Evidence of meeting #123 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.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Yes. I would suggest that this would happen before Christmas.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Okay, so we have a subamendment that we need to debate first, but seeing no debate on it, we will vote on putting a time limit on that to before Christmas.
(Subamendment negatived)
We are now on the amendment that we invite the witness back at an appropriate time to present such a plan.
Ms. Rempel.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
My colleagues in the Liberal Party just voted down an amendment to have the IRB chair come back to talk about his plan, even though he himself in testimony today said he would be in a position to have this done within a two-month period. I would just like to put on the record that the voting down of that particular amendment was likely done because they plan to never have him back on this.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I don't understand, first of all, why we can't just have a document tabled with this committee on fairly routine information, and why the Liberals would vote that down. I would just postulate, Mr. Chair, that is because they don't want to have that and they have something to hide, perhaps because they have a minister of nothing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Rest assured that if this committee passes a motion to invite a witness, that witness will be invited.
Ms. Kwan and then Mr. Whalen.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Chair, I would like to move a subamendment with respect to the timeline.
It seems to me that the government members are concerned that the document may not be tabled by Christmas. That being said, there's some anticipation that perhaps this work would be completed within two months' time.
Why don't we make the suggestion that upon the completion of the report, within the week, that Mr. Wex be invited back to this committee so that we can actually have that discussion? I think that's fair. It will be tabled; the government will have it, and then we as parliamentarians can actually look at it and move forward.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
My subamendment would be to add in a timeline that, upon the tabling of the report from Mr. Wex to the government, within a week—
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
—we invite him to come to the committee, and have a committee meeting on the issue.
Liberal
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I support the subamendment, but I would just like to put some information out for context.
It is so imperative that the IRB tell the government, parliamentarians and Canadians how they plan to address the backlog and the dramatically building inventory of cases within the IRB, and what advice they're presenting that they would like Parliament to undertake in that regard, especially if there are potential policy changes that might be required. We're at October 2. We have people staying in hotels in the greater Toronto area at taxpayer expense because the IRB has a case backlog.
This has a direct impact on budgetary expenditures related to the housing of people who have illegally entered the country and then subsequently claimed asylum. It has a direct impact on federal-provincial relationships with regard to the committee that's happening. It has a direct impact on whether or not we are in a position to evaluate any sort of supplementary estimates that might be presented to this committee.
I hope that anybody who is watching this realizes how ridiculous it is that we would be having any discussion about tabling a report on this, given the severity and gravity of this particular issue.
Thank you.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I believe that everyone around the table shares the same goal since every member of the committee wants this information. There is no doubt about that.
However, how we feel about how to obtain that information might differ. We are splitting hairs over when Mr. Wex will submit a document or a recommendation. I agree with Mr. DeCourcey: we met to confirm that Mr. Wex had the required skills for his position.
Before we were able to even finish asking the witness our questions about that — we didn't even get all the way around the table — we were already looking for information on the work he will do. I have no problem asking him for that information when we invite him back to the committee. I have no objection to inviting the witness back more than once even.
However, today we want to verify the witness' skills. Moving a motion before, after, or during the study of another document seeking to bring back the witness is a waste of time. Once we learn of the existence of a document, no matter what it is, or supplementary information, and we need to invite the witness back, then we will simply make that request.
That's what I wanted to say about the supplementary motion.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I asked a very simple question that I think Mr. Wex would have agreed to do. We had to move a motion to do this. I don't understand why the government is so reticent to provide information about how it's going to deal with a 65,000 inventory backlog.
Again, I strongly support the subamendment. I'll re-emphasize what that is. Once Mr. Wex provides a document to the government—and again, I don't understand why that doesn't exist right now; I would question competency to be perfectly honest. I don't understand how we don't have a plan to deal with this, given how many cases there are. I would argue that this should be able to be produced now, but if this can't be produced in a two-month period, how many more cases are we going to have?
The subamendment makes perfect sense. Everybody should vote for it and if they don't vote for it, again, I would postulate the motivation would be to hide a lack of a plan.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I can't understand why anyone would be against this subamendment, as well, because it's referring to one week after it's tabled. Whether Mr. Wex has had time to put a new plan together or not, I don't think the issue. There should have been a plan when he was here before and it still should be available now, so we could ask for that plan as well, and another one in two weeks' time or two months' time.
I think it is appropriate to have him come back within a week of the tabling of such a plan.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you.
Seeing that there is no other debate, we're voting on a subamendment which requires the witness to table a report with the committee one week following its presentation to government.
(Subamendment negatived)
We now come to the amendment to the motion, which is that the witness be invited to the committee to discuss his plan when it's available.
I'll just remind all members that I won't entertain people repeating their points.
Yes, Ms. Rempel.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I want to clarify that the amendment we're voting on now has no timeline for the presentation of a plan to the committee, so there is no firm obligation. I would suggest that's because there is no plan, as has been demonstrated by the government's inability to answer basic questions on this. I would suggest that government voting down these two subamendments, which put some timelines around this, suggests that again, there is no plan.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Is there any other discussion on the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now, we are at the motion as amended.
The amended motion has some difficulty in it, without the amendment, frankly, because it's impossible to request a document not prepared. We are attempting to find it in the standing orders—I think it is there—that we can't request a document. However, as now amended, I think the motion does stand well, that the chairperson be invited to this committee to present his plan, following its presentation to the government.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have about 18 minutes.
Ms. Rempel, you have three minutes left.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Wex, since I can't talk about any plans that you might have or address how your competency might be able to achieve that plan, perhaps we could go back to the scope of the problem and how you would address it.
One of the things that has come up with some of your predecessors in front of this committee is addressing some of the IRB's practices and the potential pull factors for people who might come into the asylum system and don't have valid asylum claims, and ways to reduce that.
Is it your understanding that perhaps the wait times that are being created for people who are claiming asylum in Canada, especially through Roxham Road, might create a potential pull factor for people coming into Canada? People know that they have at least two years before their asylum claim is heard. Therefore, they can come into the country, and that's creating a pull for people to enter the country this way.
Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board
Mr. Chair, I have heard of that, and I understand why some people would say that. I have not reviewed any documentation or any evidence to support it, but that's not to say that it doesn't exist. I know that's an idea that's out there. It has some sense of reason to it, but I can't say that I've seen or read anything that would empirically support it.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
You talked in your opening remarks about a desire to reach out to stakeholders to get a better understanding of some of the challenges. Would your consultation with stakeholders include doing some research on this particular phenomenon?
