Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.
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.
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.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Before we get into scheduling issues, which I'll defer for further discussion at a later time, on the substance of the issue, which is where we are with respect to this motion, I think committee members may have received these documents. They were sent to me, but I understand they were also sent to the clerk for distribution. They may not have gone through translation. I'm not quite sure. In any event, I received a whole stack of documentation on this issue, including the ATIP document. It's over 300-some pages, so I pored over that document.
There is some pertinent information that I think is important to bring to the attention of the committee. I would then have some questions for Mr. Redekopp as well.
The ATIP document shows that on Friday, November 20, 2020, Ian Shugart, who was then the clerk of the Privy Council, signed an order stating that the Governor General “fixes the day on which this Order is registered”.
I don't know what that means and what compelled him to fix the date. How did he fix the date and for what reason did he fix the date? It is important for us to get an understanding of that.
The other interesting note for me in reading the document is that on Monday, November 23, 2020, Sabrina Kabir in the Department of Immigration wrote, “The GG already signed on Friday or Saturday, so technically the act is now in force.” According to the immigration department, officials seemed to think that the act had already come into force as well.
Subsequent to that on November 23, assistant director Brian Smith wrote, “The GG signed off on the order late Friday. As such, the act is already in force as of November 20, but this is not yet in the public domain”, so that's yet another official confirming that the act has been signed and is in force.
We know that on November 25, according to the documents, Gervas Wall wrote to the Federal Court in Toronto, stating that the act was “proclaimed in force on November 20, by order in council PC Number 2020-0903.” That was another definitive statement from officials.
We then have other officials writing to Mr. Therrien, asking, “Do we know how this came into force? I assume there is a paper trail aside from the lines we reviewed. Can you let me know please...?” Officials are trying to find this paper trail.
On November 27, Madam Chair, Jonathan Shanks, who is the senior counsel for the Privy Council Office, wrote, “I understand that the Order was made on November 20. ...the Order will be registered on December 9.” There's a discrepancy.
If you look at the order, it does not say that the registration would have a different date. The OIC dated November 20 clearly indicates that:
Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, pursuant to subsection 300(1) of the Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, chapter 29 of the Statutes of Canada, 2019, fixes the day on which this Order is registered as the day on which section 292 of that Act comes into force.
The language there is quite clear in saying that the order was registered as the date on which the section of that act came into force. It was supposed to be the same day.
There's something odd about this OIC, and I don't know how that came about. On the bottom of the OIC, there's a “date modified”, which reads, “2017-04-31”, referring to April 31, 2017. I don't know what that date means or how it came about.
Obviously, there's a glaring concern in the sense that April does not have 31 days. Regardless, that might be a computer glitch or something. I'm not sure. The OIC, though, was very clear about the date this comes into force.
On November 27, a counsel wrote to Mr. Therrien, “Oh boy. Anyway for next week now.” Somehow an alarm bell has been rung that something was awry here.
Then the assistant director, Brian Smith, wrote on November 30, “Things are on fire over here.” I don't know what prompted that comment, but something is definitely not quite right, judging from that comment.
Further down in this document of 300-some pages, it notes that Brian Smith sends to staff an email that says, “For urgent briefing:
“Remedial measures likely required re: College Act coming into force.
“Issue: The College Act is not yet in force, and will not be in force until December 9, 2020, the day on which the order in council will be formally registered. The department will need to consider remedial measures, given public communication of November 25, 2020, that the College Act was already in force.”
Officials there have now noted that there is a major concern and that some sort of remedial measure is required.
Finally, Madam Speaker, on November 27 Jonathan Shanks wrote, “I understand that the Order was made on Nov. 20....the Order will be registered on December 9”, so now a changing of the date has occurred or is occurring.
Subsequent to that, Mr. Gervas Wall was at a case management hearing in Toronto. He said the following:
...it was brought to my attention this morning that, although the order in council was signed on the 20th, the registration date of that order is actually December 9, and so the act will come into force on December 9th....
He went on:
I thought that it was the 20th, but registration date was something that I was not familiar with, and it missed me. ... I'm so embarrassed about that, but I do apologize.
That's what he seemed to have indicated.
That was followed by Jennifer Chow on December 3, who wrote the following:
I'm advised the in force date of the College Act...that we referred to at Ms. Salloum's cross- examination held on November 26, 2020 is incorrect. Typically, the date of the OIC is the same as the in force date, but this OIC had irregular wording and the in force date...is expected to be December 9....
These are some of the key passages that came about from the ATIP document.
I have a question. I wonder why Mr. Redekopp decided not to include, for example, the then clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart, who signed the order, as one of the officials to be invited to come to committee. He actually said very clearly that he signed an order stating that the Governor General “fixes the date on which this order is registered”. What fix was he trying to do here? Why was he asked to do a fix? I think that's pretty critical information for us to obtain.
Three officials were very clear to say that the act was passed on November 20 and came into force on the 20th. They were all wrong, apparently. It wasn't one official; all three officials were wrong. What triggered, then, the need for the change? Why did the order in council have this irregular wording? What prompted it?
As we know, orders in council are very intentional. The wording is not just something you dream up. It's very intentional, for a purpose.
The order in council clearly stated that the registration date is the date on which it comes into force. Why did it have that intentional wording? Then, later on, it was discovered that it was irregular wording. Why was it necessary, then, to change the coming into force date to December? All this is tied to a copyright issue. I don't know enough about that case, but I think dates matter from this perspective.
My other question for Mr. Redekopp is this: Is it his intention with this motion to exclude other officials who we might need to call upon to shed light on this situation, or would the committee members, if deemed necessary, be able to request other officials to come before the committee for clarity??
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
We see that there's a speaking list. Before we go on, I want to read this for you.
As chair of the standing committee, I received a letter from the deputy minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I will read that letter:
Dear Chair:
I am writing to you in advance of the October 12, 2022, meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration regarding the coming into force date of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act (College Act). I would like to provide clarity regarding the events that took place and assure you that every step was taken to rectify the initial human error of announcing the coming into force date as November 20, 2020, instead of the correct date of December 9, 2020.
The Order in Council—
Yes, Mr. Serré?
3 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Madam Chair, on a point of order, I want to make sure that the letter—I just saw it—was sent to all of the members so that we all have access to it. The clerk just sent it.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
I just want to make sure that all members can look at that letter while you're reading it.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Yes. The clerk just circulated it. I am just reading that letter:
The Order in Council (OIC) to bring the College Act into force was made by the Governor-General-in-Council on November 20, 2020. It was subsequently posted on the Privy Council Office (PCO) Website on November 25, 2020. At that time, the understanding with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada...was that the making of the OIC marked the coming into force of the College Act. As such, on November 26, 2020, a news release was issued by IRCC announcing its coming into force.
Following the news release, the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC)—at that time, the regulator for immigration and citizenship consultants—immediately submitted a continuance application to the Minister on November 26, 2020.
A coming into force date of November 20, 2020, was also introduced in the public domain via litigation before the Federal Court in ongoing separate litigation (ICCRC vs CICC Corp., Her Majesty the Queen (HMQ) v. CICC Corp. and CICC Corp. v. HMQ and ICCRC.
Subsequent to these events, IRCC was informed by the Department of Justice that the College Act would not, in fact, be in force until December 9, 2020, the date the OIC was to be formally registered in the Gazette part II. Once this became known, the following actions were taken:
On December 3, 2020, a Case Conference was held in the matter, and the Department of Justice brought the mistake to the attention of the Court.
On December 9, 2020, the Department of Justice confirmed to the Federal Court that the College Act came into force on that day through a letter (Annex A). This correction was subsequently recognized and accepted by the Court.
IRCC updated the information in its news release with the correct information regarding the coming into force of the College Act (Annex B).
The ICCRC refiled its continuance application with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, at the time, the Honourable Marco Mendicino.
I sincerely hope this provides you with the necessary assurance that all appropriate steps were taken in order to correct the error of the coming into force date once it had been discovered.
I would like to thank you for your consideration of these facts.
It's signed “Yours sincerely, Christiane Fox”.
“Annex A” is the “Letter from the Department of Justice to the Federal Court of Canada confirming the coming into force date of the College Act”.
“Annex B” is “Minister Mendicino announces the coming into force of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act” - Canada.ca.”
I just want you to read that before we go on.
After Ms. Kwan, we had Mr. Serré. Go ahead, Mr. Serré.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to follow up a bit on what was just said and look at the motion that was read earlier here by our colleague. I want to thank Ms. Kwan for bringing up the ATIP and the document that we have.
It's 730 pages, and that's a lot of pages to digest. To my understanding, because the ATIP response is such a large document, there wasn't an opportunity before today to get it translated and sent out to all the committee members. The document is very comprehensive and goes into great detail.
I'm asking all members here if there's a possibility for us to kind of put the motion aside and try to deal with the ATIP process and get it translated so that we can talk about that. As well, as Madam Chair just read, we received this, I think just minutes before the committee, from Christiane Fox, that clearly indicates it's a human error.
In light of these two documents, and as Alexis indicated earlier about the Roxham study, I'm wondering if there's a possibility that because of the two documents—the ATIP and also the letter that Christiane Fox just submitted in French and English that's it's a human error—we could get an opportunity here to absorb this before kind of diving into the motion. Maybe these two documents could enlighten us to maybe change the motion or to make some recommendations related to the motion.
I want to make sure we look at those two documents before we kind of dive into the motion itself. I just want to put that out there and ask if there's a possibility of doing that.
Thank you.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I know that you have a lot of things moving around right now and that we're asking each other a lot of questions through you, so I'll just reiterate my initial question, through you, to Mr. Redekopp—or to anybody else, for that matter—around a summary of the access to information documents referred to in the motion. That's one.
Two, through you, I would like to ask the member from the NDP if she could please submit the document she was making reference to, if that's possible.
Ms. Kwan, I apologize, but I'm wondering if you could also summarize the heart of your commentary in terms of what you're asking for from this committee. You did speak at length. Can you give us just a quick summary of that?
I'd also like to say that I support Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe's idea of having a parallel study. It makes sense. We've seen in committees that sometimes we're not able to move on one item and we get completely clogged. The whole committee gets completely clogged because it has one item on its docket. It doesn't move beyond that singular item to other items until the first one is addressed. We don't want that in this committee. We don't want this committee to get completely clogged up by one item on the docket.
Therefore, I would support what Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe is saying concerning parallel themes that are brought to this committee. For example, maybe the first day that this committee sits in a week, it will look at item (a). The second day that the committee sits that week it will look at item (b). We can continue like that, and that way, if item (a) gets clogged up or filibustered or whatever, then at least item (b) can move ahead and the committee's work can continue instead of being completely clogged.
Finally, I'd like to read into the record some email exchanges that I think would clarify that this was a good-faith error.
I apologize, but I don't have my glasses. I forgot them. If I read a bit slowly, please bear with me. I'll do my best. I'm not as fast a reader as Mr. Redekopp, and on top of that I have no glasses, but I'll do my best.
I'll start with an email dated November 19, 2020, sent at 11:33 a.m. This email came from Brian. I'll give just the first name in order to respect people's privacy. It was sent to a number of civil servants in government. The subject was a reply to the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act coming into force. It says:
Hi Chaitanya, thanks for the estimated timelines below. It would be great to know as soon as the GG has signed off so we have a better sense of when the Order will be published on the website.
One Q: Once the GG has approved, but before the Order has been published, is there anything stopping IRCC from giving the current regulator (and future College) a heads up that the coming-into-force has been approved and will be published shortly?
That was the first email. There was a reply to that from the person addressed, Chaitanya, on Thursday, November 17, 2020, at 11:45 a.m. It was a reply to Brian and copied to others. It says:
Good morning Brian,
I will definitely let you know as soon as I have word that it has been signed. IRCC can let the regulator know as soon as the GG has approved (At that point the Order is made regardless of the fact that it hasn't yet been published).
Hope to be in touch soon!
Chaitanya
I apologize about the pronunciation of names.
There's a reply to that email, from Chaitanya to Brian, and several others are copied. It says,
The OIC has been approved earlier than expected (late yesterday I understand)! Will you be able to find it on this website in the next few days https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/.
It has been a pleasure working with you and the whole team there! Wishing you all the best of luck with getting the College up and running!
Chaitanya
What a pleasant email.
I'll continue.
The next email comes from Brian on Monday, November 23, 2020, 11:30 a.m. It says:
One last quick Q.
Our Comms folks would like to add a link in the News Release that would take the reader to the OIC for the College Act (on the OIC website). Do you get a heads up of when exactly the OIC will appear on the website, and if so would you be able to flag to us so that the news release can go out asap after? If you have to look periodically yourself to see the OIC appear on the site, then no worries, we'll monitor from our end.
Thanks!
Brian
We'll continue.
A reply from Chaitanya was sent on November 23, 2020, at 11:37 a.m., to Brian. Nobody else is copied at this point. It reads:
Hi. Unfortunately I don't get a notification when it is up. Checking the website periodically is the best bet. The search engine is really good though - I just checked right now and it took me to the designation order. I'd expect it likely tomorrow or Wednesday.
Brian replies directly to Chaitanya on November 23, 2020, at 11:41 a.m. People are really fast here in government. That's kind of nice.
The reply says:
Ok, no worries, we'll keep an eye on the website. Don't want to jinx it, but probably won't need to bug you again.
All the best!
Brian
Then the reply again, and this is from Chaitanya on November 23, 2020, at 12:12 p.m. It's been sent to Brian and copied to somebody else named Sabrina in CIC. It reads:
It is never a bother to hear from you guys! Hope things go smoothly though.
Chaitanya
We're almost done here.
Then Sabrina from CIC on Monday, November 23, 2020, at 1:18 p.m., writes with high importance,
I think Brian definitely jinxed it. Urgently hoping you can provide me the exact date that the GG signed the OIC. If we are to refer to the date the Act came into force in briefing materials, what should we put? It is the date that the GG signed or the date that the OIC goes online?”
I've been reading a lot, so I'm going to read this part again, because this is really the kicker and the crux of the issue.
We're seeing now an exchange between government officials, a good-faith exchange. They are diligent civil servants replying quickly. They're not waiting a day or two to reply to emails. They're replying in real time, cordially, working together towards a common objective. Now we get an email with “importance: high” and a flag, a flag that the civil servants who were working in good faith were having a good-faith error that is now being picked up on. I'll read it again so we understand the tone here.
The key elements read, “Urgently hoping you can provide me the exact date that the Governor General signed the order in council. If we are to refer to the date the act came into force in briefing materials, what should we put?”
They're asking each other what they should put. They don't know. They're debating and discussing it, as they should, because they don't know. They should be talking to each other to get the best information. They're doing their job.
“Is it the date that the GG signed”—they're asking if it is the date that the Governor General signed it—“or the date the order in council goes online?” They don't know. They're asking the question of each other.
There is a reply from Chaitanya. It didn't take long. It was just four minutes after that, on November 23, 2020, at 1:22 p.m. It's to Sabrina and Brian. It reads:
Haha. She
—meaning the Governor General—
approved November 20th. You should use that date as the official day the Order was made rather than the date it goes online.
That was from Chaitanya.
As a final email, Sabrina replies:
Merci! For the quick response!
All the best,
Chaitanya
This was sent on November 23, 2020, at 1:23 p.m. See? They're so fast.
We see an exchange between civil servants. We see an attempt here to nail down an important date, which is what we are discussing here. It's what this whole committee meeting is revolving around. We see that they are doing their utmost to determine something.
We know that civil servants are humans. We are all human. We can all err, despite trying our best, as we always should. We know that ministers and the government rely on the expert advice of civil servants. There is no fault here on the part of the civil servants. They were doing their absolute best and working as diligently as possible.
This issue in question of the date and erroneously landing on it revolves around human error. We know that any reasonable minister would rely on the expert advice of civil servants, as they should, especially when it comes to these technicalities. I think it would be erroneous and unbecoming, or just a waste of time for the minister to drill down into that type of date. That's exactly the job of a civil servant. It's not the job of a minister to verify a particular date in question. If we had that level of expectation of our ministers for each and every date that's put into documents, we would not have a document published because of the amount of time it would take to verify it.
I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair. I have asked a number of questions through you. I'm hoping that we can get complete but clear responses so that we can make a determination of the questions at hand.
Thank you.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.
I see a speaking list, and yes, I took note of the questions. Maybe when we go to Mr. Redekopp, he can answer your questions. We can go to Ms. Kwan at the end.
We have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe next on the list. Go ahead.
3:20 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, if the motion is passed, we will have to make sure that it is written somewhere that the documents requested to be produced must be in both official languages.
Secondly, when I signed the document promising this emergency meeting under Standing Order 106(4), I read what had happened in the newspapers and I got down to business. You know me, I'm not someone who does my job in a very partisan way. Everyone who works with me can testify to that. I started to analyze in more detail what had happened and, from what I understood, it was good faith errors by public servants.
What I am concerned about, as I said at the beginning of the meeting, is that this motion, that we take up this study no later than November 4 and have meetings on it, will mean that we have less time for other studies. Much less time should be given to this study. If this is not accepted, unfortunately, I find it difficult to see how I can support a motion that I think is going to waste more time when we could be dealing with motions that have been voted on unanimously by all parties on the committee. Frankly, it scares me a little.
On the other hand, I don't necessarily see the scandal that was mentioned when I signed the Standing Order 106(4) document. I think that by simply going for an explanation, the matter will be cleared up. The committee does not need to waste so much time on such a study. This is my opinion and I submit it to the members of the committee, with whom I work well, regardless of their party. I sincerely believe that this is not the time to be very partisan, especially as we have many important studies to deal with. That is my feeling at the moment.
October 12th, 2022 / 3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I've been listening, and I've reviewed the email chain and the documents. I agree with Alexis that it's very clear this was a human error on a public servant's part. I think putting the committee's resources and time into this is a waste. On top of that, you just read the letter from the deputy minister saying that it was a human error, which was corrected later on. It was provided to the court. It was accepted.
I'd prefer for us to spend our time on things that matter to Canadians and to newcomers. We can use our time to get a better outcome for Canadians. I just want to reiterate what Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe said and what Mr. Zuberi said. To me it's very clear it was a human error on the part of a public servant, and it was corrected as soon as it came to their attention.
I also want to ask something. Ms. Kwan talked about the letters and the order signed by the Clerk of the Privy Council. It was a broader discussion. If she could summarize it in simple words, that would be helpful as well.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Folks, we're here on a parliamentary break week. Let's work on moving the discussion forward. I'm going to propose a concrete amendment that I think reflects some good suggestions made by a number of colleagues. It might not be the be-all and end-all, but I'm working on the fly on how we can move forward effectively and in a timely way on this matter.
I do want to say, just responding to some of the comments, that the distribution of materials in both official languages is already covered by routine motions. That would be a given. There could be no distribution of the documents requested in this motion if they were not received in both official languages or translated once received.
There's been some discussion of the substantive matter underlining this, and suggestions about what may or may not have caused the problem here. I do think it's really important, though, that Government of Canada lawyers said in court on November 20 that the act was in force. Likely, the decision to say that was made even before the initial meeting took place, so we have not one but actually multiple different cases of wrongdoing or multiple overlapping errors here. It's more than just the coming-into-force-date issue. It's the coming-into-force-date issue compounding the fact that representations were made in cabinet prior to that initial determination.
Look, I'm not here to say definitively what did or didn't happen. I think that's why we put forward a study motion. Reading into the record emails and discussing what the view of the deputy minister is are germane as evidence, but we know there were multiple different problems here. You have a court meeting on the same day as cabinet considers the OIC, so cabinet is considering the OIC on the same day that the discussion is happening in court. However, it's being said in court that the OIC has already gone through. Even independent of the subsequent events, that raises some significant questions.
I think we need to have a short study on this. I think we need to have a look at it. It may be that committee members come to one conclusion or another after that study takes place, but I think we need to have the information.
The amendment I'm going to propose would make two changes. Number one, in the first paragraph, after “departmental”, I would add “and PCO”. I guess PCO is notionally a department, but it would specify, in response to Ms. Kwan's interventions, that we specifically want to hear from PCO officials involved—
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry, Mr. Genuis. Where are you adding that? Is it after “that the committee invite Minister Mendicino for one meeting, departmental officials”?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes. It would say “departmental and PCO officials”.
Again, I think Ms. Kwan had some good suggestions for officials who could be named, and perhaps wants to propose names in a subamendment, but I think that's probably covered by just adding “and PCO”.
Then I want to strike out “and no later than November 4, 2022”. That doesn't need to be a sticking point. I certainly recognize the importance of some of the other issues that are being worked on. Having a three-meeting study without the time parameter required will hopefully allow us to dig into this in a way that I think reflects the consensus of the committee that this issue needs to be looked at in a measured and reasonable way.
I propose that amendment and hope we can have the consensus to move forward.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I propose adding the words “and PCO” and removing the words “and no later than November 4, 2022”.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Madam Chair, I'm sorry for the interruption, but can we have a two-minute break, please?
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
One second. Let me just state what's on the floor.
Mr. Genuis has moved an amendment to add, after “departmental”, the words “and PCO”, and to strike, after “earliest opportunity possible”, the words “and no later than November 4, 2022”. That is the amendment on the floor.
Go ahead, Mr. Ali.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal