Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 19th, 2023

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Does that mean the discrepancy is such that those other students are no longer facing a removal order and it has now been eliminated? Or is it just that there's a simple discrepancy in the number?

[Aaron McCrorie]

It's the best information available at that moment in time. That's what I would say.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I see.

The CBSA, of course, enforces deportation orders. In this instance with the students who have been identified, some of them are awaiting meetings with the CBSA. Will the CBSA be having separate meetings with them, or will they be rolled into part of the task force investigation?

[Aaron McCrorie]

Just bear in mind that the universe of potential people being removed from Canada is considerably larger than the 300 we're talking about or even the 52. However, with regard to the individuals implicated in this case, we're going to put them through the task force process to understand exactly what their statuses are. Were they legitimate, genuine students or not? At that point, we'll be closing the loop with the individuals involved.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay, so they won't have to do both meetings—a meeting with the task force and then an additional one with the CBSA.

I'm just trying to determine whether we are duplicating the effort here. Do the students have to meet with the CBSA and then go through the task force process separately?

[Aaron McCrorie]

I don't anticipate that the task force will meet with the students, although it may meet with officials to gather information about particular cases. In particular, if we don't have evidence that they attended a school, we will give people the opportunity to provide that information.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

That means the meetings will be ongoing, so they will be meeting with the CBSA separately from the task force.

[Aaron McCrorie]

Conceivably.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, at this juncture I'd like to raise an issue as a question of privilege. As you will recall, I flagged the issue and discrepancy around the press release. It's very upsetting to me that this has occurred. I note that you have since sent an email to all committee members with your explanation. However, your explanation, frankly, does not resolve the issue, in my view.

Just by way of background, on June 5, I moved the following motion:

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...or a broad regularization program.

That motion was subsequently amended by MP Sukh Dhaliwal to add the following: “that the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship for one hour, the Minister of Public Safety for one hour, and department officials for one hour each to provide a briefing on the situation, for a total of four hours.” That amendment was passed unanimously.

Following that debate, a Conservative member, MP Brad Redekopp, moved an amendment to change the language of my motion from “provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted” to “provide a path to reapply for permanent residency for those impacted”. I objected to that proposed amendment. After some debate with the committee, that amendment was called to a recorded vote and it was defeated. There was some other ongoing discussion, but ultimately the motion that was finally passed unanimously incorporated my wording of the motion along with the amendment proposed by MP Dhaliwal. I won't belabour the point in terms of what that language is. I already put that on the record.

Then on June 14, one week following the adoption of that motion, committee members received a copy of the press release from the clerk. To my dismay, the release did not reflect the language of the motion passed. In fact, it misconstrued the motion that was passed. It contained information that was not part of the motion. Namely, it indicated that the committee will begin a study on the issue.

Moreover—and more critically, from my perspective—it omitted critical language, that being the call for the government to waive inadmissibility based on misrepresentation and to provide an alternate pathway to permanent residency to the international students. That language was not incorporated. There were clearly editorial measures taken with the drafting of that press release.

Madam Chair, after I raised that with you, as indicated, you sent committee members an email on June 19. We received your email, and your explanation is as follows:

The text was drafted with the intention of providing a coherent, accurate, and faithful news release based on the information available at the time and the motion adopted by the committee on June 7. As Chair, I approved this draft and instructed staff to publish it.

Then you went on to say, “It is regrettable that all members of the committee were not satisfied with the final form of the news release.”

What's clear, Madam Chair, is that you directed this press release to be issued and the press release does not reflect the direction from the committee. It omitted, as I indicated, critical information. It editorialized other information that you perceived to be valid for the press release.

To that end, I believe that all committee members' privilege has been violated. In the past, press releases have been issued. For example, I cite when my good colleague sitting next to me, MP Brunelle-Duceppe, moved a motion related to the Uyghurs. That motion and the intent of it were entirely reflected in the press release. It did not have editorialized language in it, as we do in this instance. The press release did not omit critical information, as we are seeing in this instance. That is to say that I believe a violation of privilege has occurred, and I am therefore seeking a remedy.

On the committee chair's role, the online “Privileges and Immunities” chapter states:

Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or, in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter.

It goes on to say:

The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member’s interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate, or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, the Chair will rule accordingly giving reasons. The committee cannot then consider the matter further as a question of privilege. Should a Member disagree with the Chair’s decision, the Member can appeal the decision to the committee.... The committee may sustain or overturn the Chair’s decision.

Madam Chair, I do believe—and I'm so sad to say this—that committee members' privilege has been violated. This is not something I enjoy doing today, but I am very upset about it. We debated the issue. I trusted that the process would follow suit, but the end result shows something different.

I have a motion ready and written out in both French and English, Madam Chair, if you find this was indeed a breach of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

I'll suspend the meeting for a few minutes. I need to get advice before we proceed any further.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Even before I say something....

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes.

I need some advice. Then we will go from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting back to order.

With regard to what Ms. Kwan has raised, I would like to give my ruling.

On June 7, 2023, the committee adopted a motion to issue a news release concerning international students who were victims of fraud. The motion indicated what message the news release should convey but did not go as far as to require specific, unchanged wording.

As is normally the case, a draft was prepared using the best information at the time and seeking to remain faithful to the terms of the motion. The chair used due and proper discretion to approve this draft based on the chair's interpretation of the motion. While the chair recognizes that certain members are not satisfied with the final form of the news release, and while I'll make sure as chair to endeavour to avoid this situation in the future by consulting the committee, the order of the committee was nevertheless duly carried out. Accordingly, the matter raised by the member does not relate to privilege.

That's my ruling.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Based on what Ms. Kwan has said, we will vote. The question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

To that end, Madam Chair, I have a motion that I would like to move. I have copies of it in both French and English. I'll pass them down.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Do you want me to pass them around?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, if you will, please.

Thank you very much to my very helpful colleague MP Brunelle-Duceppe.

I'll wait for everybody to get a copy of this motion. My staff is also sending it electronically to the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'll suspend the meeting for two or three minutes so that all members can read the motion, and then we will come back.

I'm sorry to both our witnesses.

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

Madam Chair, I had my hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to make sure that I thank the officials. This was a very important issue, very near and dear to me and to some of my constituents—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal, I'm sorry for interrupting, but that's not a point of order.

I am suspending the meeting for two minutes so that everyone can look at the motion, and then we will come back.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting back to order. I request that all members take their seat.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move the following motion:

That the committee report to the House of Commons the potential breach of privilege resulting from the issuance of a press release by the committee on June 14, 2023, which altered the language that was adopted in the motion unanimously on June 7, 2023, by editorializing the content of the motion, adding additional information that was not part of the original motion, and outright omitting information, including the specific call to waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation; the motion specifically instructed the committee to 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” and this was not accurately reflected in the content of the issued press release.

I will speak very briefly to it.

I don't normally like these procedural games. Those who know me will know that this is not the kind of thing I do. I don't relish this moment, but I think it is wrong for the work of the committee—when we agreed and a motion was passed unanimously—to not be carried out.

The explanation you provided, Madam Chair, is deficient. It does not even acknowledge the very premise of the discrepancy that did occur. It's not a matter of interpretation when the motion very specifically calls for inadmissibility to be acknowledged and for it to be waived.

We debated the matter with respect to making the broad regularization program available and providing the alternate permanent residency status initiative to the students. We debated this and still the press release came out not reflecting it. Rather, it very much aligned with what the government is going to proceed with.

That is not acceptable. That is why I'm moving this motion.