Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 4th, 2019

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, in response to Ms. Zahid's comments about my amendment being outside the purview of this committee, as we know, this motion is for a joint committee to take place. We know that the screening process, the work of the CBSA, is interconnected with the work of IRCC, particularly at the borders, and there are implications. We also know that in other immigration streams as well, the work of CBSA has implications for the immigration system.

In and of itself, if I were to move a motion to say we should study this just at CIMM without public safety, I think that would be inappropriate, and I would agree with that, but because these things are so intrinsically linked, if we're going to look at this issue in a cohesive way...that's why I bring up this issue in that context. It's meant to work in collaboration with the other department and to ensure that we have a system that Canadians can trust, a system with accountability measures in place, measures which I believe are lacking at the moment.

All these issues tie into a resource question. We know that when you have a demand, you have to resource it appropriately to make sure the work is done. Hence I think it would be appropriate for us to have this joint review to look at the resource aspect as well. My colleague Matthew Dubé is on the public safety committee—they will be looking at this issue as well. He has been on that committee for some time. That said, we have an opportunity, and I think that it would be important to take this opportunity to quash the misinformation that's being spread out there. There are people—by the way, some of them are in this very room—who spread misinformation, who insist on calling asylum-seekers illegals, and I think it's important that we correct the record whenever we can.

In addition, in situations where perhaps a security screening has failed the system, it would be good to clearly examine that, so we don't create an environment where an entire class of people are being misrepresented. I think if we allowed that to happen, it would be a tremendous disservice to everyone. I hope that's not the outcome of this work. That's the reason I support the motion, if for no other reason than to clear the air and to learn from the situation, and then to ensure that we reinforce in the hearts and minds of Canadians that the Canadian process can be trusted and that if action needs to be taken, action will be taken to protect the integrity of the system and reinforce Canadians' trust and faith in the government's work on this front.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Sarai, Mr. Tilson, Mr. Tabbara and Ms. Rempel. Before we continue, I want to advise the committee that the same motion was presented in a public meeting of the public safety and national security committee. It was defeated at that committee, so this does make our discussion about having a joint meeting somewhat moot. They have decided not to hold a joint committee meeting. I think that's important information for the committee to have.

I think it does affect both the amendment and the motion itself, so I'm going to turn to the mover of the motion first and then the mover of the amendment to see whether they want any reconsideration of that, given that information, and then we'll go to Mr. Sarai.

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

Mr. Chair, I think it's disappointing that the public security committee would not want to look at this issue. I think that, of course, our committee is master of its own domain, and I would hope that my colleagues would understand the importance of this motion, given the fact that it seems there are stories day after day, and I'm absolutely positive that more stories will be coming. I think this is an opportunity for the government to show it is taking action in a neutral, fact-based way. Frankly, if this isn't done, I'm not sure what the government has to hide and why they wouldn't want Parliament to look at this at this point.

Again, this speaks in favour of the amendment. The amendment my colleague has proposed is talking about oversight and accountability, so to me, if anything, this decision strengthens the argument to have this meeting. I believe that we should still vote on it, and I implore my colleagues to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for that information.

I also just had my staff check with my colleague at the committee. It is my understanding that the motion was defeated so quickly that my colleague Matthew Dubé did not even have a chance to move the amendments. We were moving amendments at both ends, seeing as the motion was going to be appearing at both committees, and he didn't get a chance to even move the amendment.

This motion that we're debating, with the amendment, would be different from what was defeated at the other committee. I do think that it makes a difference with my amendment in terms of looking at these accountability measures and the resources needed to do this work and, if nothing else, for the government to demonstrate that the process is strong and to provide information to Canadians to reassure Canadians. I would like to suggest that this motion is different from the other one in light of the amendment that I have moved, Mr. Chair.

I would also remind committee members of Ms. Zahid's point. It's true that the resettlement study is a very important one, but I'd just remind committee members that this resettlement study was moved on February 6, 2018, approximately a year ago. We're only just getting around to it. It got bumped, as we know, by other work. Undertaking this proposed study doesn't mean it has to bump existing work. There's always a way to figure out how we can schedule things, as has been done before. If there is willingness to work collaboratively, I'm sure we can try to find a way to deal with that accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I have Mr. Sarai, Mr. Tilson and Mr. Tabbara.

Before we do that, witnesses, I want to give you permission to stay, if you would like. This is a public meeting, and you're welcome to stay. However, you're also welcome to not stay. I will tell you that, in my experience, this could go on for a little bit. We also have another panel that was supposed to come on at 4:30 p.m. My apologies to them. I just wanted to alert you. You're welcome to stay, but I did want to give you that option.

Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Chair, I just want to say, I think the amendment goes to public safety. It has already been defeated, as stated, in the other committee. I don't think it's relevant in this committee. I don't think there's any room for it. Therefore, I would ask that we put the amendment to a vote, that we vote on the amendment and move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I accept the sentiment of that; however, I'm pretty sure I can't.

While I have a speakers list, if the speakers list is on the amendment and you would like to speak to the amendment, we will continue on that. If you would prefer to speak to the motion, we could deal with the amendment first.

Mr. Tilson, Mr. Tabbara and Madam Boucher.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, of course, there's nothing to stop the public safety committee, when they hear our excellent arguments, from reconsidering their position and studying this. I understand what your sentiment is.

The whole issue of this thing, the motion and the amendment, is to keep our borders safe. With the myriad comments being made by the media, the media is concerned. I can tell you that people I've spoken to in my riding are concerned about the safety of our borders. The screening is part of that process, so it would be most important for both committees to study this, notwithstanding that they have rejected a similar motion, but that could be reconsidered.

To comment on Ms. Zahid's remark about resettlement services, to repeat what Ms. Kwan said, the motion was made a long, long time ago for this study to take place. This study will be the eighth time, in my memory, that settlement services have been debated. There was a report by you, Mr. Chairman, on settlement services. There was a report by your predecessor, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, when he was chair, on settlement services. There was a report by me, when I was chairman, on settlement services, and there were a number of others. This is the eighth time.

I'm not trying to downplay the issue of settlement services. It's a most important issue that we need to talk about. But as Ms. Rempel has said, this is an emergency.

I say this to you, Ms. Zahid, on comments with respect to the amendment and indeed the motion. This is an emergency because of the concern as to whether our borders are safe. Many in this country think they're not safe and that people are coming into this country. If that's false, well, a study would reveal that. Either we need to do something about it, we need to take some action to stop the people from coming in who are up to no good, criminally or otherwise, who are terrorists, or if that is not true, we need to deal with that too. If the statements that are being made by the media are not true, we need to deal with that. So, I support the amendment and I support the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I would just remind members of the committee to attempt to address their comments to other members through me. That's a good way to do it.

Mr. Tabbara.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Chair, I also want to agree with my colleagues that I believe the amendment and the motion would be within the confines of public safety. I think they would be able to talk more about the biometrics checks, the health checks and security checks that are rigorously put in place at our borders.

I want to quickly talk about the Conservative government. Back in 2015, there was an article on CTV News. It said, “The Conservative government announced in the recent federal budget its intention to slash 19,200 jobs from the federal public service by 2015 as part of its effort to cut $5.2 billion in spending.” Although the Conservatives are talking about a certain situation, at the same time, when it was in their mandate, when they were in government, they cut thousands of jobs, cut millions of dollars. Also, “CBSA has been told to cut its budget by $143 million over the next three years. More than 1,100 CBSA employees were given notice Wednesday that their jobs are now on the line.”

It's pretty rich for the Conservatives to talk about border security when they never funded—all they did was cut—border security; whereas our government has invested heavily in border security biometrics checks. You can hear that day after day in question period when our minister is taking questions and talking about all the measures that have been put in place since our government came into power in 2015.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We will now hear from Ms. Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

No, I'm fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

No? Then seeing no speakers, I'm going to call a vote on the—

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

Chair, I think I was on the list, wasn't I?

First of all, again, Chair—and I'm imploring my colleagues—the Prime Minister has seen fit to appoint a minister who has appeared before our committee, for whom we've been unable to ascertain his purview, but ostensibly sits between two departments, so I do feel that, through you, Chair, the comments that my colleague made are somewhat irrelevant, especially given that there's now a minister who straddles both of these departments.

With regard to spending taxpayer dollars as a metric, to Mr. Tabbara's point, Chair, what I find is the government—he mentioned question period—often uses the taxpayer dollar as a metric. We'll ask how they are making the streets safer in Canada, and they will stand up and say that they have spent x amount of money. I am certain that the Liberal government is more expensive. I'm certain that they are spending more money. That is not in question. I think that the metric we're looking for is not how much money they can spend, but how safe Canada's streets are and how our immigration process is working. On the comment that was made, I could refer my colleague, through you, Chair, to....

First of all, I'm going to go back. I believe that a lot of the CBSA components in 2015 were programs that came to their natural conclusion. I would say that it is incumbent upon Parliament and government to look at programs that come to their natural conclusion that might not be as effective. I think that's reasonable, but for the CBSA this year in their departmental performance report, and I'm looking to colleagues, I believe there was a metric on the number of goods and people that were detected that might pose a threat to the country. In their audit it was found that only 3% of the time the CBSA was able to do this. We have multiple news stories about gaps occurring.

My colleague's comments that using taxpayer dollars, expending more resources, and getting less results ostensibly reported by the media in terms of public safety would be problematic in terms of accounting to taxpayers, and actually proves Ms. Kwan's point on this amendment even more, that there should be accountability on how we are spending tax dollars. It is not acceptable to spend tax dollars and then get poor results in terms of anything, but specifically public safety. I have no doubt that this government thinks expensive programs are a metric in and of themselves, but what we should be looking at as a committee is whether or not the money that we're spending is actually working.

Actually, my colleague has just proved my point for me, that if the government is going to brag about spending tax dollars, going into deficit and raising taxes, then we should, as a parliamentary committee, examine whether or not things are safe.

I have a feeling, Mr. Chair, I know where this is going, given the result at SECU, given what my colleagues have said here. I think it's unfortunate that we can't, in a neutral setting, look at this issue, but I'm sure it will be a decision that will be recorded and noted in the Canadian public for some time to come.

I will rest my case on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

All right.

I no longer have a speakers list. I want to call the question with respect to the amendment, which is to extend the study to include border agencies and their resourcing, as well as their accountability.

(Amendment negatived)

We'll go to the main motion, and I don't see any speakers so I'm going to call—

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

I just want to be on the record, Chair, through you, to refute Mr. Tabbara's point. This is from CBSA president John Ossowski. The actual stat is that the previous government increased the number of CBSA border guards by 26%. Mr. Ossowski said:

One quick example to explain any drop in the estimates might be that there was project funding provided for several large projects as part of the Beyond the Border action plan. Those projects have come to completion, so as they're done and move to a steady state status, the overall budget of the agency drops.

We did increase the number of border guards by 26%. Now it's up to this government to be held accountable for their record. Today, should my colleagues vote against this motion, I would ask why they wouldn't want their government to be accountable to Canadians on the issue of screening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Can I just clarify for the record where that testimony was?

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

Yes, that was in the public safety committee, I believe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It was the public safety committee.

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

I believe, but I can get that source for you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

I believe it was public safety. I used to chair it.

Mrs. Zahid.

[Salma Zahid]

Chair, we all want to keep Canadians safe, and the safety and security of Canadians should not be subject to this politicking. This is not the time to spread fear and division by scapegoating the most vulnerable. My colleague opposite is trying to create fear among Canadians to be afraid of newcomers. The fact is, Canadians should feel that their safety and security system is very strong, and the safety of Canadians will never be compromised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Rempel.

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

Mr. Chair, that was very disappointing. We have in front of us a motion that my colleague from the NDP has supported, which talks about the need to talk to Canadians and assure them of the integrity of a system that underpins the support for immigration in this country, something we all support. I support immigration. I support immigration done in a lawful, orderly and compassionate manner.

By making that comment—and I want to read the wording of the motion for people who may be watching this online later. I want to read the wording of the motion one more time:

That...the Committee meet jointly with the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study whether gaps in the process of security screening for persons entering Canada have risen over the last three years...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...from the United States...be invited to attend; that these meetings be held before March 1st, 2019....

Mr. Chair, there is nothing in that motion that does what my colleague says it does. There's nothing. All it does is ask whether or not a process is working. I think, especially in this election year, we have to be very careful about separating parliamentary scrutiny of processes that underpin what has been so good for this country. We are a nation of immigrants who stand on the traditional territory of first nations people. We will always be a nation of immigrants.

The question is how, and getting to that point correctly requires Parliament in a neutral setting such as this committee to look at issues like those we have today. This isn't me saying this. The CBC wrote this article. The CBC wrote this headline “Botched handling of gangster refugee claimant exposes Canada's screening weaknesses”.

If my colleague wants to make the argument that she just made, is the CBC fearmongering? Is that the accusation here?

I'm so tired of this. On behalf of Canadians who day after day write all of our offices and say, “Get it together”, watching 40,000 people illegally enter our country while 65,000 privately sponsored refugees languish.... There is a question of policy here. We should be debating it. Trying to shut down debate by calling Canadians names, by trying to divide us based on that type of rhetoric is irresponsible and is actually what's leading to the polarization of our country. That is what's leading to the polarization of our country.

Through you, Chair, Ms. Zahid, that was an irresponsible statement. I look to you, through you, Chair, for an apology on that, because there is nothing in this motion that does anything you said it does. I challenge you to find one thing in that motion that says what you think it says.

This is the CBC reporting the story. It is our goal as parliamentarians to hold this government to account. I am tired of being called those names. I am. I take offence to it, and I take offence to it on behalf of every single Canadian who has these questions. They pay our salaries, Chair, to answer these questions, and voting down a parliamentary study to look at it, and calling us names....

Through you, Chair, the member opposite called us a name. That's not what we're here to do. We're here to scrutinize the government's policies, the efficacy of its objectives and taxpayer funding. We're also here, I would hope, united in having a country that welcomes immigrants, where we can have vigorous policy debates on how we do that, but that we don't move to the question of “if”.

By calling Canadians names on benign motions designed to look at government policies and hold them to account for the expenditure of Canadian tax dollars, we are actually wandering into the territory of “if”, and it's not this side of the table that's doing it. It's that side of the table, and that's irresponsible.

I am proud that we moved this motion today. I'm proud to do my job on behalf of Canadians by asking these questions.

We will not put up with that type of divisive rhetoric any longer. This committee should vote in favour of this motion. If this government has nothing to hide, if everything is rosy, then these ministers should be in front of committee telling us what they're doing to deal with these headlines. Voting against this motion is supporting something very concerning.

Chair, I will just ask, can we not, just in the spirit of collegiality and our job as parliamentarians, support a motion that asks for transparency in the government and asks for them to report on metrics and then to potentially come up with policy solutions? That's what Canadians pay us to do.

If I could get an apology, that would be great. If I could get my colleague opposite to point to one thing in this motion, in this particular motion, Chair, that's in front of us, that suggests what she said, great; otherwise, ladies and gentlemen: the Liberal Party of Canada.