outside of piecemeal announcements. Again, we have a member of the press gallery noting that there were no details associated with it.
I'll also note that I received some information that the London city manager has been asked by a senior official in Toronto, the Toronto city manager, if municipalities in Ontario have any appropriate, immediately available, public or privately owned sites or facilities, including hotels, that could be used or repurposed as shelter spaces for refugees or asylum claimants. Why is the city manager of Toronto asking this question? Who is paying for hotel costs? Who is paying for these things? This is not information that's been provided to this committee. This is not information that has been provided at any point in time to any parliamentarian. These are the sorts of things where the public starts going, “Where are the details?”
Now, just because the issue of language has come up, I would like to quote the immigration minister from March 19, 2018, at this committee:
I'm happy to use “illegal”....
...I have used the word “illegal” and I have used the word “irregular” and I think both are accurate.
I have no qualms...using the term.
Given that two of my colleagues in here have brought this up—in a way, I think, to divert attention from the issue.... Yes, people have the ability to claim asylum in Canada, but the reality, according to the CBSA, the Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of Immigration, is that they are illegally entering the country. I just take issue with the government side—I understand that my colleague from the NDP has to do this—trying to divert attention away from the fact that there isn't a plan by contradicting themselves over and over again. I think Canadians are at the point where they also understand the motivation for having this debate on semantics. I guess if the minister were here, I would ask him if he's now contradicting himself with the statement he made in committee, especially after he cast aspersions at our new colleague, who's the immigration minister in Ontario.
The other thing I really want to take issue with is my colleague's characterization of the response to this issue as “hysteria”. Look, as a woman, I can't tell you the number of times I've been told I was hysterical. I think for the government to say that asking questions about whether or not this policy is now normalized, that the government....
We don't have a clear answer. I mean, we don't understand what the government will do. My colleague from the NDP is saying let's suspend the safe third country agreement. I'm making the argument that we should allow it to continue. Regardless, the government has not stated its policy on this. It's just hoping that everyone will turn a blind eye.
The reason I am arguing against the amendment is that this government has made a significant policy change. By not responding, it has responded, and it has said, through its actions by setting up a permanent space at Roxham Road—with permanent processing agents, permanent transport plans, and tent cities—and by asking municipal leaders to look at busing people to different homeless shelters, that it has made a decision that it is not going to enforce the safe third country agreement across the entire border. It is just saying, “Look, we're just going to enforce it at official points of entry, but we're not going to suspend it.” There has been no public response on costing for this, or service delivery plans, or plans for integration.
With that, it's not reflected in the levels plan either, so there is no possible way that resettlement service providers can respond to this. It's not about the impact; it is about the adequacy of the response, because the government does not have a plan to date.
Just on the term of “hysteria”, again, that's a very gendered term to use, Gary, first of all. And I think very few Canadians would argue that having a parliamentary committee study the costs associated with the government's policy change is hysterical. I don't understand why the Liberals' response to this has been to ratchet up words like “fear”, “division”, and “hysterical” and to spend all this time on the terminology “illegal” when they had their minister sit here and testify to the same months ago.
Now, I want to refute some of the points that my colleague also made with regard to the adequacy of the level of information that the government has provided to this committee. My colleague opposite, in his arguments for the amendment, seemed to suggest that the minister had provided Parliament with any sort of information around the numbers expected, the details of the needs and competencies of the cohort who are crossing Roxham Road, or of any of the meetings he has had with provinces with regard to the long-term welfare costs associated with this.
I would just say to put this aside for a minute. It is our job to ask these questions, and we just don't have that information here. Again, we can't actually assess the impact, because we don't understand the data. We don't even know if it is adequate, because there is no plan. I don't even know what this is.
The last thing I want to talk about is the due process. This government and my colleague opposite used some language suggesting that what they are getting is due process, but is it really accurate to suggest that for somebody who is claiming asylum in Canada it will likely take years to have an asylum claim heard? We have the Immigration and Refugee Board on the news today talking about what a crisis situation they're in. That is due process?
Again, part of this is the fact that we can't look at the impact of a plan because there isn't one. I want to see the adequacy of a response.
My colleague also made a comment about the 400 per day. That wasn't a figure that I put out; it was a figure that the Quebec government put out. The Quebec government did some analysis and looked at the current increase rate and it was projecting 400 per day. Then my colleague suggested that 39 people per day is somehow a victory, when it is actually more than June of last year. Again, I feel that the government is normalizing, through its members here on this committee, a situation that has become very difficult. I think that's really dangerous.
Without an accurate, costed plan having been presented to Canadians—because I don't feel that the government did have a mandate to change its policy on this to such a great extent—I do worry about people saying, “Well, maybe immigration isn't working right now.”
He also made a comment about the piles of homework that we have given IRCC officials, and he said that a vast majority of this had been done. Public servants exist at our pleasure, to provide this information, because we have a mandate from our constituents to scrutinize the expenditure of public funds, and “vast majority” is not acceptable.
We still have outstanding requests from CBSA. This is why my colleague Larry Maguire has asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do an analysis, because maybe he'll have more luck than we have had. We don't understand whether the government is even going to acquiesce to some of these requests. So in terms of “piles of homework”, that's their job, and I find it really difficult how every once in a while we have to threaten to raise points of privilege in here because it takes months and months before we get any sort of costing information.
The last point with regard to the minister providing adequate information to committee is that he is going out and expending public funds without any scrutiny on an ongoing basis. You know, the safe third country agreement aside, there are over 31,000 people in Canada right now who have come to Canada through Roxham Road or Emerson in the last year and a half. How are we supporting them when they're here? Are we just going to continue busing them around to hotels without any sort of plan? How much is that going to cost? That's not fair. That's not right. Can you imagine somebody being in a college dorm in Toronto right now and reading the news articles—if they are privileged enough to be able to read them—and finding out that on August 9 they might not have a place to go to? That's not a plan.
I understand why the Liberal members used the language that they did, because they're desperately trying to avoid scrutiny on this issue, but these are people's lives, and this is where the going gets tough, right? This is where the going gets tough. It's not about a photo op anymore. How welcoming is Canada? That's a question this committee should be seized with. So I refuse to support this amendment, Mr. Chair, and I would ask my colleagues opposite to really think about implying that the government has a plan here and trying to whitewash this motion.
To my colleague opposite, through you, Mr. Chair, I really think, and I would ask him to retract the term “hysterical”, because I think that's what's going to be the clip tonight. I really don't think it behooves anyone in this room, or in Canada, or who has been crossing the road this way to say that a parliamentary committee asking for answers and holding the government to account on this is hysterical or is anti-Canadian. This is our job. This is Canada right here.
I don't support the motion, and I would ask my colleagues opposite, and especially implore up to the Prime Minister's right hand to stop with this and actually get the ministers and start holding them to account, because nobody buys this anymore, and it's damaging to people's lives. The amendment is poor. We should be supporting the main motion as worded. I think my colleague opposite from the NDP already said in her opening remarks that she would support it. Please don't try to soften this, because there isn't a plan and that's something that I hope the members would acknowledge.