Evidence of meeting #35 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was date.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
We already had one suspension in the first hour of the meeting. I suggest we try to complete this work.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Members who are willing to proceed, please raise your hand.
Members who want to have a break—
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I call the meeting back to order.
We have an amendment on the floor. I see that on the speaking list we have Mr. Redekopp and Ms. Kwan.
Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Madam Chair, I am totally fine with the proposed amendment.
I do want to speak to some of the questions that have been asked about the main motion, so I would suggest that we vote on the amendment and then get back to talking about the main motion.
Thank you.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
On the amendment, I'm fine with those changes, but I'm also seeking your advice as to whether this is the time to respond to some of the questions that were put to me. Do you want me to defer that to a later time?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
We will have to deal with the amendment first. An amendment has been moved by Mr. Genuis. Once we deal with the amendment, we can go to Mr. Redekopp and then to you, Ms. Kwan, to answer the questions raised by the members who are looking for some clarification.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment moved by Mr. Genuis? No.
Madam Clerk, let's take the vote on the amendment moved by Mr. Genuis.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
October 12th, 2022 / 3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There are a lot of questions, and I want to address some of them.
The first one, to start with, is the core issue of whether this is a good use of committee time or not. Forgive me if I'm not too willing to put all my eggs into the basket of a representative of the government coming to this committee meeting, reading some emails and saying there's nothing to see here, everything's fine and let's move on and do something else. This is, to me, not a good enough way to study this issue.
The core issue, I think, if I look at it, is that on November 20, there were lawyers in court—if you just think about the timing here, this would be during the day at some point—telling a judge that something happened and a decision had been made, when that very day cabinet was going to consider that idea. Generally speaking, cabinet meetings are in the later part of the day. To me, that raises a whole bunch of questions: Lawyers were told to do something in anticipation of something probably happening later that day, and then we get into all the date questions after that.
To me, there is an ample number of questions here that need to be addressed beyond the simple, “Oops, we made a mistake, and it should have been this day or that day.” Right at the very start of this, before those supposed human errors were made, there was a fundamental question of whether lawyers were instructed by someone in cabinet to say something that actually hadn't happened yet.
To me, there are ample questions here that need to be looked at. We don't need to spend weeks and months on this. It's a very quick thing. I believe there is a very strong case for looking at what was done and how it was done so that we can make sure.
If there is nothing wrong, that's great. If there was something done wrong—and from that perspective it appears very questionable—then I think it's something that we as parliamentarians must look at to make sure that the process is updated or fixed in the system. To me, that's the fundamental question here. I think there are plenty of reasons to proceed with this study.
Now I'll get to some of the questions.
To Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe regarding the Roxham Road study, the way this is written is “November 4”. There are six meetings before then, so there is ample time to do this and do Roxham Road at the same time. As you saw, we're very willing to get rid of the November 4 date, too, if that's what's necessary. Even with that date in there, there is ample meeting time to do this.
As to Ms. Kwan's question of inviting other people, again, we attempted to do that. Even in the wording as it is, at the third meeting we can invite whomever we want. It's certainly not my intention to restrict the kinds of people we would request to come to the meeting. There's ample opportunity to invite others the committee feels are necessary.
To Mr. Serré and delaying this in order to do other things, the whole point of it is to do the investigation. This meeting here today is not to actually perform the investigation. It's simply to decide to do this or not. I think that's the whole point of the meetings, so that's what we'll need to do.
To Mr. Zuberi and the question of the summary of the ATIP, Ms. Kwan actually did a great job of explaining some of what's in the ATIPs. These three ATIPs are specific to this case. There are a lot of documents in there similar to the ones that Ms. Kwan read out. They detail some of the back-and-forth that happened during this time and they're very relevant to this particular case. That's the high-level summary of what's in there. Ms. Kwan also did a great job of giving you some of the more nuanced details of the kinds of materials in there. That's very important and pertinent to the case.
I think that summarizes most of the answers to the questions that I've heard to date. I think the key point here is that this is an important study. It doesn't have to be a long study, but there are some pretty significant questions about what happened on that day regarding the lawyers in the court, what they said to the judge and why they said that even though the decision may not have actually been made at that point.
I'll leave it at that for now.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.
Ms. Kwan, you wanted to clarify some questions asked by the members.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I think at issue here is the question around the OIC coming-into-force date. If you look at the documents that were sent to committee members—and a member asked me to table these documents—you'll see these documents were sent to the clerk. I received a copy as well, separate and apart from that, so committee members, if they have not received them from the clerk already, will, I assume, at some point in time be getting these documents.
Upon receipt of these documents—and let me say there were a lot of documents—I began to look through the information, aside from having to read what was available in the public realm through the media. To that point, I also requested that we have this meeting, because I think it's important for us to get clarity on the issue and to try to shed some light on the situation.
The heart of the issue is the date the OIC came into force, and the copy of the OIC that the government issued. There were supplementary documents to indicate that. The act came into force and was registered on November 20, and the OIC said that this was the date on which the act would come into force. That's very explicit in the language.
Now, I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not a cabinet minister at this level, but having been a cabinet minister at a different level, I can tell you that when OICs come about, they're very intentional. They're not just made-up words. Officials are not loosey-goosey about them. They're very intentional. This may be just a human error, and I know the officials are saying it's just a human error, but I think we need to delve into that a bit and be certain that it was in fact a human error.
The OIC explicitly says that November 20 is the day the act would be registered and would come into force, so that language to me is not confusing. That language is very clear in terms of what it is.
Why is it the case that this language differs from that in other OICs? As stated in one of the ATIP documents, one of the officials indicated that there was unusual language being used. To me, that begs the question: Why was unusual language used for this OIC? What's the rationale for that? Maybe there's a really legitimate reason for that. I just don't know at this point in time. Therefore, I would like to get clarity from the officials on why this particular OIC is different from other OICs, and would like them to explain the discrepancy between the clarity of the OIC itself and the change in date to December 9.
From that perspective, I think it is important, given the significance of the issue, to get clarity on it. It might just be an honest mistake. If it is, it's not my intention to chastise anyone. It's just so we can clear the air. The last thing I would want is for the minister or the government to be under that cloud. I don't think that's good for anyone. It's not good for democracy, so let's clear it up once and for all.
With respect to the number of meetings, do we need three meetings? Do we need one meeting? To be honest with you, I'm not sure. Maybe it's just one meeting. Maybe the light will be shone and we'll all see it very clearly, but I think we should have a meeting and at the very minimum find out what the lay of the land is. I'd like to have those questions answered, and then we can make a determination as to whether or not additional meetings are required.
This motion calls for three meetings, but we should have at least one meeting, find out what the lay of the land is and then make a determination on how best to proceed. I think as elected officials we should do our due diligence on this. I know we received a letter from the deputy telling us that this was a human error, so let's get the information to clarify that so we can be certain, as officials around this table, that we are addressing this issue.
That's what I would like to propose, Madam Chair, and I hope that answers the questions of committee members.
Finally, I want to address the questions around concurrent meetings and so on. We are doing concurrent meetings, by the way, at committee. It's a bit confusing, truth be told. We're doing a report on a different study, and we're continuing work on another study. There is, of course, the Roxham Road issue as well, which is very important and very serious. I absolutely want to get to that. At our last meeting I moved a motion, which was supported by this committee, on the Afghan file. Some people's lives hang in the balance, so that too is very important.
It is not my intention to delay anything. We have a lot of work to do and we need to get to it, but to clear the air on this, we should at least have one meeting and find some clarity on where it lies. If it's honestly a human mistake, then so be it and we can move on, but we should actually have that clarity.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Our meeting today is very interesting, and I think everyone involved is acting in good faith.
That said, I think we're forgetting one element that is essential to our discussion. To be honest, I have to say that I only realized this during the meeting.
If I understand correctly, it is thought that this is a matter for our committee to deal with, since this incident occurred in the Immigration Department. The incident that occurred and that brought us together urgently today is an ethical issue. We are not on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics; we are on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Just because the error occurred at the Department of Immigration does not necessarily mean that it concerns us.
I hear the arguments from both sides. In my view, it is not our place to look at this issue. I would suggest to my Conservative friends that we put a motion before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. For our part, we will be able to look at issues that directly concern immigration to Quebec and Canada.
The more we talk about this, the more I realize that I cannot support this motion in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. This is really an issue that should be studied by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We must try to convince the members of this committee to study the motion. They are the experts who must look at motions that concern the ethics of government and departments.
Our work is about immigration. This study does not include anything related to immigration to Quebec and Canada.
As Ms. Kwan just said, we have important studies to do that have already been voted on. We will decide on the timeline fairly quickly.
I am not saying that the motion is good or bad. What I am saying is that it is not our business and should be dealt with by another committee.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has to deal with immigration issues. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics should deal with ethics issues. That is my position.
I will not be supporting this motion. I want us to deal with the problems of immigration, the immigration files and the issues of immigration. That is our job.
I know that everyone is acting in good faith. We could already go to the vote. I personally have made my decision and I think most people here have. I see no reason to delay today's meeting any further.
You know which way I'm going to vote. We all know how this will end, so we can vote now.
That's all I have to say, Madam Chair.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Actually, I'll just strike that because I saw that Mr. Redekopp's hand was up first.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess I'm not opposed to having a vote, but I want to say that this is very much an immigration issue. This has to do with the management of IRCC, how IRCC is represented in the courts of Canada and how it implements the orders and laws made by the immigration minister and the immigration department.
With all due respect, Alexis, I believe very strongly that this is a case for IRCC to look at. It's very relevant that it be done at this committee. I'll say again that I appreciate that the Roxham Road study is important, and we want to work together to make that happen.
Something fishy has happened here, and I think Ms. Kwan identified that pretty clearly. There is something strange, and it's something that deserves some investigation. It doesn't have to be a month of investigation, but it does need to be looked at for the sake of clearing the air, as Jenny said, about this issue. That's why I put this forward. I think it's important. I think it's important work for the committee to do, and I think it's something that's very relevant to this committee.
I'll leave it at that, from my perspective. If anyone else has anything else to add, I'm happy to listen.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
Mr. Genuis, did you want to say something? Okay.
Seeing no further hands raised, we can go to the vote.
Madam Clerk, can you please take the vote on the motion by Mr. Redekopp?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Yes, Mr. Ali.
Just to clarify for all the members of the committee, we are voting on the motion by Mr. Redekopp.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Given that this subject matter now has been dealt with—not in the way I wanted it to be—I'd like to now move another motion that I had on notice. I think it should be fairly quick. l think it's a good opportunity to do it now. It's been on notice for a while.
The motion is with respect to concerns around citizenship ceremonies. Despite the country being generally open, I have some information about people not being offered citizenship ceremonies in person. The motion is as follows:
That the committee report to the House that it calls on the government to immediately re-instate in-person citizenship ceremonies for all who request them, and that the committee request a government response to this motion pursuant to Standing Order 109.
Again, I think it's fairly non-partisan. I suspect that members are hearing similar things from their constituents, and members have had this motion for I think a number of weeks.
People who have come to this country and have been through a citizenship ceremony will I think very often remember that experience for their whole life, and it will have great significance and meaning for them. I think it's unfortunate that some people haven't had the option of an in-person citizenship ceremony.
Giving people the significance and meaning of that moment of being welcomed to the Canadian family in person is very important. It's a way of honouring the commitment they're making to this country. That's why I wanted to put forward the motion, and it's also just to invite clarity from the government on the approach being taken.
I want to put that on the table. We'll see where we go.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
To clarify for all members, this meeting was called to deal specifically with Standing Order 106(4). I assume that, procedurally, this meeting should only deal with Standing Order 106(4) and not with anything else today. The motion has been dealt with under Standing Order 106(4).
