Evidence of meeting #2 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 refugees.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could I have a ruling from you and the clerk on the ability for witnesses before committee to comment on motions that are before the committee?
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
I've been advised that as a member of Parliament, the minister can comment and respond.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
In that case, Mr. Chair, I would like to say I find it heartwarming that a member of the Conservative Party would invoke the charter. I congratulate the Conservative Party on that commitment to the charter.
I would also make the point that we do not believe that our actions have in any way violated the charter. Section 15 of the charter prohibits discrimination based on specific characteristics, such as race, or national or ethnic origin, that are markers of vulnerability to prejudice or disadvantage. When the government introduces a new measure that is beneficial to a particular group, this distinction does not necessarily amount to discrimination within the meaning of section 15. In addition subsection 15(2) of the charter allows the government to undertake or introduce ameliorative programs for disadvantaged groups.
In other words distinctions in treatment do not amount to discrimination. While I congratulate the Conservative Party for its new-found commitment to the charter, I would argue that in this particular case the actions of the government do not constitute a violation of the charter.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I would move the motion be revised to state that we study the federal loan program going forward, and study how we can assist those who are participants in the loan program as of now, but not based on a charter issue.
That was the specific request of the two city councillors from the City of Surrey, which was to study the refugee transportation loan program as a topic for the subcommittee.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I don't support the amendment. The original form and substance of the first motion dealt specifically with the potential charter violation related to the government's handling of the immigration loans repayment program. I appreciate that the minister may decide to comment on his government's interpretation of the charter in this situation, but I think it behooves all committee members to remember that the committee is the master of its own destiny, and therefore, we are entrusted to take on studies that can look at anything we want. I think this is a very interesting question, one that can't be resolved by a simple wave of the hand by a minister at the table. When we're looking at applying this particular program to different cohorts of refugees, I think it would be very interesting to hear from immigration experts and legal experts from across the country. When we talk about the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals, as the minister has raised, or groups that are disadvantaged because of race, national ethnic origin, etc., whether or not there has been a charter violation when the government has not clearly stated its criteria for applying this in this particular situation.
I don't accept the amendment. I think it's a way for the government to try to avoid a very interesting question. I appreciate the support of my colleagues from the NDP. There have been questions on whether or not this particular decision creates two classes of refugees. It's potentially precedent-setting in terms of how Canada's immigration system goes forward. I think if the immigration committee should be doing anything, it should be looking at whether or not a government program and a decision are violating the charter from the perspective of setting a precedent going forward. The motion as it's worded right now asks a very pertinent question and its report could actually have an impact on how Parliament functions.
With that, I do not support the amendment, and I strongly hope that my colleagues opposite would support the motion as it has been presented.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much.
I put a question to the minister, which I thought he was going to answer and which might help inform this debate. The question was about whether the government has made a decision on providing and waiving the cost for all refugees, whether they're Syrian refugees who arrived before November 4 or after, or those who are from other countries. If we could have an answer from the minister on that, I think that would very much inform our motion going forward.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
The short answer is that we do not yet have a decision on that. We are looking into it. There are costs associated with it, but we are actively engaged in looking into that very question.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I'll just concur with my colleague that this is an urgent and important subject for the committee to discuss and debate. I think all of us, as we welcome refugees to the Canadian family, want to ensure that there is equality in our services and our support for people coming to our country. It seems to go to the very heart of what it means to be Canadian and to the foundation of our system. I just encourage the committee members to engage in the debate of this motion.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you.
Again, to inform our debate, I'm wondering if the minister would have a time frame for when his government would arrive at a decision. When he says there are costs associated with it, I wonder if he has information on how many refugees who are impacted are Syrian refugees from before November 4, and how many are from other countries. If we had a general number of how many people we're talking about, I think that would also inform us in our debate on this motion.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
I don't have these numbers with me, but I will do my best to get them to you. When I'm talking about the costs, if we eliminate the refugee loan program and if from now on the government pays the airfares of all refugees coming to Canada, then it's not just a matter of this particular situation, with the pre-November 4 people or the non-Syrian people today.
We're talking about changing a program that has been in effect since 1951, and eliminating it. That would be an ongoing cost going forward. As I said, we are examining that actively. It's a question of whether we have the funding to eliminate this travel loan program or whether we would want to use such funds for other purposes. I can tell you that this is something under active investigation.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Shaun Chen Liberal Scarborough North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm quite supportive of the amendment; however, I do not support the original motion. I'm rather content with the answer I heard from the minister with respect to achieving equality. Different groups are treated differently. With respect to differential treatment the government is looking at ways it can move forward based on the resources that are available.
I do believe that as a committee it's not our role to reach conclusions of law around how the equality provisions of the charter are being applied. That is, to me, a role of the courts. However, I do appreciate the conversation and I'm satisfied with what I heard from the minister.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
We are eating into the minister's valuable time. I move to adjourn this debate until later. It's been more than 15 minutes and we're eating into the minister's time. I believe that even the members of Her Majesty's royal opposition and the other parties have pertinent questions that we should utilize this time for.
I move that the debate on this new motion and the amendment be adjourned.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I don't believe that you can move a motion to adjourn debate on a motion in committee, only to adjourn the committee. I'm wondering if my colleague is, in fact, moving a dilatory motion to adjourn the committee while the minister is sitting here.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Ms. Rempel, I'm advised that the motion is out of order.
We will continue.
Mr. Sarai.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I believe that, as Mr. Chen stated, the debate on the charter is not within the purview of this committee. I believe if it is, a charter issue should be studied by the justice committee and others. This should be more on the programs itself.
I think the amendment should prevail, and again, I suggest that we adjourn this motion, not the committee itself but this motion to a later time.