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.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
To be fair, Mr. Chair....
Then, I move, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Wex table his plan, per your words—I'll use your words—his plan to address the 65,000-case inventory processing with this committee.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We have a motion on the floor. I just want to consult with the clerk for a moment.
There is a motion on the floor. It is an admissible motion. Is there any discussion?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I would just say that I think the witness has already made it clear that he would be tabling it to cabinet and to the minister. Asking somebody to table bureaucratic instructions that are going to be used by cabinet before they make a decision, I think, is inappropriate.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Just to be clear on this, I'm not asking Mr. Wex to table any sort of cabinet direction. I think at this point in time, if the IRB doesn't have a plan to address the inventory and can't table that to Parliament, that's probably very problematic. I would ask Mr. Wex to clarify if there is a plan to address that.
Just to my colleagues, as parliamentarians here, we should be asking Mr. DeCourcey whether or not the government has a plan to address this. The government keeps talking about resourcing.
Mr. Chair, I'll point out, too, that there was a Globe and Mail article about two weeks ago where the minister who is now in charge of this file said that the IRB inventory would be reduced, but then the IRB contradicted the minister and said it wouldn't.
I think in terms of addressing Mr. Wex's competency in filling a very serious role, I would like to know what his plan is. I would like to also evaluate that in terms of why the minister would contradict Mr. Wex's own department. I wouldn't think that information would be cabinet confidence. I think that it's basic operation of government that his staff at the IRB would have, and I would like to evaluate that as a parliamentarian.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Unfortunately, Mr. Wex isn't able to answer on a debate on the motion.
Mr. DeCourcey, and then Ms. Kwan.
October 2nd, 2018 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Mr. Chair, I can understand why my colleague would want that, but I would remind her, through you, Mr. Chair, that we're here pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111. If we look at paragraph (2) of Standing Order 111, it reads:
The committee, if it should call an appointee or nominee to appear pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.
I would agree that there should be latitude for the witness to talk about overall vision, but we are not here to discuss the particulars of what the chair of the IRB will be doing. That would be pursuant to a whole other request to have that witness come before this committee, and that's what I was alluding to when I first intervened.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Chair, on that question, and with all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, I think we heard from Mr. Wex in his presentation that he was about to outline some of the options they were entertaining. I don't know why we always do this. We get into this situation where we bicker about nothing, and then we get no information at all that is important to the job we are trying to do here. Maybe we can get on with it.
I will support, of course, the request for tabling of information. I always think the sharing of information amongst all parliamentarians is useful and helpful in finding solutions in a difficult situation. What we don't want to see is the misinformation that is being spread about the asylum seekers. I don't think it's good at all for Canada, or for anybody.
The IRB has an important role to play. There is no question about that. We rely on them to do this work diligently. They deserve to have the necessary resources. They have a report before them, the Yeates report, with many recommendations. I would love to hear from Mr. Wex about what the plan is, going forward, what he's thinking as a new sheriff in town at the IRB, and how we can move forward to deal with the challenges ahead of us.
May we please get on with it? I will support the motion tabled by my colleague, Ms. Rempel, but I would really just urge all members to step down from their podium and see if we can find a way forward to look at the issues in a way that is useful and helpful for everyone.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, I would like to build on the comments of my colleagues Mr. DeCourcey and Ms. Kwan.
First, with regard to the standing order that Mr. DeCourcey mentioned, we have only an hour to examine this and this is a fairly weighty policy matter. I've conducted hundreds of job interviews in my life, and one of the exercises I often use to determine the competency of someone who, frankly, has been on the job for two months already is to ask, “Do you have a plan? What would you do in this situation? What are you going to do with it?”
Given that there are close to $1 billion of expenses now associated with the crisis at Roxham Road and the IRB backlog, I don't agree with the assertion that this is confidential information, and if it is, which is ridiculous, it should be tabled with this committee. I want that information.
Mr. DeCourcey, I don't agree with you. Frankly, I think it's spin to try to not have information in front of this committee in terms of real change.
To my colleague Ms. Kwan, I agree that we should move on with these things, but sometimes there is something that is worth fighting for. Why can't we have a document from the IRB that says what the plan is?
I'm sure Mr. Wex is quite competent. I'm sure he'd love the opportunity to table with the committee some assumptions around what the intake is going to be and the resource assumptions that are going to be required to reduce the inventory over a certain period of time. I don't understand why we as parliamentarians, especially going into a budgetary cycle, wouldn't want to look at that information.
Frankly, in terms of my Liberal colleagues voting this down, why would Parliament not want to examine this information? I'm sure Mr. Wex will provide something that is suitably sanitized, to allay the concerns of my colleagues opposite, a routine document that would be provided to this committee.
I would like to do that. I'm sure you guys will be able to crow about whatever you're trying to do in it. I don't think this is a frightening exercise by any means. The only reason to vote this down is that you have something to hide. Don't hide this; move on.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
If the member wants that information, there are ways it could potentially be sought. This committee is undertaking a study on migration patterns in the 21st century, but today we're here pursuant to the standing orders written in parliamentary procedure. I would think my colleagues would not want to circumvent those standing orders, nor parliamentary procedure, for the sake of getting what they want today.
There are ways to do this. I was merely referencing the reason this committee was brought together today for this testimony.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
If Ms. Rempel is okay with inviting the witness back once the document is prepared, we would entertain that.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Yes. I suggest, not to try to belabour it, that if it's a friendly amendment to invite Mr. Wex back, once this document is prepared, to discuss the IRB's plan to achieve a reduction and elimination of the backlog, I'd be happy to schedule another meeting on that.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm not as good on either friendly or unfriendly amendments. If you would like to make an amendment, I would entertain an amendment to the motion.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
So you're amending the motion to have such an opportunity to discuss the plan at a future date by inviting the chairperson back.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Given that Mr. Wex has suggested that they would be in a position to have this done within a two-month period, I would request that the meeting happen before the Christmas recess, if my colleague is amenable to that.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Conservative