Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 20th, 2020

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Sorry, Madam Chair. Ms. Kwan just covered it, because she mentioned that the minister is going to be coming in on the main and supplementary estimates and also on staffing levels, so that's two times already that he's coming in. She's covered that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

I see no one further on the list, and we have a motion moved by Ms. Kwan. It is:

That the Committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship and department officials for 2 hours to provide a briefing to committee members on the impact of the pandemic on Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship staffing levels and the ability to process all immigration and refugee streams locally and abroad.

Clerk, can we have a recorded vote, please?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Upon reflection on our first committee meeting and very much looking to working as a team and dealing with the many very difficult and sensitive immigration issues we have, we've revamped and refocused the motion from the last committee meeting to be more specific after receiving feedback from the last committee. I would like to put forward that motion now.

It is as follows:

That, pursuant to standing order 108(2), the committee commence a study to examine the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on Canada's immigration system, and that this study evaluate, review and examine issues relevant to this issue, including the following:

(a) application backlogs and processing times for the different streams of family reunification and the barriers preventing the timely reunification of loved ones, such as denials of temporary resident visas because of section 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations and the ongoing closures of Visa Application Centers;

(b) examine the government's decision to reintroduce a lottery system for the reunification of parents and grandparents; to compare it to previous iterations of application processes for this stream of family reunification, including a review of processing times and the criteria required for successful sponsorship;

(c) temporary resident visa (TRV) processing, delays faced by international students in securing TRVs particularly in Francophone Africa, authorization to travel to Canada by individuals with an expired Confirmation of Permanent Residency; use of expired security, medical and background checks for permanent immigration;

that the committee hold at least eight meetings to hear from witnesses; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

Go ahead, Ms. Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've already spoken to my fellow members about one of my concerns regarding an omnibus study motion. I worry we won't have enough time left for more specific studies that the current context demands. Every party has its own priorities for studies, but family reunification is an issue with universal support.

I therefore have an amendment to the motion, to reframe how we study the matter. I'll read the amendment in French, but I do have the translation and it is available, as needed. I'm completely open to friendly amendments. I move as follows:

That the motion be amended in the last paragraph by replacing all of the words before “that the committee report its findings to the House” with “that this study begin no later than October 27, 2020; that this study be held over a minimum of two and a maximum of four meetings; that the witnesses called as part of this study be allowed to testify on one or more of the issues in this motion; that the evidence gathered during this study be deemed to have also been given during subsequent studies to be held during this Parliament, provided that the subsequent studies deal with issues similar to those in this motion”.

I repeat, I am flexible on the date.

Before examining issues that are much more refined, if we decide to do a broader study, we'll need to make sure that it doesn't take up too much time and, especially, that the evidence gathered can be used afterwards. That way, the time we spend on a broader study won't have been a total loss.

That's what I suggest, and now you have my amendment formally. I'm completely open to subamendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Do you have the translated version of the amendment?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Clerk, would it be possible to pass the amendment that has been proposed by Ms. Normandin on to all the members?

[The Clerk]

We'll be in touch with her office now to request an electronic copy in English and French, and we'll distribute it right away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Now we have an amendment proposed by Ms. Normandin on the floor.

We will go to Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Should we vote on all of it in one fell swoop, or should the vote be divided up to address the three different amendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We have an amendment that has been proposed by Ms. Normandin, so we will have to vote on that amendment.

Next on the speaking list is Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

If I heard the amendment correctly, the suggestion is to reduce the number of meetings from up to eight meetings to two to four meetings. Did I hear the member correctly?

We're studying three substantive topics. One is the family reunification stream, particularly the impact of issues such as denials of temporary residence visas because of paragraph 179(b) and the closures of visa application centres and so on. That's a substantive study, because the family reunification stream, particularly for spousal sponsorship, has been greatly impacted. This is a piece that I've been wanting the committee to study, in fact, and I'm glad that it's before us in this motion in this format. That's one aspect.

The second piece is the examination of the lottery system. It was very mystifying to me when the minister came out and announced the lottery system after 10 months of putting it on ice, only to go back to the failed lottery system. I'm very interested in understanding what the decision was behind that and then, of course, in comparing that system to other iterations of the parents and grandparents reunification stream.

The last component is to study the delays for international students, which is a significant component as well.

I'm very worried that two to four meetings would be insufficient in doing justice to all of these issues. I get it that we don't want to consume all of the time that the committee has for studies, because there are many areas we want to study, but I am quite concerned that two to four meetings are not going to be able to do it, keeping in mind as well that with those two to four meetings, we also have to give a break for the report and the report writing as well.

The suggestion in the original motion of up to eight meetings does not mean that committees would have to take all eight meetings; it is “up to” eight meetings. If we think about it, for each of the substantive pieces—(a), (b) and (c)—within the motion, if we spend two meetings on each topic, it gives us six meetings, and then, of course, there would be at least one meeting in which we would have to do the report, so that would be seven meetings.

That's what I'm thinking about. I'm quite worried that two to four meetings are not going to give us sufficient time to deal with all these substantive issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Next on the speaking list is Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with the opposition member's comments. I think these are important issues. The member also appreciates the importance of examining family reunification. It's an issue several of us have been made aware of. Each of the elements in the motion is worthy of its own study.

It makes perfect sense to take as much time as necessary to study them one at a time. Two meetings won't be enough to hear from witnesses on each of the issues, witnesses who will probably have a lot to say, I might add.

Like Ms. Kwan, I don't support the part of the motion that refers to holding two to four meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

Next on the speaking list is Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was listening to Ms. Kwan's issue about PGP—parents and grandparents—and first of all, I think that under the circumstances we have to give the minister credit. He and his department have worked very hard to deal with the situation, and he has said that the department will process 50,000 applications by the end of December, which is a very good move. Also, even though this lottery system didn't work—I will agree with Ms. Kwan—under the circumstances, I think this is at least the best decision: to accept at least 10,000 applications. This way, he now has also given us a window, from October 13 all the way to November 3. With this, we will have a complete list of how many applicants are out there and have expressed interest. From there, minus 10,000, we will be able to see how much volume is out there. We as committee members can then come up with suggestions to the minister as well on how the new system should look, so that when we accept those other 30,000 applications, those procedures are incorporated. I would delay that meeting almost to the end, after November 3, so that we have those numbers handy.

I agree that we should have more meetings. I would like to bring another amendment, if we see a consensus.

It is:

That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “that this study begin no later than October 27, 2020; that this study be held over a minimum of two and a maximum of four meetings”, with the words, “that this study begin no later than October 27, 2020, and that the committee hold no more than eight meetings to hear from witnesses”.

I think that will satisfy Ms. Kwan's seven meetings and Ms. Martinez Ferrada's proposal as well, and it will also include those two to four meetings. Let me see if there is a consensus for this proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

You are proposing a subamendment to the amendment that was proposed by Ms. Normandin. Do you have the text of the subamendment?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

I can read it, Madam Chair, slowly.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chair, I think that's a new amendment, as opposed to a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin. Just one second, please. Can the clerk clarify?

Mr. Dhaliwal has proposed an amendment to Ms. Normandin's amendment, so will this be a subamendment or...?

[The Clerk]

Yes. If Mr. Dhaliwal proposes a modification to the amendment that was moved by Madam Normandin, then that is a subamendment. Provided it remains within the scope of Madam Normandin's amendment, then the subamendment would be in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We have a subamendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal on the floor.

Going on to the speakers list, we have Mr. Allison. Go ahead, Mr. Allison.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would agree with Mr. Dhaliwal. If he would like to propose a subamendment to look at eight meetings, I think that would make some sense. We should have enough time to get everything done before Christmas. As was laid out by the calendar, we have another seven meetings until the end of November, and then we still have a couple of weeks in December, so that also gives us a chance to possibly wrap up a report in the meantime.

I would say that what Mr. Dhaliwal says seems to make some sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

Next on the speaking list we have Mr. Serré.