Evidence of meeting #138 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 migrants.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Craig Damian Smith  Associate Director, Global Migration Lab, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Steve Stewart  Co-Chair, Americas Policy Group, Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Matt DeCourcey  Fredericton, Lib.
Ivan Briscoe  Program Director, Latin America and Caribbean, International Crisis Group
Tanya Basok  Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Windsor, As an Individual
Dean Allison  Niagara West, CPC

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I'm going to thank you for that. However, the member is in order in bringing the motion that he did. I'd like to draw the committee's attention to the verbal notice of motion that was presented. It has been slightly changed to make it an acceptable order of motion to invite the Auditor General. However, I also do hear the member's concern in the point of order and again, I think it's my opportunity to tell the witnesses that we may be at this motion for some time and I don't want to waste their time.

We have someone on the line from Bogota, someone from Montreal, someone from Toronto and someone from Windsor. You're certainly welcome to listen to the committee. However, the member does have the right to raise a motion for which he had given due notice of motion.

Mr. Maguire.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have had multiple appearances from ministers and departments at our committee. However, it wasn't until I requested a financial analysis from the PBO that we were able to have a better understanding of what the total costs are across all departments. I want to thank the PBO and staff for the report, as I said, as it gives us all around this committee table a clearer picture of what the costs are to Canadian taxpayers.

I don't know if all the members of this committee have had time to read the PBO report, but to provide the highlights, the PBO estimates that the average cost to each asylum claimant who entered Canada in 2017-18 is $14,321 per individual for the entire claim process, increasing to $15,482 this year and then to $16,666 in 2019-20.

If we receive the same number of people next year, we will be well on track to spend $1.1 billion of taxpayers' money. I would like to stress that this does not include any of the costs being borne by other levels of government to provide for housing, welfare and other social services.

While the parliamentary budget office gave us the overall numbers, its mandate doesn't provide it with the ability to examine the Liberal government's performance in responding to the situation. The Auditor General is well within his mandate to undertake a performance audit and would be best placed to determine whether the government has responded accordingly.

Furthermore, the Auditor General can provide recommendations to determine whether there are ways we can improve how the various departments responded. I think this is something every single one of us around the table wants to see. We also know there are many moving parts as to how the government has responded to the border crossers. It would be in our committee's best interests to get a third party audit of what has transpired.

To name a few of the areas in which the Auditor General could undertake a performance review and to give my colleagues an idea of where this report could go, I will outline the following.

First, the RCMP and CBSA had to reallocate members from across the country to respond to the border crossers, so they could apprehend them and hand them over to the CBSA. How did the RCMP and the CBSA prioritize which parts of our border needed greater assurance resources? Did the allocation of RCMP and CBSA members to the border have any immediate consequences? There have been media reports that travellers will have longer wait times while going through customs, because of the reallocation of resources. Is that true? Because the situation has been going on for the past two years and doesn't seem to be stopping, what long-term budgeting has Public Safety put in place? Did the RCMP and the CBSA effectively coordinate with other departments? Is the CBSA effectively removing denied claimants?

Second, the IRCC had to reallocate members to deal with the border crossers. There has been testimony provided at this committee that the reallocation of employees has caused delays with other immigration streams. Is this impact true as well? How did the IRCC determine who would be pulled from their current job and reallocated to deal with the border crossers? Is there a direct correlation in visa denials and a concern that an individual might claim asylum in Canada, therefore adding to the backlog?

Third, there is backlog at the Immigration and Refugee Board and in its processes. The IRB has had to ramp up and hire new employees. How did they determine the number of new people to hire? The IRB has an expedited process for individuals from certain countries. How was that determined, and is it the best way to determine someone's claim?

The IRB wait times are growing, and it could take up to 20-plus months just to get an initial oral hearing. Is that causing any consequences and driving up costs elsewhere? Are IRB wait times causing a spike in humanitarian claims? For example, if someone has had to wait years for their claim, and they have either married or had a child on Canadian soil, are decisions being made in a timely manner, and is there evidence that certain processes are being rushed due to the backlog? Is the IRB effectively going through appeals? Are individuals now, because of the backlog, appealing decisions, to inevitably claim on humanitarian grounds?

Fourth is background checks by the RCMP, CBSA and CSIS. Given the massive influx of people, do our law enforcement and security agencies have the resources to do effective background checks? Are there any gaps in gathering intelligence on claimants, such as by checking with Interpol and other international police organizations? Has the CBSA, in reducing the amount of time while conducting background checks, caused any unintended consequences?

Fifth is deterrence. Has the government effectively instituted enough deterrents to stop the influx of people? How was it determined to send the minister to Nigeria, and what were the results of doing so? How has the government communicated with the U.S. administration in reforming the safe third country agreement? How was it decided to send Liberal MPs to visit with various communities in the United States, and how were those meetings determined to be successful? How did the government share information with embassies and foreign countries to deter individuals from coming across the border illegally?

Sixth is the ad hoc intergovernmental task force on irregular migration. How has the federal government worked across departments to effectively respond to the influx of border crossers? How were budgeting decisions made for budget 2018? How has the federal government worked, in coordination with provinces and municipalities, to reimburse costs and coordinate the transportation, housing and health care of border crossers?

In closing, I believe there are sufficient reasons to send this request to the Auditor General. There are many unanswered questions. We all want Canada's immigration and refugee system to run efficiently and in an orderly fashion. We also want our immigration and refugee system to have the full trust of Canadians. I can think of no better way to request this information than inviting the Auditor General to do just that.

If people continue for years to walk across the border to claim asylum, then it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to ensure that the system is working at peak performance. I don't think anyone around this table can say that it is. We do not have any evidence to suggest that things are running as smoothly as Minister Goodale, Minister Hussen, and Minister Blair would like us to believe.

We already have the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. Canadians are concerned and deserve to know with the transparency of a thorough audit. I would assume that further developments would reflect the PBO's findings, which were based on findings from the six departments of government that he interviewed in gathering information to determine his request.

Thank you.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

I'm just going to read the motion and then we'll continue.

It is:

That the Chair send, on behalf of the Committee, a letter to invite the Auditor General to examine irregular migrants crossing in the southern border, and that this examination include a review of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the functioning of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Irregular Migration.

I have Mr. Whalen on the list next.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

Mr. Chair, I would say with respect to the Auditor General that the Auditor General is independent. I think a motion like this might mislead Canadians and indeed other members of the committee as to whether or not this committee has any authority to direct the Auditor General to do or not do any study, which it doesn't.

I also fear that, rather than being used as a tool to actually get to the truth—in the event that the Auditor General chooses or does not choose to do any study into immigration that doesn't meet the express conditions of this motion, which is not binding on the Auditor General—this motion would be used as a whip to undermine the authority and independence and the ability of the Auditor General to give coherence to the reports that he creates.

It's not that I think the Auditor General shouldn't be free to undertake whatever studies he feels are appropriate to do, but that this committee shouldn't be trying to direct or be seen to direct the Auditor General when it has no authority to do so.

There is already a PBO report. If the Auditor General decides to go ahead and do a further investigation, doing so is up to the Auditor General.

Supporting this motion is just going to lead to further misinformation within the minds of Canadians about what committees are for, what the Auditor General is for, and who is responsible for this type of oversight. I am thus going to be voting against the motion.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Mr. Allison.

5 p.m.

Dean Allison Niagara West, CPC

Thank you.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Welcome to our committee.

5 p.m.

Niagara West, CPC

Dean Allison

Thank you very much. It's very interesting to be here. I figure, since everyone's talking, maybe I should talk as well for a little bit.

I just want to respond to Mr. Whalen.

I've had a chance to see the public accounts. As a matter of fact, I've sat on many committees where, quite frankly, there's been.... I'm just going to disagree with the premise of what he is talking about.

The Auditor General is looking for areas to look into if there are any issues people may be concerned with. I know at the public accounts committee, we always had the opportunity make recommendations to them. I sat on the public accounts committee when I got here in 2004. I know that continues to be the case today.

As I said, I think coming from this committee, it would be a good thing in that they would have a chance to look at what's going on and make any recommendations. I know this government is always singing the praises of the Auditor General and how it's great. They say we'll look at the recommendations, we'll make sure we act on them, and I think this will just be one more opportunity for us to point out an area that we would love to have some clarification on. Then, of course, if there were some recommendations, that would obviously take some time, and it would be an opportunity for the government of the day to be able to enact those things.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you.

We'll have Mr. Tilson and then Ms. Kwan.

5 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

I have a further response to Mr. Whalen's remarks. If he looks at the motion that was made by Mr. Maguire, we're not directing. The committee is not directing him to do these inquiries, we're inviting him. It reads, “That the Chair send, on behalf of the committee, a letter to invite”—and I emphasize the word invite—“the Auditor General to examine irregular migrants crossing in the southern border”, and so forth.

The reason that's being done is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer doesn't have the same authority as the Auditor General has. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it quite clear that he does not have the authority to look into other matters of serious concern that I raised in my motion and that Mr. Maguire has raised in his motion. He can go a lot further, and that's the reason we're inviting the Auditor General to examine this whole process.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan.

5 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the motion itself, I don't have a problem with the Auditor General being invited or being requested to look into these items and then to present to Canadians for their determination. I think I'm fine with that.

Although, I have to say, I think the word “invite” is a bit strange. Perhaps the word should be “request”, that we request the Auditor General to look at this. The Auditor General, then, is within their authority to either decline or accept. It is entirely up to them and their independence would be intact. I don't think we're in the position to invite them to look into this.

I would, therefore, make an amendment to say, instead of the word “invite”, the word “request”.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

In discussion with the clerk on the original notice of motion, I said that I would probably rule out of order a request of the Auditor General to do something, as that sounds heavier handed, and I think that is not the role of a Parliamentary committee, so Mr. Maguire changed it to “invite”, and I think that it is a more cautious word. I would have preferred, frankly, “invite the Auditor General to consider examining”, but as it stands now, I would rule that out of order, requesting the Auditor General to do anything.

Are there any other speakers?

I see none, so we will vote on the issue.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

We now go to Ms.—

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

I believe I can ask questions.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I'm sorry...?

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

I believe I can have some questions. That was a notice of motion. The Conservatives still have the right to ask questions.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

On the notice of motion, the motion was just defeated.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

No, not the motion...to the witnesses that we have before us.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Yes, but it was Mr. Maguire's time, the clock was running and that time has been used.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

No, Mr. Chairman, that was a notice of motion. That wasn't part of his time for questions. That was something separate.

That's been the practice of this committee for as long as you've been the chairman.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I will let you continue, Mr. Maguire, if you would like, or you may cede your time.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the witnesses, there are a number of areas here. I'd like to ask Mr. Briscoe—

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Just before we do that, we should check to see whether we have any witnesses left.

I see that Mr. Smith is still there.

Professor Basok, are you still there?