CIMM#70 - 3: Debating Bill S-245 and Motion on International Students

The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

I call the meeting to order.

We are resuming meeting number 70 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We are continuing our study of Bill S-245.

When we left off, we were debating the question on whether the chair shall report the bill as amended to the House.

I have two people on the speaking list, Mr. Redekopp and Mr. Kmiec.

Mr. Redekopp.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK
Conservative

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to take a slightly different tactic tonight.

In the last few meetings, I started by trying to move my motion to talk about the Indian students. I think we all want to see some action on the Indian student issue, but I don't want to see it voted down another time. I think that would be bad.

What I would like to suggest, and maybe this is more of a point of order than anything, is that after we're done with Bill S-245—hopefully, tonight—we move to committee business, where we can consider that motion and other committee business, if it comes up.

I'm wondering whether we could have an agreement that we could do that, Madam Chair.


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC
Liberal

That is automatic.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Dhaliwal, let me recognize you first.

We have to complete Bill S-245.

The meeting was suspended. We are resuming. Once we get through that, then we will proceed.

We need to get through Bill S-245. We have that legislation that is of importance. First we need to clear that.

After that, we can see where we can go.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK
Conservative

As long as the committee has the will to at least consider going to committee business...and just to show that we are willing, I would suggest that we proceed to a vote on this statement.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Do all members agree to that?

Madam Chair, I had my hand up.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Yes, Mr. Dhaliwal, and then Ms. Lalonde.


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC
Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There is no issue with the NDP, Bloc, Conservatives or us on the Liberal side, bringing any of those motions or anything to do with those students. We all want to help.

However, the main thing is Bill S-245. If we can get that out now, then I'm sure every member in this House—on the Liberal side, I am certain—is fully in support.... They are not only supportive; in fact, they are already talking to the minister and to IRCC and CBSA to make sure justice prevails.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Ms. Lalonde.


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON
Liberal

I want to ask my colleague what he meant.

For us, it is very important that we move forward on Bill S-245. We have spent over 28 hours throughout this wonderful initiative. I'm sure that a lot of people outside of this House, and this committee, will be happy to see this coming to a vote.

I would be happy to find out more about how the member wants to proceed, but my first thought is to get Bill S-245 to a vote.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Kmiec is next, and then Ms. Kwan.


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB
Conservative

I thought I was on the list before, Chair.

As I said, I went to my caucus. I am ready to vote.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am very ready for the vote.

We have been ready for some time, and so are the lost Canadian families. Let's get on with it.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you.

Seeing no debate, we can go for a vote.

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB
Conservative

We would like a recorded division.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Clerk, can you please take the vote?

(Reporting of bill to the House agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

I will report the bill as amended. It is adopted.

Thank you, everyone, for your patience.

Thank you to all the officials, and to the team being led by Ms. Girard. Let's give her a big hand.


Some hon. members

Hear, hear!


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

I know you have been very patient, and you had to spend your husband's birthday with us to get through Bill S-245. On behalf of all the members of the committee, I really want to thank you and your team for being here for many long evenings.

Thank you to all the support staff and to the interpreters.

I really want to thank all the members for their co-operation and for their patience.

I thank all our staff also, because we can't do it without staff.

Thank you to everyone for getting this legislation through. Hopefully, I will report it back, and we will be moving on.

Yes, Ms. Kwan?


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I, too, would like to thank the staff, particularly for their patience and endurance with this bill.

Now I'd like to move two motions, Madam Chair. I will move them one by one. I'll let the first one be dealt with first, and then when we've finished with that, if you can come to back to me, Madam Chair, I'll move my second motion.

My first motion is:

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.

Madam Chair, I'd like to move this motion first. I think it is important that this motion be adopted by the committee.

As mentioned previously, this is an issue that I wrote to the minister about, long before this matter became a topic for this committee. I called for him to take action in raising the concerns of how these students have been victims of this fraudulent scheme. The measures we need the government to take are staying the deportations; waiving inadmissibility based on misrepresentation by the fraudulent, ghost consultants in submitting doctored admissions letters, unbeknownst to the students; and then, finally, giving the students a permit pathway.

As we know, when students are faced with the issue of inadmissibility, it stays on their record for five years. That applies to all immigration pathways, so this is very significant to their future.

These students—I've met with many of them now—are in such a terrible state. They've lost money, and they are stuck in a terrible situation. Some of them have deportation orders. Others have pending meetings with the CBSA.

As a first step, this, I think, is absolutely essential and necessary, Madam Chair, so I'll move this as my first motion. After this is dealt with, I have another one to move.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Okay.

I have a speaking list. We'll have Mr. Dhaliwal and then Ms. Rempel Garner.

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal.


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC
Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Madam Kwan for bringing this motion forward.

Right now, Madam Chair, as Madam Kwan mentioned, she is concerned about that. Certainly, on this side, I—along with all of the Liberal members on this committee, as well as the many members outside of this committee—am very concerned about this issue as well.

In fact, as Madam Kwan mentioned the ministry, I would move the following amendment to add at the end of the motion, “and 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”.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Mr. Dhaliwal, do you have this amendment in both official languages?


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC
Liberal

No, I don't. I just came up with it, and that's all I have. It's totally acceptable.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, is it okay? Were you able to get the interpretation?


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

The interpretation was unbelievable this evening.

I liked it.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you.

We have an amendment by Mr. Dhaliwal on the floor.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.


Michelle Rempel Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Conservative

Madam Chair, in response to Ms. Kwan's comments.... I'd like to build on them.

The issue of individuals who disguise themselves as licensed practitioners and pretend to help people come to Canada and prey on them financially is something that has plagued our country for years, and it's not getting better. It's getting worse. I have sat on this committee for many years, and there have been many reports. This situation is not getting better. It's my hope that, if we move forward with this motion, the government gets serious about this. It puts people's lives at stake. It puts people at risk of human trafficking. It puts people at risk of being exploited in so many different ways. This is something we need to have compassion for, and it's incumbent upon the government to act.

I hope, with regard to the subamendment, that it is not designed to delay and obfuscate government action on this issue. There needs to be action now. There needed to be action weeks ago—not just in this circumstance but also to the broader scope. Some of the reforms made to deal with ghost consultants are clearly not working.

On the accreditation body to deal with immigration consultants, I also have concerns about whether or not these reforms have actually worked. Perhaps we can get to that. Certainly, it shouldn't delay action for people who have been affected in this situation.

Thank you.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB
Conservative

I like the fact that the ministers are being added to this.

We have one subamendment that we'll propose after we deal with this one.

I hope the committee keeps itself open to allowing more than just four hours to have affected international students come in, and also Colleges and Institutes Canada, which is the stakeholder group that represents all the colleges. Some of these international students have given me the emails they've received back and forth, which are used in inadmissibility hearings by CBSA. It is evident in those that IRCC and CBSA were doing the work of confirming that these fake acceptance letters were in fact fraudulent, three years.... I have one case that is three years after the fact. There's an email exchange with the registrar and admissions officers of one of these colleges, so I have a hard time believing the college network, so to speak, wasn't aware that there was fraudulent activity going on.

We should keep it open for the future, but on this subamendment, I'm onside with what Mr. Dhaliwal said.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, we will have a vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal.

(Amendment agreed to)

We have the motion by Ms. Kwan, as amended, on the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK
Conservative

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to mention that I spoke, today, with the students affected by this, and they are growing extremely impatient for some action. They'll be very happy to see, finally, that this committee is taking some action.

One thing I think we have to be very careful about, at least from the Conservative perspective.... We are all for not immediately deporting these students, because there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. We are also certainly open to their obtaining PR status. However, we are concerned about creating a special pathway for these particular students. We have the pathways that are there. I think what all these students want is to be considered, like anyone else, for permanent status. They're not asking for something special that way.

I have a subamendment that I would like to propose in this regard.

Towards the end, the current one reads, “waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation and provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted”. I would like to delete “an alternate pathway to permanent status” and replace it with “a path to reapply for permanent residency”.

It would read.... I'll start at “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 a path to reapply for permanent residency for those impacted,” and it carries on.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Please just let me write it down. Is it “a path to reapply”?


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK
Conservative

It's “a path to reapply for permanent residency”.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

It will read “on the basis of misrepresentation and provide a path to reapply for permanent residency for those impacted”.

We have a subamendment by Mr. Redekopp on the floor. Mrs. Lalonde wants to speak to it.

To bring on record what Mr. Redekopp said, this committee adopted a motion earlier. Everyone was in favour of it, that the legislation would have priority. Based on that, we had to get through the legislation to get on to any other business of the House.

That's why the committee has been going through meetings on Bill S-245. It's because of this motion the committee has passed, that the legislation holds a priority. I just want to put it on record that we had to get through that legislation before we could do anything else.

Next we have Mrs. Lalonde and then Mr. Dhaliwal.


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON
Liberal

I'll let Mr. Dhaliwal go first, and maybe I'll share some thoughts after. I really want Mr. Dhaliwal to speak on this issue that is very important to all of us.

I know my colleague would really appreciate the opportunity to speak.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Dhaliwal.


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC
Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Redekopp, Brad, on the other side for bringing this forward and for the way he's thinking. In fact, the way he's thinking is that the students were here. They already went through school. They got their diplomas or degrees. They got the experience. Basically, the way he's saying it is that students are not just beggars who take immigration for granted. There are many other people who have gone through the same path as well. There are probably hundreds of thousands of those other students who will feel that it's fair.

I think that is the approach he's taking. They are competing with other students who came through other means. That's what it meant.

I would like Brad to reflect on this one, please, on if I'm right about the way he's thinking.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mrs. Lalonde, do you want to speak?


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON
Liberal

I just want to understand the member's decisions for this subamendment. I hear my colleague, who is an expert in this and is certainly closer to the file from an emotional.... I would like to hear a little more, because my understanding is that we're asking to delete “alternative pathway” and add “provide a path to reapply for permanent residency”.

I know the member mentioned that he spoke to several of those students. Does he have assurance that they already have...? Are they reapplying? Have they applied already?

Maybe he can share some thoughts.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK
Conservative

As you were speaking, one thing that did rise in my mind that we should maybe think about is that probably not every one of them has applied. That is a fair statement. I think most of them have, and that's when this issue came up, actually. It was when they applied. That's when the CBSA finally went and actually looked at the papers from five years ago and realized they'd made a mistake five years ago.

Maybe it should say “a path to apply or reapply”, but I think the key point is that I don't think anybody's asking for any special treatment. They just want to have the ability to apply for permanent residency, or reapply, as is necessary.

I would be fine if we wanted to say “a path to apply or reapply for permanent residency”. That would work, too, because that's the intent of it.

I would agree with what Mr. Dhaliwal said; he's correct.


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON
Liberal

What's the difference? That's my point.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

I have a speaking list: Ms. Rempel Garner, Mr. Ali and then Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Rempel Garner is next.


Michelle Rempel Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Conservative

Just to build on Ms. Lalonde's question, I think what's happened in this situation is that there are some parallels to what we were seeing with the facilitation letters in the Aghan study that we were looking at, where people thought they had applied for programs, but they didn't actually apply because.... I'm looking at Mr. Redekopp for confirmation. They thought they had applied, but essentially they were scammed in this circumstance. Is that right?

On the words “reapply” or “apply”, I think it's all being used in the same context, in that there was intent by these people to apply formally. They thought they were applying through a correct path, but they were scammed. I think the spirit of Mr. Redekopp's text and Ms. Kwan's original text is the same thing, from what I'm taking. It's just that for my colleague Mr. Redekopp, what I think he's trying to say, Ms. Lalonde, is that there doesn't need to be a separate special program. The pathways already exist, so let's use the existing pathways that already exist to allow them to come in, rather than creating a special program.

That's my understanding, and I would hope there would be unanimity on that. I think the key thing here that we all agree on is that at the heart of the issue these people were scammed. We have a duty of care to ensure that doesn't happen again, that they're not in a position of vulnerability and that due process is still applied. I don't think anybody is saying that due process shouldn't be applied. In that context, that's why I would support Mr. Redekopp's amendment.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that would be my understanding of what happened here.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Next is Mr. Ali.


Shafqat Ali Brampton Centre, ON
Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This issue is really important, especially in Brampton. I see many students who are struggling to deal with their situation. I have sympathy, and my office is assisting some of the students who fell into that situation of being banned for five years. Our constituency office is assisting those students.

I think it's a record as a government: In 2016, we had 264,000 students, but in 2019 there were over 400,000 students. We had a situation last year. There was an article on IELTS. For some students, the IELTS was not genuine. There was an article about a college in Niagara.

Now this is happening. Some students may be innocent or some.... We don't know until we go through a study on it. I think we should allocate the time to a study on this, to find out where something went wrong and how we deal with this issue without compromising the integrity of our system, of IRCC.

There's one more question that I wanted to ask Mr. Redekopp. He said that we should give PRs to people who were here for five years, but then, who applied or.... Yes, they can apply, but my point is, do we deal with the refugees who have been here for the last five years in a similar way...? Would that open another door?

I wanted to hear your thoughts on that, but yes, this issue is really important, and I think we need more time to discuss it as a committee and to bring forward suggestions or solutions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Ali.

Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The situation with the students is devastating. I think we all agree with that.

I've talked to a number of the students now, quite a number of them, actually, in the last number of days. Some of them have made an application to have their TRV extended, and now their system is hung up. Others are going through a process of trying to access and build towards a permanent pathway, which is ultimately what they want.

In this motion I've tabled, I'm saying to the government that we should acknowledge the suffering these students have undergone. One student I spoke with racked up $20,000 in legal fees as a result of this situation. They paid the fee to the unscrupulous consultant already. They paid student tuition to the school they were supposed to go to. However, they didn't end up going to it because they didn't know there was a fraudulent claim with that, so they went to that school to try to get access to the school and couldn't. Then, they went to another school after all of this, so they paid double the educational fee in this situation.

They have sold their land at home. They've sold everything they own at home. They have nothing at home. This is the reality they're faced with.

I think my motion calling for the government to provide an alternate pathway for these students is the right thing to do. Alternate pathways could mean a humanitarian, compassionate stream. They'd still have to go through the process in their application. I think it is the right thing to do, so I don't support the amendment. I'm sorry.

The Conservatives have taken a different point of view for a long time. In their other motion, they said to suspend deportation only until they get a chance to testify. I don't agree with that. I actually think we should suspend the deportation, not just until they testify but until there is a full remedy for the problem, including the waiving of inadmissibility based on misrepresentation and for that pathway to materialize.

I'm sorry. I don't support the amendment, and I would like my motion to stay as is.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Mr. Dhaliwal.


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC

Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly feel very bad about these students as well, and particularly the ones who are facing deportation and have to go through this, but the way I see it is this. Some members of the committee might not know the system and how it works. What happens is that the student gets a letter from the school and then the admission is done. The student pays fees directly to the institution. What happens—single cases have come to me—is that they will do this, but this will also somehow be done by the agent. When they land here, they find out, or the agent tells them, that they didn't even have admission to that school, or it didn't even exist. What happens is that the student takes admission into another school. Basically, they start their life at some other school, like the 400,000 students Mr. Ali mentioned earlier. They are in the same lineup.

The main focus that I see right now is the fraudulent letter. What damage did that fraudulent letter do to those students? They took their letter, and now they're facing a five-year deportation ban. I would support Madam Kwan on this one. This should be abolished right away. This should not be on their record. They were not aware that this letter that was given to them was fraudulent.

On the other hand, our dear friend Mr. Redekopp on the other side has brought a motion forward. Basically, I think he's saying that they got in here, for example, on this letter they were issued, and we are already dealing with that. That fraudulent letter should not put a five-year ban on those students. If those students have already taken admission in the other college, and they have gone through that process, they already have the number of hours they need, the qualifications they need, the exams they need and all the other requirements—medical, criminality check—so they are the ones who should be given immigration instead of a blanket being put over the whole thing.

If we go with a blanket thing, we're not certain; they're now saying there are 700 students, but I don't think there are 700 students. The number I see is about 200, or whatever the number is. Out of those 200, some of them might have already gotten their immigration and gone through the system already. Some of them have already completed all the requirements they needed to make sure they have the required number of points for express entry, or they have applied under some provincial program, such as BC PNP. There are a lot of pathways that students have already followed, but the major issue they are facing is deportation and this fraudulent letter. If they got the admission here, they are in the same lineup as any of the other students, the 400,000 or so students who came in, because that letter was the only thing. Now that letter is not going to have any impact on their application.

Is that the line Mr. Redekopp is thinking along, that it's fair to these students who have come under this fraudulent letter and it's also fair to those 400,000 or so students who are already here studying?


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Next I have Ms. Rempel Garner.


Michelle Rempel Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Conservative

Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief.

I just want to address Mr. Ali's concern on fairness, which I think is fair for us to talk about.

The motion as it was originally worded reads, “provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted”.

The amendment that Mr. Redekopp is suggesting is, “provide a path to reapply for permanent residency for those impacted”.

I think it was Mr. Dhaliwal who suggested perhaps a subamendment to this amendment, which would say, “a path to apply or reapply”, but the implication that Mr. Redekopp's amendment catches is the fairness one, Mr. Ali. It suggests that we're not going to create a special stream for people, but we're going to allow them, if they were deemed inadmissible because of the fraudulent letters, to reapply or apply, as the case may be, through normal processes and due process.

I think it's really important for us to accept this amendment—and not just in this case. I don't know what's happening—'tis the season—but our committee this session has been seized with fraudulent letters of all sorts. I think we, as parliamentarians, have to be careful to not inadvertently create a pull or an incentive for ghost consultants to say, “Well, it doesn't matter. I'm going to issue these fraudulent letters and then I'm going to tell people that, guess what, the committee is now going to say that they have an alternative pathway.”

I don't want to put words in her mouth. I know that's not the spirit of Ms. Kwan's amendment, but I think it behooves us to be precise and say that we understand the humanitarian nature of the situation, but we also want to make sure we are using existing processes and due process, so that we're not being unfair—to Mr. Ali's component; that we're being equitable—but we're also not creating a pull factor by saying that when this type of fraud happens, we're going to create special circumstances. Frankly, that is what we risk happening in the Afghan letter cases as well, because there are civil cases right now.

I think we just need to be precise as a committee. We shouldn't be binding the government in a pull factor. I think that's the spirit of Mr. Redekopp's amendment here.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Next I have Mr. Redekopp.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK

Conservative

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to be very clear, I think we're all saying the same thing. We want the process to be fair. Mr. Dhaliwal said it should be fair to everyone, and I agree. We don't want anybody to have special treatment. By the same token, we want these students not to be penalized by a five-year wait because of something they had no control over.

That's why I think it is important they have a chance to apply or reapply, notwithstanding the fact that they potentially have this five-year issue.

I think we're all saying the same thing. If you like my words, great. If you don't, that's great too, but I suggest we vote.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

I have a speaking list, so we will have to exhaust the list.

Mrs. Lalonde.


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON

Liberal

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to bring a perspective, maybe. I certainly hear my colleague from the Conservatives on this issue.

I believe, though, that we will all agree that the victims of the fraud need to have a pathway to permanent residency. They surely shouldn't have additional barriers just because they were tricked.

I was asking the honourable member so I could better understand, because I actually don't see a real difference from the motion of Ms. Kwan. Within the news release it would say, “a pathway to apply or reapply”, or “an alternative pathway”. I see this as being the same.

I don't want to go on and on, but I would feel strongly that we keep the wording the way it is, because I don't think it makes any difference. I think that collectively we just agree that we want only the best thing for those students. We want to give them an alternative pathway.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

Mr. El-Khoury.


Fayçal El-Khoury Laval—Les Îles, QC

Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a very diverse riding. I think we have to be fair. I totally feel for these students, and we should find a way...but when I receive people and I receive deportations for people who have similar issues.... They came here and they were advised, coming here as tourists, to apply to become permanent residents. They believed that. They stayed for three, four or five years, and then they were refused, deported.

What can I tell those people when they come to me and ask, “Why don't you prefer to talk about this? You work hard to settle the issues of those people, those students, but not our issues”? This is what I'm feeling, and I wonder how I can face those people.

However, after saying that, I can tell you, looking very logically at what Ms. Kwan commented on, I am ready to support her proposal as it's presented. Thank you.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury.

Go ahead, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.


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

I have no comments to add.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Okay.

We will go to a vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Redekopp.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB

Conservative

Madam Chair, because you mentioned that this committee has passed a motion ordering the business that we do, I have an amendment to make sure that this is the next business we undertake. It would add a comma after the words “and that”, and then “notwithstanding any usual practice or previous motion adopted by this committee,”

That would be the amendment, and it goes back to—


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Can you repeat that? Would it be after the last regularization program?


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB

Conservative

It would be after, “and that”, at the bottom. That's the part that Mr. Dhaliwal added. He added, “and that the committee invite the Minister of [IRCC]”.

It would be “and that, notwithstanding any usual practice or previous motion adopted by this committee, the committee invite the Minister of [IRCC]...the Minister of...”.

This is to make sure that this is the next business that this committee undertakes.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Can you please fully repeat your amendment?


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB

Conservative

My amendment would be, after the words “and that” but before the words “the committee invite”—hopefully, it's clear now—“and that, notwithstanding any usual practice or previous motion adopted by this committee, the committee invite the Minister of [IRCC]...”, and then it goes on.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

I need a minute to get the amendment proposed by Mr. Kmiec into the motion.


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB

Conservative

We can do something else before the invitations. Even if we were to adopt the motion, we will continue to review the report drafts, because we still have several to complete.

Is that the plan?


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

I will have the clerk read the motion so that it is clear for everyone.


The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Keelan Buck

The amendment proposed is to add, after the words “and that” in the last section of the motion, “notwithstanding any usual practice or previous motion adopted by this committee”.

In French, we need to add, after the words “et que” in the final part of the main motion, “et nonobstant toute pratique habituelle ou motion antérieure adoptée par ce comité”.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Okay, we have an amendment that is proposed by Mr. Kmiec on the floor.

Mr. Redekopp.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK

Conservative

To be very clear, our intention in doing this is that we get to this immediately so that there's no other business that will supersede this. That's the intention, and I would hope that's the intention of all the committee members.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Go ahead, Mr. Ali.


Shafqat Ali Brampton Centre, ON

Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it was Ms. Kwan who put forward that motion. It's crystal clear. It deals with the issue. I think we should move on, instead of wasting time bringing forward amendments to that motion.

It is clear and it deals with the issue. I agree with it. I wanted to put that on the record.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Ms. Rempel Garner.


Michelle Rempel Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Conservative

Briefly, Chair, this is to your comment earlier about how we were dispensing with Bill S-245 and that's why we weren't dealing with Mr. Redekopp's earlier motion, which I believe precipitated this debate on this issue. Not to challenge your ruling, but to be fair, the Standing Orders do allow committees to essentially control their own destinies. Motions can supersede business, as we saw with the motion on Bill S-245 that changed the scope of the amendments that were delivered.

I think what Mr. Redekopp's motion does is it clarifies that there will be no delay. There will be no other business that will precede this particular issue. We're enshrining that so things don't accidentally get scheduled instead of this particular study, particularly since we've agreed to add more time for study on this issue.

I support this amendment because it clearly says that this is the next order of business. This is the direction that the committee is giving to you, Chair. I would urge my colleagues to support it for that reason.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

I have Ms. Kwan and then Mr. Dhaliwal.

Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I don't think the amendment is necessary.

The order of precedence we have is actually on bills. Bill S-245 was before us, so we had to deal with that. Now that it has been dealt with, it is my full intention that this be our next study. I think there is commitment from committee members here to do that. I don't think this is necessary, Madam Chair.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Dhaliwal.


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC
Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, as far as I see, to me, this should be the next priority as well. I personally see that everyone is on board.

Why don't you suspend the meeting for a few minutes, Madam Chair? Let them talk among themselves to come up with.... Whether we vote no to Mr. Redekopp's motion or we agree with Madam Kwan, it's the same thing.

I just want, for the sake of this committee, to suspend for a few minutes to let them talk. If it's the same thing, let's move forward and this should be the next priority for this committee.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.


Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Bloc

Madam Chair, let's be efficient this evening. We all know how we are going to vote. Everyone is familiar with the wording of the motions, the amendments and the subamendments. We've done our work and we are intelligent enough to be able to vote quickly without further debate. We don't even need to suspend the meeting for two minutes to discuss anything. All we have to do is vote. I think that we are intelligent and efficient enough to do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like us to start working on it right now.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Should we go for a vote?

Is it the will of the committee to suspend?


Some hon. members

No.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Seeing no further debate, we will go for a vote. We are voting on the amendment proposed by Mr. Kmiec.


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB
Conservative

Madam Chair, you're going to a recorded vote. Could you just do it by a show of hands? It will go a lot faster.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

I have asked already for the clerk to take the vote, so he'll take the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We have the motion as amended on the floor.

Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

I'm hoping we're ready to vote on my motion.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Seeing no further debate, we will vote on the motion proposed by Ms. Kwan as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd now like to move this 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 this 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.

Madam Chair, I'll be very quick about the intention of this motion. I think it's self-explanatory. I think we need to do all of these elements.

The big difference I want to highlight, though, between this motion and the one the Conservatives moved earlier, which they say is similar, is that it's substantively different. In their motion, they only call for the deportation to be stayed until witnesses present to this committee. That is not good enough. We need the deportation stayed in a substantive way so that the inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation can be waived and a permanent pathway option is available to them.

The other piece that is also significantly different is that the Conservative motion does not talk about waiving inadmissibility. If you don't waive inadmissibility, these students have, on their records, a five-year ban, and that is very significant for their futures. They would not be able to access any immigration pathway, even if it were a study permit, a work permit or anything like that. That is an essential component, in my view, to this.

Finally, to the last point—a permanent pathway—this is what the students want, and we need to make sure we address that as well.

There's a substantive difference, and that's why I supported the adjournment of those motions. I would not support the motion in any event, and I would support this one, which is much more holistic in addressing the issues for the students.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

We have a motion on the floor moved by Ms. Kwan.

I have a speaking list with Mr. Kmiec and then Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Kmiec.


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB

Conservative

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm in agreement with this motion. I have another motion after this, though, so I just want to give you notice. It is on notice already.

I thought that, first, we could do a study, and then we could come up with solutions to problems and not the other way around, typically. There was always the option of accepting....

We had four votes before we finally came to international students, which my colleague Mr. Redekopp tried to do at this committee. At any one of those times, Ms. Kwan could have come to us with the wording she wanted to add to our motion. I thought ours was better, but we're always open to making it even better and to having a different wording.

I support this motion, and I will be voting for it.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal.


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC

Liberal

Madam Chair, I'm not here to debate whose motion is better.

I want to thank each and every member of this committee for finally supporting the students who are facing this difficulty. I don't think anyone is not in favour of the five-year ban, based on that letter, being taken away and the deportations being stayed, whether they are stayed until whenever.... Even if they were to do their studies and stay afterwards, I think everybody probably meant the same thing. There was no problem on this side of Bill S-245. We were always saying to our Conservative and NDP friends that, of course, once we finish this, we will deal with that issue. I'm glad each and every party is supporting dealing with this, and that the motion proposed by Madam Kwan and amended by me is going through.

Let's get on and see. Even if students come to you, as an individual.... Let's pursue those cases with the ministers of IRCC and public safety to make sure they feel that the support is there and that we're standing with them shoulder to shoulder. We should not play politics with this issue or make this issue a political football, when those students, at the end, keep suffering.

That's where I want to leave it, Madam Chair. It's not only the Liberal members on this committee. I can tell you, Madam Chair, that many other members have approached me. They are talking outside this group. We have already met with the IRCC minister's department, as well as CBSA, to make sure we are prudent on this issue and support it as much as we can.

On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I want to show my support for these wonderful students.


The Chair Salma Zahid

LIberal

Next, I have Mr. Redekopp and then Mr. Ali.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, as I said last weekend and this week too, I've spoken with the students, and they were very frustrated that no actions were happening at this committee. I think they'll be very pleased to see things happening now. We have to remember, though, that Lovepreet Singh is a person who is still scheduled to be deported very soon. This does not solve that problem. There are still issues that are very urgent, which the government needs to address here.

At the beginning of the meeting, I said I was going to take a different approach. Instead of moving my motion and having it get voted down again, I was going to try something different. I think that's what has happened here tonight. It doesn't matter to me whether it's my motion that gets approved or what we do. I just want to see some action happen, and I see action happening here tonight. I think the students—who are probably watching this right now—will be very excited to see that. I'm excited to do that.

I will support this motion if it means we can move forward with this.

Thank you, Madam Chair.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Ali.


Shafqat Ali Brampton Centre, ON

Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all my colleagues for voting on this motion.

The international students are in a devastating situation. I've seen it in Brampton. Many of my constituents approached me. Our team of Brampton MPs have also had, numerous times, discussions on this issue. I think we need to have empathy for those students. We should not exploit the situation and play politics with those innocent students and their issue. This motion could have been passed way earlier in this committee if we hadn't wasted so much time on certain amendments on Bill S-245.

I want to thank all the members. At the same time, I'd like to request of my colleagues.... Those international students have gone through a lot and they're going through a lot. Let's not play politics with that. They know this side of the aisle's record on immigration and international students. It's amazing, so they know the genuineness.

My request to all of my colleagues is this: Let's not exploit the situation. Let's not politicize the situation. Let's move on to the motion moved by my colleague Ms. Kwan and deal with this issue as soon as possible.

Thank you, Madam Chair.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Next I have Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

I have just a very quick comment.

In terms of the students who are faced with this situation, many of them have actually reached out to me. I've spoken to many of them, and I'm working with them to collect their information to get their consent. I had already been in conversation with the minister about the situation to get their files right in front of the minister and to have, hopefully, a positive outcome for them.

In the case of Mr. Lovepreet Singh, he is, indeed, faced with deportation imminently, so that's an urgent file. In fact, I was on an email with him just now with respect to that.

Absolutely, we need to do that.

The work in this committee.... As I explained to the students, as well, as anxious as they were, this committee has no authority to waive or stay deportations. Only the Minister of Public Safety can do that—or the Federal Court. However, what we can do, of course, is to look into the situation and explore different options as recommendations to the government to see how we can prevent this from happening again.

Most urgently for the students who are faced with this situation right now, we need to actually take a different path. In my view, the best path for moving forward is to bring their cases forward individually to the minister's attention and have them addressed. That's exactly what I'm doing with my staff team.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor.


Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Bloc

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Conservatives and the Liberals said that they would be voting in favour of the motion. Given that the NDP moved it, I would imagine that the New Democrats will also vote for it. The Bloc Québécois will also vote in favour of the motion.

Can we move on to the vote, Madam Chair?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Dhaliwal, do you want to speak? Your hand is raised.


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC

Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think Madam Kwan has already clearly said it. For a number of years—the 13 or 14 years I've been an MP—it's like A, B, C. I'm not going to name anyone because every client has a right to confidentiality, so we can't legally give names on this. In fact, we should not even be discussing this: this year, their names, the emails we are getting from them. In fact, all that information is very confidential.

Previously, Madam Chair, there were a lot of cases that came to our office and we took an approach to stay their deportation. That's what Madam Kwan meant. Basically, exactly, I was going to say to other members on this committee and the students as well. They should go to their respective members right away so that they can take their authorization to talk to the CBSA. Once they get in touch with the CBSA and get all the information, then they can get in touch with the Minister of Public Safety and explain why they're not in danger of running away. I'm sure that, under these circumstances, the minister will look at this very favourably and this will get done.

Basically, individual cases should not sit at home and wait for anything. The people who are already facing deportation should go to the respective members for the ridings they live in and tell those members to pursue the stopping of their deportation.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Ms. Kayabaga.


Arielle Kayabaga London West, ON

Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't want to delay this any longer, but I just want to put some things on the record because I did hear my colleague, Mr. Redekopp, state that we were trying to vote against this motion. That is not what we're trying to do. We're trying to make sure that we do not delay Bill S-245, which had many people's lives in jeopardy. I'm glad that we were able to get to that point.

I also think that it's important to strike a balance on what we're doing right now. We're deeply concerned about the students, and that's really important to note. This is really important legislation, and we've received hundreds of letters from people who are looking for it to be passed. I think we can go clause by clause, considering that it's typically a two-hour process. This is something that the Conservatives have dragged out for over 30 hours, and they've showing no signs of stopping this.

We're here right now, in this moment, because of the 30-hour process that we just finished: going through the clause-by-clause on Bill S-245.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Kayabaga.

I'll just request that all members avoid side conversations and talking across the aisle. Our member has the floor and is speaking. Let her finish.


Arielle Kayabaga London West, ON

Liberal

I want to point out some major flaws in the motion. There's a part where he wants to drag these vulnerable students in to testify and essentially prove to the committee that they are innocent. It's, honestly, despicable, Madam Chair, because they've already gone through a lot, and I don't think they need to go through that any further. I think one of my colleagues just mentioned that it's unethical for us to even mention their names.

We are seized with this issue. We want to study the cause, and we want to find a solution and not waste any more time questioning whether the students were complicit or not, which is what the Conservatives are essentially trying to do. I hope we do not do that.

I want to clarify. This motion that my colleague, Mr. Redekopp, has brought insinuates that we can bring the students in, and I think we shouldn't do that.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK

Conservative

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Are we debating my motion now? I'm happy to, if that's what we're doing. Are we debating my motion? It's just to clarify.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

No, it's Ms. Kwan's motion that we are debating.

Ms. Kayabaga.


Arielle Kayabaga London West, ON

Liberal

I'd like to finish, Madam Chair, by saying that we support Ms. Kwan's motion. I hope that we can remain within the lines of ethics and we do not drag this out for another 30 hours. As we all know, people's lives are on the line right now.

Thank you, Madam Chair.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.


Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Bloc

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand that the Liberals are angry because the Conservatives took a lot of time over Bill S‑245, and decided this evening to speak for an extremely long time without saying anything at all. Everyone knows that we all agree on the motion.

I'd like to tell my Liberal friends that if the Bloc Québécois wanted to, it could carry on at length and read from books. If we wanted to play that game, it would not be amusing. I'm prepared to do my share of work and to get going immediately. People should stop wasting the committee's time. Just because someone has spoken for far too long doesn't mean you have to do likewise. If you criticize someone for something, then you shouldn't do what they did.

Thank you, Madam Chair.l


Arielle Kayabaga London West, ON
Liberal

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

The floor is yours, Ms. Kayabaga.


Arielle Kayabaga London West, ON
Liberal

Madam Chair, my colleague shouldn't use expressions like “wasting time”, because that's not what's happening right now.

We were all elected and we have work to do. And that's what we're doing.

Thank you, Madam Chair.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Seeing no further debate, we will go for a vote on Ms. Kwan's motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Mr. Kmiec.


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB

Conservative

As I told you, Madam Chair, this motion has been on notice since March 27. I move:

That, the committee report the following to the House: that Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza is facing political persecution in the Russian Federation including a show trial with high treason charges following his public condemnation of the unjustified and illegal war by Russia against Ukraine. That Vladimir Kara-Murza has survived two assassination attempts by poisoning including in 2015 and 2017, and that he is currently imprisoned in Russia and his health is failing. That Vladimir Kara-Murza is the recipient of the Vaclav Havel Human Rights Prize awarded by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and is a Senior Fellow to the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. Therefore, the committee calls on the Government of Canada to grant honorary Canadian citizenship to Vladimir Kara-Murza and demand that the Russian Federation set him free.

Madam Chair, that is the motion that has been on notice.

I'll briefly explain why this is still important today. He is still in jail. He's 41 years old. He is the same age I am. He has three kids. His wife, Evgenia Kara-Murza, has been here before, and she has spoken to members of Parliament.

We are trying to reach an agreement with all parties on a UC motion, and I understand we're still having trouble getting there. He has been under arrest since April 2022. Again, he has suffered unjust treatment by his captors. As one of the official opposition leaders in Russia, he, with Alexei Navalny, has basically led the way in defending the democratic rights of people who oppose Vladimir Putin's regime and the Kremlin.

His health has declined. He's lost about 40 pounds since his trial began. He did not have 40 pounds to lose, by the way; that would be like me losing 40 pounds. He's had two poisoning attempts, both suspected to have been directed personally by President Vladimir Putin, from his past two visits to Russia in 2015 and 2017. He has already been diagnosed with polyneuropathy. He's lost feeling in both feet and one arm. Even under Russian law, such a diagnosis should lead to his release, and it's very likely that he will die soon unless he is released.

Unfortunately, yet predictably, Russian courts found him guilty and sentenced him to 25 years in jail. I will also note for the record that there is a statement by the chairs of the foreign affairs committees of various European states in continental Europe that condemns the sentencing of Vladimir Kara-Murza. As all political prisoners know—I have met a few in my time here on Parliament Hill—if we do not promote their names, if we don't have them front and centre in the public, they will be forgotten, and regimes like the one Vladimir Putin leads will murder their opponents in jail. They have shown before that they have done so. Boris Nemtsov was murdered on a bridge right outside the Kremlin, in the evening, when he was shot to death in a very brazen murder.

For Russian opposition leaders, Russians who support democracy and the Russian Federation, it is a tough life being a member of the opposition there. I count my blessings that I am here in Canada. It is very difficult for them. Granting him honorary citizenship would be the least we could do to support someone who has basically given his life for the democratic movement, human rights, free speech and liberty. The only thing he said that wound up putting him before the Russian courts was that the invasion of Ukraine was illegal and unjust and that he continues to oppose Vladimir Putin's regime, the kleptocrats in the Kremlin.

I hope that we can pass this and bring it to the House, so that the House can pass it as well, and that eventually the Senate may do something similar. There are six honorary citizenships that have been granted, I believe, in the past 30 or 40 years. This would be our seventh. I can't think of anyone more worthy than Vladimir Kara-Murza.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Next is Mrs. Lalonde.


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON

Liberal

I want to say thank you to my colleague for bringing this forward. There are so many areas where we would agree on the principles of his motion.

I don't want to upset anyone on this committee, but I think it's important that we also set the stage for this motion. When you think about ordinary Canadian citizenship, it is not at the discretion of the minister of IRCC. I think it's important that this be on the record. It is purely symbolic. It is an act on the part of the House. As my honourable colleague mentioned, since 2001, there have been six citizenships. One of them, unfortunately, was revoked. It was done through a unanimous consent motion that was proposed in the House for a joint resolution to be passed to grant that honour.

I think it's important that everybody understand that the recipients of that honour do not receive any of the rights held by Canadian citizens, such as the ability to receive or hold a Canadian passport, nor are they permitted to exercise any duties associated with Canadian citizenship. I think it's important that we realize, and that we put on record, what we are proposing to do in essence.

My honourable colleague did mention how horrible it is for this wonderful person who, through his perspective, is actually challenging, contesting and opposing what the current regime of Vladimir Putin is doing. I think we can agree on all those aspects of what we want to do here. I hope that I'll have the support of my colleagues, because I think the principle is right, but we need to ensure that the language is actually reflective of past practices, what exactly it means and what we would be saying.

For that reason, Madam Chair, I would like to propose an amendment to my colleague's motion. If I can read it in both official languages here, I will do so.

Madam Chair, maybe it would be easier if I read the motion the way I would like to see it with the amendment going forward.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Just one second, Mrs. Lalonde.

Are you proposing an amendment to the motion moved by Mr. Kmiec?


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON

Liberal

Yes. I move the following amendment.

I would like to delete the words “That, the committee report the following to the House” and replace them with “That the committee issue a press release stating”, and also delete the words “the Government of Canada” and replace them with “Parliament”.

Madam Chair, could I read it as it would be amended, to help our translators?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Yes.


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON

Liberal

The amended motion in English would read:

That the committee issue a press release stating that Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza is facing political persecution in the Russian Federation including a show trial with high treason charges following his public condemnation of the unjustified and illegal war by Russia against Ukraine; that Vladimir Kara-Murza has survived two assassination attempts by poisoning including in 2015 and 2017, and that he is currently imprisoned in Russia and his health is failing; that Vladimir Kara-Murza is the recipient of the Vaclav Havel Human Rights Prize awarded by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and is a Senior Fellow to the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights; therefore the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration calls on the Parliament of Canada to grant honorary Canadian citizenship to Vladimir Kara-Murza and demand that the Russian Federation set him free.

I could repeat that in French if you would like.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Mrs. Lalonde has proposed an amendment, so we have an amendment on the floor.

Mr. Kmiec, go ahead.


Tom Kmiec Calgary Shepard, AB

Conservative

I am fine with the second part, where “the Government of Canada” is stricken out and replaced with “Parliament”, but I'm not fine with a news release. I can put out a news release. I can tell you that Vladimir Putin doesn't care about my news release.

All of us here at this table are sanctioned by the Russian Federation. All of us are banned from entering that country, which I wear as a happy badge of honour. When an initial list came out, I was not on it for some reason—a bunch of us were not on it—and it was very difficult for me to deal with my family because they thought that was impugning my character somehow not to be sanctioned by the regime.

The first part is not acceptable. We've done this before. The committee has put out a news release, and it goes nowhere. There was one on minority Christians being persecuted overseas, and there were two other ones earlier in the year. Those were quickly forgotten. The thing that is not forgotten and that other regimes pay attention to is when Parliament and committees of this Parliament act and do things. Through acts of Parliament, we've recognized genocides. We act. We pass unanimous consent motions. Those are things people pay attention to.

To me, although they are non-binding, that's still the way we've done it before when we've named others to become honorary citizens. This is a way, through Parliament, to do so.

I don't support the amendment, even though half of it is okay with me. A news release is not enough. I would like to see this reported back to the House. It needs to be as is. A news release is simply not enough. It won't help. The Russian Federation won't care. They won't pay attention to what we do here. A news release just won't do it.

Other Parliaments are acting as well. Time is of the essence.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

We have an amendment on the floor.

Yes, Mrs. Lalonde.


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON

I'm not sure when, but I just want to clarify. Because of the French and what I said, I want to make sure it was very clear...not on the amendment but on the suggestions of the revocation of the citizenship of one of the individuals. We can talk about Mr. Kmiec's motion or the amendment, but at one point, Madam Chair, I just want to make sure it's on record that I want to share some thoughts.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

We have an amendment on the floor, proposed by Mrs. Lalonde.

Do you accept that as a friendly amendment from Mr. Kmiec?


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON

Liberal

No.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Okay.

We have an amendment on the floor. We will take a vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment is adopted, so we have the motion as amended on the floor.

Mr. Maguire, did you want to speak?


Larry Maguire Brandon—Souris, MB

Conservative

I never thought I'd be in a position to talk about this as much in such an important position.

Boris Nemtsov, as my colleague has just indicated, was shot on the bridge by the Kremlin as a leader of the Russian opposition. I was there with one of my Liberal colleagues, Scott Simms, who was filling in for Larry Bagnell when we were on the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, or SCPAR. This was about 2018 or somewhere in there. Maybe it was earlier. Tom will probably know more about the exact date of that shooting.

I had the opportunity, with Scott, to walk up on the bridge that night, which was six months after this gentleman had been shot. The flowers were still being laid every night on that bridge in honour of this young man who gave up his life as a Russian leader. The guards were there to make sure that no other extraordinary events were taking place on that bridge, but they could not stop the Russian people from placing those flowers, those memorial cards and those gifts on that bridge. There were so many that they would take them away each week so there would be room for the people who were still bringing them six months after this shooting.

I beseech my colleagues to do more than what is in this resolution—this motion—tonight. I wanted to let them know that I and my Liberal colleague were there and very much in favour of supporting...what happened to that young man in Russia that night. I think it's actually imperative that Canada do far more than just turn a blind eye to this.

Thank you.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

Mrs. Lalonde, go ahead.


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON

Liberal

Just to put on the record, Madam Chair, I want to be very strong on this. When I mentioned the unfortunate revocation of this person's citizenship, I didn't mean that it was unfortunate that it was revoked. It was fully deserving that it was revoked for Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi in 2018.

Thank you.


The Chair Salma Zahid

LIberal

Is there any further debate?

We will go to a vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

The motion as amended is adopted.

Before we adjourn the meeting, I need some guidance on the scheduling.

Ms. Kwan, go ahead.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Thank you very much.

I would like to ask that the two motions we passed today, the first with respect to inviting the minister and officials to come and the second in terms of doing the study, be the next items that we deal with for this committee.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Yes, I want the committee's guidance on how we want to schedule that.

Before we rise for the summer break, we are left with four meetings—June 12, June 14, June 19 and June 21. Right now, we have scheduled a meeting for June 19 with Marc Garneau for one hour, and the DND officials for one hour. That was scheduled.

Today we have passed two motions. The first one was passed in regard to inviting the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety. We need to have two meetings. The second motion that was passed also states to have two meetings. That means that if we need to study these two motions, we need four meetings. Should we cancel that meeting on June 19 with Marc Garneau and the DND officials and schedule these four meetings?

In regard to the ministers' availability, in the first motion that we passed we are asking the ministers of immigration and public safety to appear before the committee. To schedule that, I'm not sure whether anyone would be able come in on Monday or not.

I would like to get some guidance from the committee on how you would like me to proceed.

Mr. Redekopp, go ahead.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK

I think the priority from my perspective would be the initial motion that we passed, where we invite the two ministers. That would be the priority. I would hope that could be done next week. I think we can cover off lots of the issues in those two meetings.

I'm debating about the other two. It would be great to have Marc Garneau come in. He's already scheduled. There's a chance we won't have the meeting on the Wednesday, potentially, Friday being the last day of Parliament. Anyway, potentially it won't happen. There are odds there. If we base it on last year, that meeting wouldn't happen. We wouldn't be able to complete that anyway.

The other problem—I throw it out there—is that even if we complete those two meetings, we still have to write a report. That wouldn't happen until the fall, at which time we may have forgotten a lot of what we heard. That would be an argument for doing it then.

Those are just some of my thoughts. I'm not necessarily saying one thing or the other. I'm just thinking out loud, if you will—maybe that's a dangerous thing to do.

I think, for sure, the priority should be the two ministers in the first motion that we approved tonight.

Thank you.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mrs. Lalonde, go ahead.


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON
Liberal

Considering there's maybe a perspective from my honourable colleagues about our timeline in the House before we rise, I would say right now that we should focus on sending the invites, Madam Chair. I don't think any of us can control what days the ministers are able to come. We know how sometimes restricting any decisions that we make is restricting our ability to be more broad.

I would say to the committee, let's send the invites and see the response.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Based on the input from the members, I think the desire is to go through the first motion first. We will have to send an invitation to two ministers. We are requesting one hour from each minister and one hour from each minister's officials.

Just in case, if we cannot get any ministers, should we just schedule the officials on Monday, if they are available? We will have to check what the availability is for the officials for one hour with IRCC and one hour with Public Safety. Or would the members like to have the minister and the officials together for each meeting?

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal.


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC

Liberal

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It does not matter which sequence they come in, as we'll talk to all of them. The departments will probably even be the best to start with, because they will be able to lay out all the information that we need, and then members of Parliament will be able to put questions to the ministers.

To me, this takes priority. It doesn't matter what sequence it takes.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

We'll have Ms. Kwan, and then Mr. Redekopp.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am fine with having officials come first. If we can arrange for the ministers to be here and the ministers can come after, I'm fine with that.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK

Conservative

Thank you, Madam Chair.

At the end of the day, what's important here is.... Whatever is best to get the students studied is the way to go. If we can move this forward and get at this issue of the fake acceptance letters we have been discussing, whatever makes it happen more quickly is the way we should go on that.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Would members like to keep this meeting on June 19 as scheduled with Mr. Garneau and the DND officials?

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK

Conservative

One other thing I was going to mention is that if it turns out that there's nobody available on Monday, I'm quite certain that we could get the students to come in. I'm sure they would be very interested in coming to testify and speak to us too, so that's another thought.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

We have decided we will go with the first motion first. We will have to deal with that.

Let me get the invitations out to the ministers. I can't really say what their availability is unless we send the invitations and get some answers from them. I can update the committee as we hear from them.

Yes, Mrs. Lalonde.


Marie-France Lalonde Orléans, ON

Liberal

I personally think we should send the invitations. Ministers should come first. That has always been the procedure of the House. Let's continue. Let's see what the response will be.

I cannot control anybody's schedule. My understanding is.... I'm not sure until when we will sit in the House, according to my honourable colleagues.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Thank you to all of you.

I will work with the clerk, and we will see what the availability is. Based on that availability, we will schedule the next four meetings—four or three, whatever the number is—and I will update the members.

Yes, Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Could the clerk also send to all of us the number of witnesses we'll be able to invite and the deadline for when we have to submit the witnesses for that study of two meetings?


8:55 p.m.

Liberal

That's for the second motion. We'll work on that.

Let us get the invitations out to the ministers. If I get any updates by tomorrow, I will update the respective vice-chairs and let everyone know.

With that, I really want to thank all members. This week has been tough and long. Thank you for your co-operation, your patience and your hard work. We have been able to get through the legislation. I really appreciate your making changes to your schedules and being here for many hours together. It has been good spending time together. Thank you.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.