Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2025

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

We can probably let the witnesses go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Sure. Are you guys okay to release the witnesses?

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

I would love to go back to the witnesses, if we could. We don't have a bunch of interventions. Unless you guys want....

I'm sorry. I'll leave it to them.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Sure, we can go back to the witnesses.

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

[Inaudible—Editor] dispense with the motion.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I think what you suggested, Chair, is probably best.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Are you okay if we release the witnesses?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

I just want to say thank you to our witnesses. Because we have a motion that is now before us, unfortunately we've had to cut short our witness testimony. However, I want to thank you for your opening remarks. I want to thank you for your answers. They're an important contribution to our current study.

Thank you, Mr. Toupin.

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Thank you, Ms. Guthrie.

You guys can go off the call, and we will continue with our conversation.

Ms. Zahid, I have you next. Then I have Mr. Fragiskatos after you.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In reading the motion, would this motion be in order to debate? We are in the middle of the study, and the agenda posted for today is with regard to the study, which we are having. Also, we had the witnesses. The 48-hour notice has not been given on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

I'm sorry. I'll check with the clerk.

I want to thank Ms. Zahid for intervening.

I had a discussion with the clerk, and I do appreciate, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, that you have made it as part of the Canadian immigration system, and it's fairly broad. I do not see how it is part of our greater immigration system study, in which we are looking forward with regard to the Canadian immigration system.

I do agree that we need 48 hours to be able to discuss this motion. That is my decision.

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

I can't—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Of course you can speak to it, but that's my decision.

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

Okay.

As I said when I moved the motion, we don't want what happened to happen again. We are currently studying Canada's immigration system. One of the topics we're looking at is the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. In fact, the events covered by my motion occurred at the department of citizenship and immigration in 1995. That means that this must be part of the committee's study, Madam Chair.

Have I persuaded you? Are you able to change your ruling? If that is your final ruling, I must challenge it because I sincerely believe that the motion is related to the study at hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

I do not agree that this—

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

In that case, I am challenging your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Okay, so, you are challenging the ruling. In that case, we move to vote on the challenge to the chair.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Rémi Bourgault]

The question is this: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Okay. We'll go back to debating the motion.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We've had, I think, a very productive set of meetings, and of course I want that to continue. We just dispensed with witnesses—witnesses who were adding to our study and who had a lot to contribute. Granted, they did put a number of points on the record today, but they could have put even more.

I take the point offered by our colleague, that this is a study on the immigration system in general terms. However, he knows very well that looking at the past is not looking at the present and the future. If we're going to productively engage in a discussion about immigration, then we should be doing exactly that—looking at the present and looking at the future. The motion, with great respect, does not do that. I'm not sure what the intention is of putting a motion forward to re-examine something that's been litigated time and time again. We have an opportunity here to, as I said, meaningfully listen to witnesses, expert witnesses who want a better immigration system. Our side has been very clear that reforms are needed, reforms that move the system towards sustainability, responsibility and an economic focus. That is and must be the goal. I don't see how the motion does that.

Our colleague is an experienced member. He has been a member of this committee for a long time. I have a lot of respect for him. He can put forward any motion that he wishes. It's his right to do so, but the reality is that I don't see anything in the motion talking about the current immigration system or talking about the future.

He's smiling at me, because he knows I'm right. He has put forward a motion that doesn't talk about the future of the system, but I know that he has many ideas on how to create a better system. I would hope that members, if they're going to put forward motions at committee, would do so in a way that does exactly that.

Today, for example, a number of points were raised. Let me begin with, out of courtesy, and I don't say that entirely sarcastically, Monsieur Toupin. I believe he was invited by Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. We heard his really nuanced approach and his understanding of the question of temporary foreign workers, talking about how indispensable they are—I think he used that word, “indispensable”—to the economy in the province of Quebec, in this case, and to the particular region he's from.

Madam Chair, this is where I feel some disappointment. I was scheduled, as you know, to go next in the questions. I was looking forward to asking him about the importance of the temporary foreign worker program and taking a nuanced approach to the issue, looking at it from a regional perspective. While we heard a perspective today from the province of Quebec, I wanted to ask the witness about his network and those he might be engaged in discussions with about this very program in different parts of the country. Someone in his position would, of course, have ties to people working in similar industries in different parts of Canada. I wanted to know what they think of the temporary foreign worker program and the kinds of reforms that would be needed. Certainly, there are reforms that would be needed.

We weren't able to listen to any of that today, Madam Chair. I mean, at least I wasn't able to put questions forward, as is my right as an MP, to understand that and to understand the conversation that's happening outside of Quebec and in the rest of the country. I think that's a really important thing.

Similarly, the issue of youth employment, or unemployment, as it were, came up. That's also vital. In order to understand more about how arguments are crafted about youth unemployment and the connection that the temporary foreign worker program may have, or in fact may not have, to youth unemployment, I was going to ask about that. I think it was Mr. Brown who raised this, and who has raised it in his writings that can be found online.

There is a debate about whether the program is responsible. I remind colleagues that, if you look at the temporary foreign worker program, 1% of Canada's workforce—1% of Canadian workers—is here under that program. That could be responsible, in some way, for youth unemployment, or it's the state of the economy.

I don't deny that youth unemployment is a real issue. The numbers don't lie. It is a very challenging time for young people in all parts of the country. Not only am I sure of this, but economists continue to tell us that the real cause of this is the anxiety being felt on an economic level in many ways. Businesses are hesitant to hire because of what is transpiring in our relations with the United States. We need not only to focus on that relationship but also to expand and look beyond the Canada-U.S. relationship, which, as the Prime Minister has articulated very well, has forever changed. This is why we see, finally, a focus on resources and proper resource management, exporting to new markets in Asia and beyond.

Colleagues might soon accuse me of going off topic, Madam Chair, so I'll bring it back to the economic focus, which is absolutely tied to the immigration question. As our government moves forward with a new agenda focused on ensuring the continued success and viability of this country, in economic terms, immigration must be core to what we do.

I emphasize that we have an opportunity, colleagues, to contribute to that ongoing discussion. Yes, sometimes it could tend towards a debate, which is perfectly reasonable. I agreed and disagreed with many things Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe has put forward at this committee. The same is true of Conservative colleagues. We're on different sides, but many times they've been really thoughtful and have had interesting questions. It's been a very cordial relationship, Madam Chair, since we began.

Our first meeting, in fact, was in June. The most substantive meetings have happened since September, but unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I think this is the first filibuster, as some might call it. I would just call it a discussion about where we need to go. We've never done this at this committee.

I'm surprised—and I use that word quite deliberately—because my friend across the way does not like surprises, as he has always told me. He has also told me there are no guarantees, so I'll give him that. I am genuinely surprised today that, with his own witness in the room, we would engage in this.

Madam Chair, you've known me for a long time. You know committee work is very important to me, as it is to all of us. When first elected in 2015, I asked for advice about what a new MP should do. I remember that a number of the more experienced MPs on our side and on the Conservative side said that the job of an MP is really two jobs: It is about the constituency and about the parliamentary role.

Insofar as the parliamentary role is concerned, committee work is the most important thing MPs can do on the Hill. You have an opportunity to, if you wish, invite witnesses, question those witnesses, take their testimony, put it into a report and hopefully have that report inform legislation.

We've looked at legislation and worked together, I think, extremely well. Today is a bit of an aberration. Maybe Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe will have a similar thought that, if we can put off the discussion to a subsequent meeting, conversations can happen in the meantime about how to properly deal with a surprise motion like this, and we can return to the very good relationships we've had.

Again, we have not dealt with just one substantive piece of legislation but with two. We've dealt with Bill C-3, and we've dealt with Bill C-12.

Granted, the clause-by-clause happened at the public safety committee, but we offered, and I can tell you how well received our recommendations were at the public safety committee. They were extremely well received, and colleagues there really appreciated the work that we did. In fact, I had one colleague tell me how good the rapport must be between the parties at the immigration committee for us to come up with so many substantive recommendations that certainly informed the understanding of the immigration aspects of Bill C-12. We can continue to engage in that. We can continue to embrace that kind of collegial approach to the study of immigration.

Instead, what we have here is a motion that looks at events that happened in 1995. In 1995, Madam Chair, I was in grade 8. I'm not sure what other colleagues were doing.

To the point about relevance, I might be questioned here again on relevance. I'm waiting for it, but it hasn't come up yet. I will continue to stay on topic, then. To the point about relevance, we need to be seized with the challenges of the moment and of the future. I don't see that in this motion.

Now, my colleague is very passionate on the issues that are in the motion. Again, that is his right. I have no challenge with that, but there are many ways to pursue this. He could stand up in the House of Commons and give statement after statement after statement bringing attention to this. I've talked about surprises before; here's another surprise for me. I know that the Bloc has asked about this in the House of Commons in question period, I believe, on three or four occasions and as recently as last week. They now want to litigate this at the immigration committee.

Again, I remind colleagues, and I think I'll have.... I know that Conservative members feel this way, and I know that Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe feels this way. I want to be fair. Of all the things we could be doing, looking at matters that have already been asked and answered, to use that phrase, in the House of Commons.... We'll leave that to the House of Commons.

In committee, we should be taking up what we agreed to, I guess months ago now, when this first.... Maybe it isn't months, Madam Chair, but it's at least a number of weeks ago that we first agreed to Ms. Rempel Garner's motion, which is a very broad motion. There's no question about that. I remember that when it was first raised, there were some questions about whether the Liberal side would support it. I said that yes, we should, of course, support it, because it would allow for an examination of the immigration system writ large.

What I didn't realize then—and maybe I'm kicking myself a bit now—is that we could have amended it to look at only present and future issues, but there are no facts in the future, as they say. How was I to know that, towards the end of a very important meeting, as we've had today, all of a sudden we would be taking up a motion that deals with matters that happened 30 years ago? It was 30 years ago, colleagues.

I'm not sure how that serves our constituents. It does not serve our constituents. Perhaps Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe has a view on that. I think he'll probably put it on the floor in a moment.

I can't hear what Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe is saying. Is he saying that he wants to dispense with today and have a discussion about what he's raised, in the meantime, between now and another meeting?

I'm not sensing that, so I'll keep going.

We could have amended it then, but I wanted to, in good faith, have our side support a general study, which, yes, came in the form of a motion on immigration. That's fine. It was going so well. I don't know where this will take us. I'm sure we can get past it. I think the relationship is strong enough among colleagues in this committee that we will get past it. I just don't understand how, towards the end of a meeting that really helped me understand much more about where things have been and where they're going, we're now thrown off and talking about, again, events that transpired when I was about 12 or 13 years old.

Madam Chair, I think there are other colleagues on the list. I'm getting a sense or a sign. There are discussions happening over there. I'll continue, because those could prove fruitful.

In fact, I see a handshake of some kind. I'll just leave it and see where it goes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Actually, I have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe next on my list, followed by Mr. Zuberi and Ms. Sodhi.

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

I want to thank my colleague.

That said, I can understand that, for people outside Quebec, it doesn't seem to be very important. However, if my colleague had been in Quebec last week, he would have seen that this news made the front page of the Journal de Montréal newspaper and it was the first item on the news of a number of television and radio stations. It is extremely important for us to know what happened, particularly because the statements were made by the immigration minister at the time.

I sincerely encourage members to vote on the motion, given that it is not clear whether it will pass. The point is for this motion to be made public and for us all to see how committee members around the table vote. For someone from outside Quebec who is looking at this, it may not seem so important to know that Canada's prime minister at the time asked his immigration minister to change things. For us, however, it's important to shed some light on this situation and to invite these individuals to appear before the committee.

Madam Chair, I would ask that we vote now, unless anyone has any other amendments to propose. I'm open to amendments, if anyone wants to change anything in the motion.

I'm willing to listen, Madam Chair. I would like to resolve this issue fairly quickly. I don't want to stay here until seven o'clock tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Next on the list, I have Mr. Zuberi.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Chair, am I able to give my time to a colleague?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Ms. Sodhi is next on the list.

The other thing I could do is suspend for two minutes and see if we can find an amendment of some sort.

Is it amenable to everyone that we suspend for a few minutes?

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, I look at you, and I look at you, Ms. Rempel Garner.