Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 20th, 2017

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

Thank you.

If we are not going to issue a report on this, I do not understand why the minister should not have to come in front of committee to answer to this.

The other thing is that I've had experience in drafting letters in this committee before. It has not been a pleasant experience. If the Liberals, using their majority, are going to draft a sunshine-and-roses letter to the minister that he's not required to respond to, I would like that to be done in public so that the witnesses we've had before this committee can see the deliberations. I would like the minister to come and respond to this.

I am furious. I don't understand why we can't act on this. I do not understand why we are not requiring the government to respond to this—honestly. There are real challenges. We're doing something new. The government, to their credit, they're doing something new, but the reality is that this group of people has different needs than other groups of refugees who we have brought in, and we are not capable right now of meeting their needs.

That is the role of this committee. We have had recommendations. The government might not agree with it. The government side might not agree with it. That is fine, but we need to do our work as parliamentarians and say that the system we have, the siloed system of a standardized support for GARs, is not meeting the needs of this group of people, and their lives are at risk. I do not want to have to come back here because one of these women has taken her life, and that is what we're talking about here. I don't want to have to do that.

I do not understand why we can't have a report. If we cannot have a report, I want the content of this letter deliberated in public, and I want the minister in front of committee to respond to it by the end of February.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, now that there's another motion, I want to speak to that.

I feel strongly that a letter is not required here. I see nothing wrong with having a report. When we last spoke to these witnesses, we specifically asked them whether or not this met the criteria to be a recommendation, and this topic was a recommendation. We did that about five or six times, and I believe all members on the committee, all three major parties, did that. Recommendations came forward. Recommendations usually go in a report; they don't go in a letter. The word “recommendations” was used. I jotted a number of things down in my own notes that I remember witnesses saying at the time.

In the spirit of collaboration, I was of the understanding that while we're having the four meetings this week on medical inadmissibility, we would possibly be able to have another meeting to look at hearing directly from the Yazidi women who have been injured or persecuted by the situation they've been put through, and that we would be able to hear about, and Canadians would get a better feel for, the need for the changes that may be required. They're not that outstanding, given the number of people involved, as we've seen in the admissibility situation this evening.

I strongly believe that there is a need to have this recorded as a report, as opposed to an open letter, for the accountability of the whole process. We have a responsibility as Canadians and as members of the backbench and the opposition to make sure that the recommendations are going forward. The government doesn't have to act on them. I believe that they probably would, in some cases, make some adjustments in the whole process.

I think it's very reasonable to ask for that letter to be dealt with. We've already seen, I believe, some of what would be public in it. We could put those forward, if we were to secure another meeting with witnesses to have the opportunity to strengthen what would go into the recommendations. It then gives us an opportunity to be able to respond to it.

I think the motion put forward by my colleague, Ms. Rempel, is the best that you could get out of the amendment the government side has brought forward, the backbench committee from the Liberal government, regarding wanting to have a letter, particularly when it was apparent that it was already coming. I can't believe that the recommendations that everyone in this room knows are already out there couldn't be accepted. They're on the table already. They were there the last time we met two weeks or 12 days ago. I believe that we could live with the opportunity of developing those recommendations in the committee, and then have the minister come and appear before us to deal with such an important issue—the government is the one that said they would bring in 1,200 Yazidi women—and to move as quickly as we can to accomplish the goal the government has set for itself.

I think the witnesses all know the difference between a report and a letter, and I think they would feel much more included in the whole process if they knew that there was going to be a report. They witnessed what happened 11 or 12 days ago at the last meeting that we had. I believe it would be very valuable for the government to have this in their hands as a report.

I'll leave it at that for now and see if there are any other concerns, but I would certainly recommend that we drop both amendments and go back to the original motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I have Ms. Kwan and Ms. Rempel on the list.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Speaking to the subamendment, the amendment that Ms. Rempel has just moved, I will simply say that my preferred option is to do a report. I think that's the proper thing to do.

If that is not to be, I would support this subamendment for the purpose of accountability. I think that, above all else, we need to be accountable. We need to be accountable to the people who elected us, to the people who got us around this table to be committee members, to the witnesses who took their time out to present to us, and to the international community. If Canada wants to be recognized for its humanitarianism and compassion, we need to demonstrate that. I think that, at the minimum, we need to ensure that there is absolute transparency with respect to this process and with respect to an issue such as genocide.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel.

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

Mr. Chair, the last time this committee wrote a letter was following the hearings we had in the summer of 2016. There was at that time, I believe, a desire to do more. What ended up happening was that this committee wrote a letter to the minister. It was a self-congratulatory do-nothing letter.

I'm looking at a CBC article here right now. This letter came out July 22, 2016, with no requirement for a response. One of my colleagues' offices had said that it was the best that could be done right then. It took another four months of browbeating to come up with some sort of a motion or a solution and then another year.... We're now a year and a half into this.

I don't find it acceptable that the government feels that their response to this situation is a self-congratulatory letter that requires no government response. This is not what the resettlement services agencies need. This is not what these women need. They need help now.

Mr. Chair, you have done good work in chairing other committees. You have been very passionate on some of these issues. To prove my colleague, Mr. Sarai, wrong in saying that this is somehow Conservative theatrics, I would implore you and I would ask you to talk to your colleagues. Suspend the meeting briefly. Hopefully they can caucus. There is no reason why there cannot be a report. The Liberals have a majority on this committee and they can write whatever they want. I want the government to be required to respond to the testimony that was put forward at this committee. That is what members of Parliament do. A self-congratulatory letter disrespects the community effort that is being put forward to help these people and it disrespects the government actually doing something on this particular file.

Canada should be developing best practice on this, not trying to sweep this problem under the rug. We had this committee meeting, hopefully, to do something that resembled work and get some help out. A self-congratulatory letter that is developed in secret and that requires no government response does not do that. I will be before this committee every single time, every time we hear an issue, every single time something happens in the community, reminding the members of the fact that we wasted time and we wasted the resources of the government in closing our response to this with a nice, flowery letter from Liberal members, who are listening to staffers and the centre, to the minister.

If this is what the members want to do, if they just want to push this away.... I'm sure they have something drafted already. I ask you, as the chair, to perhaps talk to some of the other members on this team. They can write whatever they want in this report. They have the majority on this committee. It can be there. There is no reason why we would not have a report, or not have the minister come to committee, outside of the government wanting to hide this or sweep this under the rug.

Yes, I'm going to get theatrical about this Randeep, because I don't get this. I don't get why this is the fourth time we've had to go through this conversation. I don't get why you've given me half an hour on camera to get angry at you when you could have just voted to have a report. The government will respond. We'll make sure that the minister gets here somehow. Why don't you just let the government respond in a written report? This is insanity, it's lunacy, and it's not what we should be doing with a parliamentary committee.

I ask you, Mr. Chair, to take even five minutes, and maybe people across the aisle will want to caucus for a minute and talk about something that is more reasonable than what's on the table right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

If you would like to request that we suspend for a few minutes so that anyone who'd like to caucus could do so, that would be appropriate.

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

I would like to request that, with this caveat: I hope...and I would love for my colleagues to caucus with you. I would love them to caucus without the “talk it out” guy standing in the middle of it.

I would just really love for this report to be issued. It doesn't have to be long. It will get tabled before committee; the government doesn't have to respond until after the Christmas break. I just want motion on this.

With that, I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Whenever I have a request to suspend for a few minutes, I accept it.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We'll suspend for five minutes. Anybody can caucus with anybody they would like to caucus with.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We're resuming the meeting.

Ms. Zahid.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to withdraw my amendment to Ms. Rempel's motion, but I will do another amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Withdrawing the amendment would withdraw the subamendment, and I would hear your amendment.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

The motion would read:

That, notwithstanding the motion adopted by the Committee on October 16, 2017, the Committee hold an additional two meetings prior to December 20, 2017, on the resettlement issues related to Yazidi women and girls; and that the Committee report its finding to the House; and that the government table a response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Do we need to debate, or would you like to vote on that? It's an amendment to have two extra meetings instead of one, that we have a report, and that there is a response from the government.

I have Ms. Kwan, and then Ms. Rempel.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is not a point of debate, but rather a point of clarification. If this motion passes, we would have two additional meetings. I'd like to get clarification on how we would proceed in terms of witnesses—names and timelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I would send out a note through the clerk to ask for additional witnesses. We could have maybe up to two additional meetings, because I want to make sure everyone has a chance to put in all their witnesses. If we need two meetings, we'll have two meetings. If there's only enough for one meeting, we'll have only one more meeting and then do the report after that.

We have time to get this done before the House rises in December. We won't get the report fully written and translated and all that, but we're going to get the two meetings, if we need them. We may need only one. It will depend on how many witnesses you submit.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm sorry. Did I hear you correctly to say that we will have a chance to table the report before...? No. Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

The analysts advise us that even if we don't have any more meetings, we're not going to get that done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I just wanted to clarify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

In full disclosure, the reality is that I want this to be done well. I want to make sure we have enough time. If we don't need two meetings, we'll take one, but I have a feeling that there are a bunch of questions. I also asked the analysts to prepare a summary of evidence so that you can all look at it and decide who you would like to have in terms of other witnesses. The summary of evidence will be ready for Thursday distribution to be fair so that you can really do the work of the committee.

Are you okay with that?

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

I'd just like to thank my colleagues for this consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

All right.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Ms. Kwan.