Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 4th, 2019

[Salma Zahid, Scarborough Centre, Lib.]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for coming today as we get to this important study.

Thank you, Mr. Hussein, for all the work you do. I hear about your good work all the time in Toronto. Many of my constituents use your services.

Mr. Hussein, newcomer women have some specific needs. Often, to be successful, they need some specific programming and support to be designed. What do you identify as the particular challenges faced by newcomer women and how are you addressing them through the services you provide?

[Ahmed Hussein]

Yes, you're absolutely right. We receive large numbers of GARs, government-assisted refugees, as well as privately sponsored refugees. What we have seen is the importance of really programming something that is relevant to them. The best option is having that holistic assessment and seeing what the real needs are. In our area, for example, there are a lot of women who are interested in doing catering, and they have been successful. They have been catering to some of the big institutions.

Supporting that is important, whether it's connecting to financial support or whether it's giving them space so they can access information and resources. Supporting the childminding piece is important for women as is the language component, because quite often, we have seen that the men speak one of the official languages—mainly English, in our area—so the language need is predominantly for women. We really targeted a number of programs geared to them, which is also relevant to economic development, entrepreneurship and in connecting to the other established women in the community.

We have developed some relationships in terms of doing some work for the Ontario Science Centre, which is in Toronto. Some newcomer women developed costumes for a show that goes all over the world. We helped them to negotiate a contract with the Ontario Science Centre. There is a lot of entrepreneurship that women bring to the table, and I think we have to really encourage them and build on that, because that will really help their integration into Canada.

[Salma Zahid]

Our government increased funding for the settlement program for 2018-19 by nearly 5%. It was increased to $768 million. With further increases to support more newcomers under the multi-year levels plan, by the end of fiscal 2019-20, this will represent a 32% funding increase for settlement since our government took office in 2015.

Can you tell us how this additional funding is helping to improve these services for the newcomers on the ground?

[Ahmed Hussein]

Any increase in funding expands the reach of the people we help. We're able to hire people who are specific to certain areas. For example, recently, mental health was an issue with the Syrian refugees who came. With those resources, we were able to get mental health services or crisis services, which, incorporated into the service delivery, improves their life and makes them more ready for employment, or if they are going into business, it helps them. It also increases the number of people who go to language classes, for example. It's important that people learn the language so they can be incorporated into the labour market. Having more classrooms and reducing the number of people waiting for language programs helps a lot. In our area we have expanded the language programs and we have reduced our waiting time, so they really impact more people. More resources means more impact.

[Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

My next question is for Ms. Hamel.

With a lot of focus on language and skills training for adults in order to get into the workforce, sometimes youth are overlooked, yet newcomer families tend to lean more on their children, particularly the teenagers, to assist them with integration. How are you addressing the pressures faced by newcomer youth? Is there anything specific you're doing?

[Jocelyne Hamel]

That's a really good question.

We do have youth workers who are specifically addressing working with newcomer youth who are in school or who may be straddling the age gap. At Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House we go into the schools and work with the SWIS, settlement workers in schools. We do some supports as well as anti-racism workshops, just as my colleague, Ms. Hamm, talked about. We engage them in conversations about the roles they might be playing. We're helping to support them that way, but we also have programs where they can connect with other youth outside the school, which gives them social support.

It's very challenging because we also work very closely with vulnerable populations, like the Syrian refugees, and when we have had Syrian youth join our youth programs, sometimes the parents have had to come because they needed to see that we were safe. The fact is our neighbourhood houses are very safe places. It took a little while sometimes to get buy-in from the families who were suspicious and worried about their children. That is one of the things we do. We're able to create those spaces where youth can come together with other youth and their parents are okay with it. That is one thing.

I also want to talk a little about Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House. It's related to food. They created a social entrepreneurial program, which was taking reclaimed fruit and vegetables and engaging the youth to make chutney. This is a small program that is engaging not just newcomers but many of the participants are newcomer youth. They get an opportunity to make a little income. They learn some skills. They get attached to the workforce. These kinds of grassroots initiatives are constantly being invented and innovated in organizations like ours in the neighbourhood houses because—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thanks very much. I need to end it there. That's the end of the time.

[Jocelyne Hamel]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chair, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and 108(2), the Committee meet jointly with the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study whether gaps in the process of the security screening for persons entering Canada have arisen over the last three years, both at official points of entry and between points of entry, to identify the causes and impacts of these gaps, and propose potential solutions; that departmental officials and Ministers from both Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness be present for at least one meeting; that officials and elected representatives from the United States federal Congress and Senate be invited to attend; that these meetings be held before March 1st, 2019; that the Committee report its findings to the House; and that Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

I want to lay out three principles for my colleagues on why I think this is timely and why it is incumbent upon our committee to look at this particular issue.

Many Canadians feel screening is a reasonable part of Canada's immigration process. Several articles have suggested problems have recently arisen with our screening process, and it is incumbent upon Parliament to study this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Could I just interrupt for our witnesses. We'll go right back to you after I finish this.

So you'll understand what is happening, when a member has the floor to ask questions of witnesses, it is their right, their prerogative, to move a motion. This motion has been presented to the committee in the past, so it has had 48 hours' notice. It's appropriately Ms. Rempel's opportunity to bring forward a motion.

We're going to ask you to stay with us while this goes on. We don't know how long it will take.

Thank you.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Wonderful.

I want to present to my colleagues my rationale for a joint committee meeting, which is part of Standing Order 108(1). Also, to give a perfect example, as our chair outlined at the start of this meeting, we now have a minister, Minister Blair, whose responsibility I think straddles both departments—we're not sure—and now these matters do kind of fall under the purview I think of two different committees. To me, that's important.

I want to read a quote for my colleagues from what is, I believe, a CBC article. It was from Professor Kelly Sundberg at Mount Royal University. He said:

As a Canadian I expect more, and I think other Canadians expect that our federal law enforcement, intelligence and border security agencies can work seamlessly, [and] share information seamlessly. And if there are administrative or legal hurdles, then that's something [that] Parliament needs to look at.

This comment was made with regard to an article where a foreign national entered the country illegally, subsequently claimed asylum and had an extensive criminal history and, I believe, an outstanding arrest warrant. Even though the CBSA might have raised concerns about this individual, the IRB process, which is in the purview of this committee, did not acknowledge that and still allowed this person into Canada. I believe the article states that this person may be allegedly committing crimes in Canada.

I want to go through some of the stories. Again, this is not me. This is the CBC and Global News and others.

We have a story from December 13, “Botched handling of gangster refugee claimant exposes Canada's screening weaknesses”. Again, this is from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This is a very long article that talks about potential gaps in our screening processes, potentially exacerbated by the demand on our system created by people entering at Roxham Road over the last year.

Again, on January 16 of this year, there is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article headlined “Person of 'national security concern' was accidentally granted permanent residency”. I believe the Minister of Public Safety talked about the document that CBC obtained this information from, which was heavily redacted. I don't understand how somebody who was flagged as a national security concern was given permanent residency.

Again, it's that interface between the Canada Border Services Agency's processes, the RCMP, our intelligence agencies and our immigration processes. There seems to be a gap there.

This one was reported over a year ago by Stewart Bell from Global News: “Internal government audit finds 'gaps' in security screening of Syrian refugees”. Of course, this is an audit that goes through the fact that there were many people from this cohort “who should have undergone comprehensive security checks” but “were not screened before arriving in Canada”.

On February 4, there was an article in the Associated Press, which reads, “Canadian border more of a terror concern than Mexican for U.S.”

I believe I saw another article on Global News today that was talking about terror threats from a certain nationality. The Americans have expressed concern that they might be self-deporting into Canada.

Look, I want to be very clear on the intention here. My concern is that these reports are piling up. Day after day, there is a story that talks about screening processes. Today in the House of Commons I rose and asked the minister if he'd be willing to come to committee. The response that we got from the government representative at the time was that everything is going fine.

When we get concerns like this day after day, I worry that if the government isn't accountable to Parliament, as Professor Sundberg talked about, the government risks allowing a narrative that we don't want to have in Canada. We need to ensure that the processes we have are working fully and robustly in every circumstance, and that there isn't an acceptable margin of error here.

As Professor Sundberg said, this is a matter for Parliament to study. All we're asking for here is a study. There are several instances. Any one of those headlines that I just read should be of concern to parliamentarians. The government should be accountable for this messaging. I think it is a fairly reasonable request, especially now that we have a minister who straddles both departments, that we should do this in short order.

I should also speak to the components about representatives from the United States. I'm happy to discuss that with colleagues.

There was an article that came out, I think it was about two weeks ago, where a Democratic congressman who, I believe, is now the vice-chair or chair of the equivalent committee to ours, expressed concerns about Canada's ability to screen newcomers as it relates to a relationship with the United States. Given that we share one of the longest undefended borders, I think it's incumbent on us to, at the very least, undertake a neutral parliamentary study of this matter, and also give our colleagues to the south an opportunity to appear, should they decide to. They don't have to.

I believe this is in order, in accordance with Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and 108(2). I hope my colleagues will support this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

We have a speakers list.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, as I listened to the debate on the motion, which is essentially to ask for a study on the security screening process, I think it's really important, as we enter into this debate, that the work that is to be undertaken is not done in a way that vilifies a community group or sets what I would say are presumptions of community groups, and most particularly refugees, and I would say irregular refugees, irregular border-crossing refugees.

I've become increasingly concerned as we look at these issues at how misinformation and misrepresentation is being provided. When that happens, it hurts everyone and that is very concerning to me.

I don't oppose, on the face of it, looking at the screening process to see how things have gone over the last number of years. I don't, on the face of it, oppose that, but I think we need to be very mindful of that work and how it is to be done.

I think it's very important also that we examine the resources and tools that have been provided for the security screening process. We know that there has been an increase in influx with respect to that, and we need to put that in context.

I also think that, on the question around accountability mechanisms, and particularly with CBSA, there isn't one. I think there should be one, so we can look at all of these issues in a cohesive, comprehensive way, and in such a way that does not, I hope, just scapegoat particular groups or individuals.

To that end, Mr. Chair, I would like to amend the motion by adding that the study include the examination of resources and tools provided for security screening and to examine accountability mechanisms for departments tasked with security screening, including the CBSA.

I would also like to add, Mr. Chair, in terms of officials coming to the table, that we should, in fact, invite officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB. I think they should all be part of this study, if we're going to embark on this process, so that we can have a cohesive look at what's going on with those departments and the resources and tools provided to them, to ensure we have a robust system within our various departments and a good accountability measure.

I know that CBSA is the only institution of its kind that does not have an oversight mechanism, and I find that challenging, to say the least. I think that should be incorporated into this review, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

The discussion is now shifting to the amendment. Perhaps you could say it one more time, as we don't have it in writing, so that the committee can understand what you had as the amendment.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would add, “to examine resources and tools provided for security screening; to examine accountability mechanisms for departments tasked with security screening, including the Canada Border Services Agency; and that department officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, and the Immigration and Refugee Board be included as officials to be invited to come to the Committee.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I have Ms. Zahid and then Ms. Rempel.

[Salma Zahid]

Are we debating the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Now it's the amendment. The amendment has to do with two things, particularly about resources and capacity for the agencies doing the screening as well as accountability with respect to them. Is that fair?

[Salma Zahid]

The committee has started up a new study to examine the settlement services and how the newcomers integrate here in Canada. It's a very important study. We are also doing a report on the global migration trends, so we have a lot of important work happening already in this committee.

This study we are doing right now on the settlement services is very important because it allows us to examine how Canada ensures that newcomers integrate, get jobs, learn the language skills and become important community members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to ask the member to speak to the amendment, not the whole motion, at this point. We'll debate the motion in a moment. Right now we just need to speak to the amendment, which is about the security, the border agencies and the accountability.

[Salma Zahid]

The border agencies are not under the purview of our committee. They fall under another committee.

We are responsible for immigration, not for screening and security. Those fall under a different committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Madam Zahid, you're speaking against the amendment, as the purview would be SECU as opposed to CIMM.

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel, Ms. Kwan and then Mr. Sarai.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I'll speak in favour of the amendment. I think Ms. Kwan makes a very good case, and that's actually demonstrated by the level of redacted documents that are reported on in these stories.

I also want to echo the comments that Ms. Kwan made at the front end of her statement. I was trying to get at this with my first comments, but I think Ms. Kwan put it more succinctly, which is that the more headlines that we have like this and the less action that Parliament takes, the more room there is for misinterpretation or generalities to be spread in the community.

This is why I started the motion by talking about the fact that Parliament has the purview to hold the government to account in these instances. We have academics in these articles saying Parliament should be reviewing this, and that's what we've done here. It's a very benignly worded motion to simply examine the adequacies of these processes so we can have facts on the table, and be working from a position of fact. What we have in these articles are redacted statements, and essentially more and more stories every day. I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow there's another story that speaks to this particular issue, in fact.

To my colleague's comments about this not being the purview of this committee, the government can't appoint a minister who's in charge of this issue and have him before both SECU and CIMM for supplementary estimates and then argue that it's not the purview of this committee to look at the interface. That's weak sauce.

Second of all, the articles that I cited, to reiterate, show gaps between the processes for collecting information on screening and how that's fed into the immigration process. For example, there's this particular story that I showed, Mr. Chair, and I can put it in the record, “Botched handling of gangster refugee claimant exposes Canada's screening weaknesses”. It's Abdullahi Hashi Farah. To me, it's the perfect example of where somebody has come in; the CBSA and the RCMP have highlighted information and that has not made it into the Immigration and Refugee Board consideration process.

As a parliamentarian, and as parliamentarians here, I think it's incumbent upon us to ask why this is happening. Can we fix it? Immigration is important to this country, and people expect us to get the “how” right so that they're not questioning “if”. That's what I'm asking here.

With respect, the resettlement services study is very important, as is the other study, the work that we've had, but this is an emergent issue, where every single day there is another story about it. In my estimation, this is of utmost importance to this committee.

I'm actually willing, Mr. Chair, to sit outside of regularly scheduled committee hours to do both at the same time. As parliamentarians, the public pays our salary to do work like this. I would say that we could do both. We could keep the meetings as scheduled. I'm happy to sit weekends, evenings, whenever, to get this done. I don't accept the argument that we have other things to do—it's not adequate in this place. If anything, I would say that the security of Canadians and the integrity of our border screening processes would be of utmost importance to Canadians.

Therefore, I support the amendment, and I certainly reject the arguments made by my Liberal colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan.