In Committee

CIMM#87: Subject Matter of the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2023-24: Votes 1b, 5b and 10b under Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP

I would say this: I get that there are other factors that have to be navigated through in order to actually get the people to safety. First and foremost, for them to get through the first barrier, is the Canadian government willing to accept them and, therefore, create a policy that allows for it in a fair and systematic fashion, not in a one-off situation? Without that policy change, they can't even get through the first door.

I would ask the minister to act with utmost urgency because people are literally dying. The executive director of UNICEF now calls the Gaza strip “the most dangerous place in the world to be a child”. That is the reality that people are faced with. I think there's no time to waste. I don't think it's a difficult policy to change in that regard.

I would also ask the minister to provide a special immigration measure for people with family members in Gaza so that they can bring them to safety. Again, without a pathway, people have nowhere to go. They have no ability to begin the process to help bring them to safety.

Will the minister be working on that as well?

Marc Miller Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC, Liberal

Recognizing that I am not the sole decider in this.... It's stuff that we are working on with our colleagues at Foreign Affairs and with our partners in the region. It is something, as you've said, that is of the utmost importance.

Again, the policy, perhaps, will not contain everything you're advocating for. It's something that we are working on. It has to be realistic, and it has to actually reflect our ability to extract people, which, I would reiterate for this group, is still extremely limited, even within the categories of people we are trying to get out. I know that you suggested that this is piecemeal, but in cases where we have had facts, circumstances and the ability to get people out in a secure and safe way, we've done so and, I would say, with modest success.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP

What I'm trying to avert for the government, actually, is to not get into the situation where in the case of Afghanistan there was this hit-and-miss approach. Some people got out and other didn't, to the point where authorization letters that were not official from the department were being handed out. We don't want that kind of controversy. We should learn lessons from what's happened before. It's really important that we do this right.

I would urge the minister to take immediate action to bring in special immigration measures—one, to expand the extended family into the immediate family definition; and two, to allow for people in Canada to bring their loved ones to safety. That includes extended family members. I'll just park that there. I don't want to spend more of my precious time on that during my six minutes, because I want to raise another issue.

With regard to Afghanistan, I've handed a pile of files to the government. I get that you don't want to get into individual cases, but there are cases where de facto dependants are part of that application. Everyone else has been approved within the application except for a single sister, for example, an unmarried sister who will be left behind. There are de facto dependants under the definition of IRCC. That can't be allowed to happen. The minister must understand the grave danger that this woman would be exposed to if she were left behind. Now the family's stuck in this situation trying to make a decision. Do they leave? Do they not leave? This is not a choice.

Why are de facto dependants being excluded in applications? What is wrong with the system?

CIMM#86: In Camera on Application Backlogs and Processing Times, Government's Response to the Final Report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan and Committee Business

CIMM#85: Application Backlogs and Processing Times and Closed Work Permits and Temporary Foreign Workers

I appreciate Mr. Possberg's comments about the concern over violations of labour codes, whether it's a domestic worker or a temporary foreign worker. I guess the operative difference, though, between those two categories of workers, is that temporary foreign workers do not have full status. People who are here—Canadians or people with permanent resident status—have status and, therefore, protection.

In the case of temporary foreign workers, the biggest problem, of course, is this: Because they don't have full status, they have very few options. When they are subjected to mistreatment or abuse by the employer, what happens to them? They have dilemmas. They have difficult decisions to make. If they report this situation, they stand to lose their job. If they lose their job, they run into a whole host of other problems. These include not having financial resources, not only to support themselves but also to send home to their families.

We also have situations where a lot of workers may not have access to information about where to go to make their reports. There have been surveys done. The Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, for example, has done a lot of work with migrant workers. When they survey migrant workers, how many of them have actually received information about their rights? The vast majority of them say they haven't. Then, when you ask further questions about how many of them received information about their rights in the language they speak, that number reduces even more. You can anticipate the difficulties with all of that.

CIMM#84: Government's Response to the Final Report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan and Closed Work Permits and Temporary Foreign Workers

I want to say thank you to all the witnesses, as well.

I want to carry on the conversation with responses from Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Pilon.

On the issue of temporary foreign workers, I understand you're indicating there is a system problem. The system, of course, creates an environment where there's an imbalance of power. The reality is that temporary foreign workers have zero power. They are entirely reliant on their employer. If they complain about the employer, they get fired from the job. They are then in deep trouble, because they're not making the money they need to send home to support their families, for example. From that perspective, in that power imbalance environment, there can be abuse that occurs. You have cited some horrific examples to that end.

In order to create a better balance of power, some advocates have advanced the notion of an open work permit. That is to say, the employers would have to treat these employees fairly. If they don't, they will move on somewhere else. Some people argue that having an open work permit means you can't keep them in the sector, because they can go anywhere. However, as with all jobs, to be competitive and get good workers, you need to pay them and have good employment conditions.

I wonder whether you can comment on the need for system change. Should the government be considering an open work permit option for migrant workers?

HUMA#78: In Camera Meeting on Finanancialization of Housing

HUMA#77: In Camera Meeting on Financialization of Housing

HUMA#76: In Camera Meeting on Financialization of Housing

CIMM#72: Exploitation scheme targeting certain international students

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It goes on to say:

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

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

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

CIMM#71: Exploitation Scheme Targeting Certain International Students

"With respect to the announcement that the minister made, I'd like to get a clarification on the issue around the inadmissibility based on misrepresentation. The minister said just now that the students who are victims would not be subjected to the five-year ban. Could the minister clarify whether that would mean the record of inadmissibility based on misrepresentation will be erased from their file?”

"Okay. I hope that when it comes to that, it would actually work that way for those students. What I'm worried about is that when you have that bad record, so to speak, that dark mark next to your name, sometimes an official who's processing the application will still say that there's misrepresentation on the record. I want to flag that as a concern, because we obviously would not want to have a second chapter to this issue down the road.

Now, there are students who are in a situation where they have been issued a removal order and they have filed to the Federal Court but, for example, have not yet had the hearing. They are waiting. There are those who have filed and who have been rejected, for example. There are those who have made an application to have their work permit extended, let's say, and they're now out of status but waiting to see what's going to happen to them.

Is the minister saying that with this new task force, those individuals should not worry about all of those outcomes and that their case will be assessed under the new task force?”

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

"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.”

PROC#80 Special Rapporteur David Johnston

“In the report, Mr. Johnston, you concluded that it was reasonable for the Prime Minister to take no action, even though in your own report you cited that there were irregularities and that there was well-founded suspicion.

From my perspective, I don't know how you can square that circle and how you can come to that conclusion when there was well-founded suspicion, and yet no action was taken. The common refrain from the report seems to be that no recommendations were made, so none were taken and none were ignored. Somehow, the notion is to say “I see no evil, I know no evil, so therefore there is no evil”, but in reality, there is much more and it's much deeper than what is going on.

My question, then, is this: Can Mr. Johnston explain if CSIS looked into nomination processes?“

CIMM#70 - 2: Debating Bill S-245 and Motion on International Students

"I'll be very brief and say that when Bill S-245 was tabled, I had a chance to meet with Senator Martin. I indicated to her my intentions of expanding the bill beyond the scope it touched on.

The senator made it clear to me that as long as I had the minister's support, I would have her support as well. That, of course, changed at the last minute, because later on, I was advised that she would no longer be able to proceed with that out of respect for her Conservative parliamentarians.

Anyway, I just wanted to set the record straight on the process that I embarked on. We are where we are. We've gone through several rounds of this. I don't want to prolong this, but I want to get that on the record."