Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2016

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Let's try this on for size, in the spirit of sunny ways.

It appears to me that we can address both concerns. Ms. Rempel's motion speaks to the need to understand the legality of a current policy that's in place. In that context, for a government to operate, and therefore, the committee working and going forward, it must examine that question.

If we're able to set that question aside for a legal opinion, that would assist us in our work going forward. That would bring us to the next phase of the work that needs to be done.

What information do we need to gather to support the government in moving forward in addressing this critical issue? In my personal opinion, and I'm not a lawyer, the policy, as it stands right now, in this application of only applying it to one group of refugees, based on the timeline, creates a two-tiered system. Refugees by nature, the very definition of who they are, when they apply for the programs, speaks to their urgency and the great need that they have, which is to flee their country. That situation applies to every single refugee, no matter when they arrive and from what country. That is a critical issue that we need to examine and to ensure that the principle of fairness is applied to everyone.

I heard in the House of Commons yesterday from a member who said that there was nothing more important for all members of this House than to apply the principle of fairness in the work that we do. In the spirit of sunny ways, I wonder whether or not we could move in the direction of having this committee deploy its resources to get a legal opinion on this question. Once we have that information, we will then be able to go forward with that work.

That would be my suggestion of a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Rempel is next, and I caution that we are rapidly approaching the 15 minutes.

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

Great, I'll address my colleague, Mr. Sarai's concern about the committee mandate.

Actually, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has the power to...and in its mandate is written “study issues of its own choosing”. Under the list of what may be done under that is “statute law relating to CIC”, and other matters relating to the mandate, management, organization, or operation of CIC. In terms of the argument that this does not fall within the committee mandate, it's actually right there. I think it's pretty obvious that this motion falls in there.

With regard to the comment from my colleague from the NDP, I appreciate her comments and her support on this. On the request for a legal opinion, I think that was the objective of the motion as it was written. I think it would be very interesting—and I'd love to work collaboratively with my colleagues across the table—to bring in legal experts to talk about whether this would in fact constitute a charter violation. I think that is very timely.

As well, I know there were concerns with regard to budget. The minister raised concerns about the budget. This type of a report would help the minister decide whether the program should stay as it has been for the last 30 years, or change in the context of the government's upcoming budget, which I know has a lot of requests for funding.

Then, with regard to some of the other components, my colleague from the NDP did ask the minister a question with regard to whether she would support the motion, if there has been a decision made on this. The minister clearly said that there hasn't, but more concerning is that he said he didn't know the numbers of people affected. I think that these are all points that could be studied within the scope of the motion as presented.

To reiterate, if my colleague—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Rempel, we're being very flexible. We're now approaching seventeen minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, as a point of order, I do have the ability to continue speaking when I have the floor at committee.

But to continue, and I am closing, I do support the motion as it is put forward. I think it's a very important question and it's one that the government has not been able to answer. I hope that my colleagues support it.

I don't support the motion as amended, and I certainly hope that my colleagues.... If they would like to look at changing the date, perhaps moving it to June, I'd be okay with that. However, I do think it's a motion of great importance and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

We are moving to a vote on the subamendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I call for a recorded division on this as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

We will begin with the subamendment from Ms. Kwan.

The subamendment would add, “and that a legal opinion be sought as to whether waiving this requirement for Syrian refugees constitutes a violation of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Just to clarify, that would be a “written legal opinion”, which might help expedite the work that we're doing. Once we have that legal opinion, then we can move forward to the other amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you for that clarification.

Ms. Rempel.

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

If my colleague could clarify the subamendment that she's proposing.... Is it to the amendment proposed by the Liberals, so that the Liberal motion would stand with her subamendment being attached to it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Correct.

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

That actually wouldn't change the form and substance, except that we wouldn't be allowed to have witnesses in the scope of the study to talk about the charter violations. I can't support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

We will proceed to vote.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am wondering if I could propose a three-minute recess before we all decide where we stand on the amendments and the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I believe that technically we've begun the vote, so we will proceed with the vote on the subamendment.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I was expecting the motion to be read out again. Could that be read out? Also, given the context of it being an amendment to another amendment, I would like the other amendment also read out, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

For clarity for everyone, I'll read the original motion, the amendment, and then the subamendment.

The original motion is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee study the government's recent decision to waive the Immigration Loans Program repayment requirement for Syrian refugees; that the Committee examine whether waiving this requirement for Syrian refugees and not for other refugee cohorts constitutes a violation of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that this study be comprised of no less than four meetings to be held prior to May 1, 2016; and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

The amendment reads, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee study the government's recent decision to waive the Immigration Loans Program repayment requirement for Syrian refugees; and going forward, that the Transportation Loans Program be studied as it relates to all refugees”.

The subamendment adds, “and that a written legal opinion be sought as to whether waiving this requirement for Syrian refugees constitutes a violation of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

We will now proceed to the vote.

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

We will now proceed to vote on the amendment.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, can I have some clarity on whether this amendment replaces the original motion or adds an extra part to it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I believe you may have a copy before you, but if you don't, it replaces the portion that reads:

...that the Committee examine whether waiving this requirement for Syrian refugees and not for other refugee cohorts constitutes a violation of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that this study be comprised of no less than four meetings to be held prior to May 1, 2016; and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

Should this amendment pass, the motion would then read, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee study the government's recent decision to waive the Immigration Loans Program repayment requirement for Syrian refugees; and going forward, that the Transportation Loans Program be studied as it relates to all refugees”.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now vote on the main motion as amended.

(Motion as amended negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We have an agenda here. We've invited the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to appear before this committee. It was the will of this committee, as we decided at our last meeting, to invite the minister so we could hear what the government is doing and that would help inform our agenda as a committee moving forward. I'm rather disappointed to see this continuation of motions and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Chen, it's not a point of order, and we are returning to the committee business as it was in the agenda.

Ms. Kwan, you have four minutes and 37 seconds remaining.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay, then I'm going to plough through my questions very quickly.

My first question is related to Bill C-24. The minister will recall that during the campaign the Prime Minister announced in the Sing Tao, Ming Pao, and World Journal media in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver that he would repeal Bill C-24 should he form a government. Will the government act accordingly and repeal the entire Bill C-24?

I'm going to ask my questions very quickly and I'll let the minister answer them all at once.

My next question would be on the legacy files. When the Conservative government's Balanced Refugee Reform Act came into effect in December 2012, it created a two-tier system for refugee claimants who applied under the old laws before 2012 and the new claimants in terms of the time for them to process applications. More than three years have passed. Claimants under the old legislation are still waiting to receive a verdict, whereas new claimants receive a decision after only a few months. According to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada all legacy files, as we call them, should be finalized by 2018.

My question to the minister is this. Will there be change in addressing this? If not, why are refugee claimants from 2012, who are now integrated into Canadian society, still waiting for a decision on whether or not they can stay in Canada, when last year's claimants already know their fate and can breathe easily? If there were a change, I wonder if the minister can advise when we can see that change take place.

My next question deals with the resettlement services. At a technical briefing on February 3, 2016, an official said that Syrian refugees who had arrived here would not have to wait more than two weeks to be permanently settled. I've met many families who've waited more than two weeks, and they're still waiting. Some of them have missed appointments with immigration officials because the officials simply didn't show up three weeks after they've been here. My question to the minister is this. How many immigration officers does he have working on the ground to process the applicants, the new arrivals? How many settlement workers are on the ground in each of the cities to provide resettlement services to the refugees?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

There are a number of questions there.

I might just mention in response to an earlier question that the number of Syrian refugees pre-November 4 is approximately 3,000. That's a partial answer, and we will endeavour to get the rest of the answer soon.

In terms of Bill C-24, this will be coming soon, and we will make very major amendments, as we committed to in the election. We like one or two things in Bill C-24, like the lost Canadians provision, so we would not want to repeal that element of it, but we will certainly honour our campaign commitment.

In terms of the settlement of refugees, I don't have exactly how many settlement workers there are in every community across the country. I can tell you that those settlement agencies are working extremely hard to get the job done and that we are also expanding the number of cities that are settlement communities, to Victoria and other places to be announced very soon. A lot of effort is under way on the part of all those cities and settlement agencies.

I can also say on the settlement issue that we have recently acquired numbers, and 52% of refugees who have arrived from Syria so far have proceeded to permanent housing. That is a precise number, which my department only recently obtained. That will give you an additional piece of information.

Finally, on your question on the IRB, they have received funding to reduce their legacy cases, and they continue to work on those legacy cases, as well as new ones that are coming before them.