Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 5th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 70 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I will remind you that we will be meeting for three hours today.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians). We will continue our clause-by-clause study of the bill.

When we left off, Mr. Kmiec had just moved an amendment from the floor, which has been distributed to the committee. The floor is open for debate.

I have two people on the speaking list, Ms. Kwan and then Mr. Redekopp.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before we get into Bill S-245, I would like to first put on notice the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study into the targeted exploitation scheme faced by 700 Punjabi international students in which they were unknowingly defrauded by a “ghost” immigration consultant who used inauthentic admission letters for their student visa application; that this study be comprised of two meetings; and that the study consider:

a) how the situation was allowed to happen;

b) why fraudulent documents were not detected until years later when the students began to apply for permanent status;

c) the significant harm experienced by students including financial loss and distress;

d) measures necessary to help the students to have their deportation stayed, inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation waived, and provide a pathway to permanent status; and

e) that the committee also examine how to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.

I'm putting this motion on notice, Madam Chair. I fully understand the precedence of the order is for us to finish Bill S-245, for bills to be dealt with. Then we can entertain other studies, so I've put that forward.

The other thing I want to note, Madam Chair, is that, at the end of the meeting today, I would like to move the following motion. The language is as follows—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. You're saying that you want move it at the end of the meeting.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I just want to let folks know so that they can anticipate this.

The motion would read:

That, following news reports that international students admitted into Canada with valid study permits were issued fraudulent college acceptance letters by immigration consultants, and are now facing deportation, the committee issue a news release to condemn the actions of these fraudulent 'ghost consultants' and call on the Canada Border Services Agency to immediately stay pending deportations of affected international students, waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation and provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted, such as the Humanitarian and Compassionate application process or a broad regularization program.

I just want to let people know that it is my intention to move that motion at the end of the meeting today, assuming we can finish Bill S-245.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's nice to see the NDP waking up to this issue and basically repeating the motion that I made here. I'm confused, though. Are we studying it, or are we reporting it? It's confusing. I don't understand what the NDP is trying to do here, so that's something we're going to have to talk about. You can't do both. You have to pick one, and I'm not sure that Ms. Kwan knows which one she wants to pick.

I want to let you know I was in the GTA over the weekend. I did meet with these Indian students. I saw them at the protest that they're running near the airport in Mississauga. They're actually staying at this spot 24-7. They're sleeping there. I was—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I think we're getting into.... We're dealing with Bill S-245. We are doing clause-by-clause.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Let me just finish, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, it should be to the topic, please.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

All right. That's perfect.

I also want to mention that we have over 9,000 signatures.

Madam Chair, I move that the committee proceed to the consideration of my motion, which reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee conduct a study into news reports that international students admitted into Canada with valid study permits were issued fraudulent college acceptance letters by immigration consultants, and are now facing deportation, and that this study undertake at least three meetings; that the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship for one meeting along with his departmental officials to testify; that the committee invite the Minister responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency for one meeting along with his departmental officials to testify; that the committee invite affected international students and representatives from Colleges & Institutes Canada; and that the committee request that the Canada Border Services Agency temporarily suspend the deportation of affected international students until those selected as witnesses can testify before the committee.

I'd really like to get started on debate on this. I know that last time the Liberals and NDP shut it down. I would like to continue and see if we can debate this issue today. I think it's an important issue that we just aren't willing to give up. I think it's important. There are deportations that are happening very quickly, so this is an urgent issue.

I met with Mr. Lovepreet Singh, who is the next person on the list to be deported, I believe on June 13. He was very concerned with the situation and what was going to happen.

I just feel that it's very timely and very important and is something that these students—and, frankly, everybody in their community—are pushing for. They really want to see something done. I would like to move that we move to that order of business today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

This a non-debatable motion. Mr. Redekopp has asked to have debate on his motion. We will go to a vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We will now resume our clause-by-clause study of Bill S-245. We have amendment CPC-5 on the floor.

The floor is open for debate. I have Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the previous amendment we debated—which was, I think, shamefully defeated—many members brought up the issue of resources and allowing access for new Canadians, in all parts of the country and in all economic circumstances, to ensure they could attend in-person citizenship ceremonies.

One area where we frequently hear from settlement service providers is rural Canada. In order to attract and retain new Canadians to rural communities, particularly where there are acute labour shortages and a great desire to attract higher levels of population.... One of the impediments to doing that is ensuring there are resources for a whole gamut of resettlement services, such as language acquisition services, understanding other government service interface points and—I would add—ensuring there are in-person citizenship ceremonies.

I also think it's not just about having access to citizenship ceremonies where new Canadians live and work, particularly in rural Canada. It's also about allowing rural Canadians writ large to participate in these ceremonies. As some of my colleagues discussed earlier, regarding the previous amendment, when members of either Parliament or the community have the opportunity to attend with new Canadians.... Taking up the oath of citizenship actually builds a sense of community and pride.

Madam Chair, I would reference the previous work of this committee, and even of different Parliaments, on settlement services. Oftentimes, when you talk to rural service providers, they will reference the fact that having those opportunities to provide not just settlement services but also community events that draw the community together and give new Canadians a sense of community is very important to building cohesion in Canada's pluralism.

One of the stated rationales for allowing online—as opposed to in-person—citizenship is that the government doesn't have enough resources to get these done. It makes it easier for people. As I've stated in previous debate, I don't think that answer holds water if our overall objective as parliamentarians is ensuring cohesiveness and ceremonies that allow Canadians to share in our pluralism in a meaningful way. Ergo, I think that, if we accept this amendment, it would send a message to the government that they need to provide resources to ensure there is availability for rural and remote communities to have in-person citizenship ceremonies.

That's my rationale for this. I think my colleague from rural Canada probably has a thing or two to say about that, but I would just say this to the people who are watching: We just tried to put forward a motion on a matter that is very germane and material to many new Canadians in very dire straits: people who want to come to this country but are facing deportation because of fraud the government needs to address.

What's happening with this bill is this. Rather than being allowed to get through this committee in the format in which it was sent to us from the other place—the Senate.... A special motion was moved, supported by the NDP and Liberals, to expand the scope of this bill far beyond its original intent. The expectation was that what's good for the goose would not be good for the gander. If the Liberals and NDP were hoping—when they opened it up far beyond its scope—that other parliamentarians wouldn't avail themselves of the rules they set and look at other aspects of the Citizenship Act.... This is now what we are all doing.

I think this is a very important amendment. However, I support my colleague Mr. Redekopp in looking at this particular issue.

Madam Chair, I would ask that we support this amendment but also recognize this is a situation the Liberals and NDP put themselves in by the government's not tabling legislation to the effect that's in here, as well as cutting a deal with the NDP to open up the scope of the bill in a situation where they could have kept it narrow.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm definitely going to support this amendment. We've talked many times, and I've spoken many times at the committee here, about the whole idea of in-person citizenship ceremonies. I hear this from constituents when I speak to them. Where I hear this isn't necessarily is from people who haven't gone through it yet, because they don't necessarily know what it is or what they're missing. In particular, I hear this from people who have gone through the in-person citizenship ceremony.

They tell me things like they made sure they took time off work to be there because it was so important, or they invited family to be there, or they were excited to see the different dignitaries and the other people who are often there and to hear the important speeches that people give. Mostly, what they're excited about is to actually sit through and experience the moment of taking that oath, particularly when they're called up on the stage and get to shake the hands of the officials and get to receive their actual citizenship papers. It's just the excitement of that. That's from their perspective.

From my perspective, of course, as an MP, and all of us here I'm sure, I have had the ability to go do citizenship ceremonies. It's quite a thing to sit there and to watch the eyes and the faces of those new citizens and to see the excitement they have in their eyes. Particularly, when they're coming up on the stage, too, if I happen to be there, I'm able to shake their hands, and I often give them little Canada pins, or something like that. They're just so excited and overwhelmed.

The other interesting thing that always happens at these ceremonies is the photos. There will be many photos taken not only during the ceremony but also after the ceremony ends, particularly. Of course, the big star of the ceremony is always the RCMP officer in his red uniform. Everybody wants him or her to be in the picture. That's always a great thrill. Whoever happens to be around, whatever dignitaries or other official are there, will often be in the photos as well. There can be a lineup that lasts for quite a long time after the ceremony is over. Often, I'll stay there for an extra hour or more as people come. They want to tell their stories and to talk and to have their photos taken.

It's quite a lot of fun and very meaningful. I think that is my point. It's very meaningful to the people to go through that experience, to have those photos and to walk across that stage, often with tears in their eyes. The stories they tell are often very difficult, but those tears are mostly tears of joy that they are now here and are now citizens of Canada. It's something that, as I said, is very meaningful to them.

Contrast that with somebody who's online. I've heard this from many of my constituents as well who talk about going on a computer and how it's just not the same. You're in your house. You're trying to make it as official as you can, but the phone rings or the dog needs to be dealt with, or whatever happens, and it distracts people from the ceremony. We all know. We have all experienced Zoom meetings. A couple of my colleagues are on a Zoom meeting right now and are probably experiencing that very thing where there are other distractions. It's just not the same as the intense thrill for those of us who are here in the room and who are allowed to listen in person to what I have to say.

That is what I hear from them. Having to sit in front of a computer screen and try to make it a meaningful event is not something they're going to be telling stories about in the future: “In 2023, we all gathered around Dad's laptop, and we tried to see the RCMP officer in the back corner, but we couldn't quite see him, and we got to pretend-walk across the stage.” It's just not a story that tells well, and it's not something that will have the same impact or the same memory as these people get older.

Those are the stories I hear. It doesn't matter where I go. If I'm in Saskatoon, I hear those stories. I've had the privilege of spending time in other areas—

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I just want to caution that we stay on subject and that we make sure we do not waste any more time than we've already wasted, so that we can talk about what we're here to talk about and we can pass the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

What Mr. Redekopp is discussing is related to the amendment we have on the floor.

Mr. Redekopp, please continue.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I was saying, I've had the privilege of travelling to other communities in Canada. Just this past weekend I was in the GTA and visited people in Scarborough, Mississauga, Oakville and Brampton. There, I heard similar stories of the significance of citizenship first of all, but particularity the significance of the ceremony itself. There has been much discussion about citizenship ceremonies in Canada. There has been talk about the one-click idea. There's been talk about the lack of in-person ceremonies.

In the past there wasn't much to talk about because it always was and it was just assumed that you would go to an in-person ceremony. That's just what it was. It wasn't necessarily talked about in advance of them. Now it's talked about more...and about the desire to have the in-person ceremony.

Some will say that it's difficult to do in a rural environment. It's true. They are more difficulties sometimes and it's harder to put them on as quickly as you can. At the same time, it's no less impactful to do it. Just because it's maybe a little harder to do doesn't mean it's not something we should do.

I think that, even in the cases where you are in a more remote environment, it's incumbent upon us as elected officials and it's incumbent upon the government to actually make a way for there to be an in-person ceremony, regardless of where you are in Canada. It's so meaningful to people, I don't think it's fair to take that away and to remove the ability for them to have that.

Whether you live in the GTA or in rural Saskatchewan, I think it's important that the ability is there. As I said, the evidence from those who have talked to me about the value of the in-person ceremony would bear that out and would say the same thing. That's why it's important for us to put this in here.

The other thing I would say about this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

A vote has been called in the House. The bells are ringing. I need unanimous consent to continue the meeting. We can stop it at five minutes before.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The meeting is suspended. We will come back after the votes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

We are on clause-by-clause on Bill S-245. We have amendment CPC-5 on the floor. Seeing no one....

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I was speaking, I believe, to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, Mr. Redekopp, please continue.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

I was speaking when the bells started ringing.

Just to quickly reiterate, I believe that it's really important that we do our citizenship ceremonies in person. As I said when I spoke before, people have asked me for that. People have commented on how important it is to them to look back in time and remember that moment when they had their citizenship ceremony with all of the photos they have and the experience they had, shaking hands, the photos with the RCMP officer, the officials and all that. It's a very important thing to them. It is something really important that we should continue and not allow to be minimized by doing it in an online form, where it's just a matter of being on a Zoom call and trying to follow along. That really minimizes the significance of the citizenship oath.

I think it's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Redekopp. You are repeating things, so please make sure that what you have already said is not repeated.