Public Safety Committee on Sept. 25th, 2018

[Bill Blair]

I've spoken to the mayor of Toronto. As part of its temporary housing strategy dealing with people who require temporary shelter, the City of Toronto has a system whereby some of that is done through rental accommodation. I've spoken to the mayor and told him that we will continue to support their important work of providing temporary shelter for those individuals who need it.

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

If you don't have a number that you're managing to, this year, to reduce the target, how many more people are you anticipating you'll have to house in hotels at taxpayer's expense?

[Bill Blair]

The number of people who went into that temporary shelter has been diminishing over time, and the City of Toronto is doing an excellent job, in my opinion, of helping those people find more permanent housing solutions. The City of Toronto is also managing the existing capacity quite well for those coming in.

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

I'll take it you don't have a number for that either.

In an interview, you said that the IRB backlog would decrease, but they—well, they don't report to you, so I can understand why they would contradict you—contradicted your answer and said that the numbers would not decrease given the considerable increase year over year.

[Bill Blair]

I was speaking of two things, Ms. Rempel. First of all, we have invested a significant amount of money—some $74 million—

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

I'm sure it's more expensive.

[Bill Blair]

—in increasing the capacity of the IRB. This increases their capacity to about 17,000 additional hearings each year, but we are—

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

Right, but they said it would not decrease.

[Bill Blair]

—making additional investments and doing additional work in reducing the number who are presenting themselves—

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

Do you acknowledge—

[Bill Blair]

—and in my opinion, the combination of all of those things will be effective in reducing the backlog.

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

Are you contradicting the IRB's assertion that the backlog won't decrease?

[Bill Blair]

If all we were going to do was increase IRB's capacity by the current amount we've increased it, which is 17,000 per year, that would simply be consumed by the existing backlog, which they inherited, but we are doing other measures as well, which I believe will be effective in reducing that backlog.

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

What you've just said is that you have no target by which to reduce the numbers. You're keeping people in hotels, and you're adding more bureaucrats and hundreds of millions of dollars to process people who are abusing our asylum system.

[Bill Blair]

Let me be very clear. We're adding people who actually do the important work of conducting these hearings.

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

So that's a yes.

[Bill Blair]

Under Canadian law, people are entitled to due process—

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

You have no plan to reduce this.

[Bill Blair]

—and the capacity to do those hearings was very significantly underfunded and diminished for a long period of time, and we're restoring it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Ms. Rempel.

Mr. Dubé, presumably for a less spirited exchange, you have seven minutes.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Minister.

I would like to talk about the situation of migrants, especially in terms of the negotiations with the Americans. You alluded to it in your comments, and also when you replied to my Conservative colleague.

Our concern stems from a report broadcast last May, if I am not mistaken, which said that several options were on the table. You are very familiar with the NDP's position on this: we propose suspending the safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States. One of the possibilities raised at the time, which Canada was ready to accept, was to enforce the agreement along the whole length of the border. That is what the Conservatives are proposing. We find that proposal extremely problematic.

Are you able to tell me today, yes or no, whether that possibility is part of what is being negotiated with the Americans?

[Bill Blair]

What I can confirm is that as the agreement currently exists, the safe third country agreement applies only at regular border crossings. This is a bilateral agreement between our two countries, and we cannot unilaterally change that, although there have been a number of recommendations suggesting that we should.

We intend to have discussions. Quite frankly, the form and the outcome of those discussions, I wouldn't wish to speculate on. We will be talking to the United States Secretary of Homeland Security in order to determine if that agreement can be made more effective, enhanced, to serve the mutual interests of both countries.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

When the Government of Canada is at the negotiating table, will you or will you not exclude the possibility of enforcing the safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States along the entire length of the border? This is what the Conservative Party is proposing and it would essentially create an invisible wall along our border. I am well aware that this is a bilateral agreement, but we still have a say in the matter and we can ask for this possibility to be excluded from the negotiations. I just want to know what the Government of Canada is going to say, to the extent that it is possible for you to share that with us.

[Bill Blair]

Again, I don't want to get ahead of those discussions, but I will tell you that every option is on the table. I haven't ruled out any possibility.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

I want to move on. You mentioned the question of narcotics at the border and things like that. There are two pieces here. The first one is for marijuana. I have two questions about that.

Number one, is there any plan for Canada to firmly stand up for Canadians who will legally consume cannabis, cross the border and see their entrance to the U.S. refused? There is seemingly contradictory information that we are hearing about how that's going to apply, understanding that the U.S. can have its own laws.

Number two, is the government going to move ahead on amnesty for criminal charges for simple possession that have taken place during the time when legalization was clearly a government policy, even if the bill had not been adopted by the House of Commons, so retroactive amnesty?