CIMM#17: Refugee Determination Process: Waive vs. Replace

In speaking first to the amendment, I would not support that amendment. It is not to replace the refugee determination process; it is to waive the refugee determination process. There is a distinct difference if you were to replace that versus to waive it. For all the other privately sponsored refugee processes, it is waived, so I would strenuously oppose the amendment.
The other piece, in speaking to the larger issue, I support this motion absolutely. There's no question. It has always been the NDP's view and my view that the government should apply special immigration measures equitably to all the different groups faced with conflict in different regions and persecution in different regions.

Jenny Kwan (NDP) Vancouver East, BC

"Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

In speaking first to the amendment, I would not support that amendment. It is not to replace the refugee determination process; it is to waive the refugee determination process. There is a distinct difference if you were to replace that versus to waive it. For all the other privately sponsored refugee processes, it is waived, so I would strenuously oppose the amendment.

The other piece, in speaking to the larger issue, I support this motion absolutely. There's no question. It has always been the NDP's view and my view that the government should apply special immigration measures equitably to all the different groups faced with conflict in different regions and persecution in different regions.

We are seeing a distinct difference in how the government is applying those measures with Ukrainians versus—we were just talking about it in this committee today—Afghans. It is wrong. It is wrong and it should not be done that way. As a witness from the special Afghanistan committee asked if their blood was not the same as that of Ukrainian nationals. We have to answer that question truthfully, with humanity. The answer is absolutely, yes, it is the same. If we want to stand on the podium and say that Canada cares and that we would apply humanitarian measures to people who face persecution, then we need to apply those measures equitably accordingly.

I would absolutely support this motion. By the way, this motion is not inconsistent with the press release that was issued by the chair a few weeks ago. That motion called for the government to apply that to all the regions. It gave some examples, but those examples were never meant to be exclusive of other groups. They were simply some examples. To that end, I would absolutely support the motion as tabled by Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. I would reject the amendment accordingly.

Further to that, I would also ask, Madam Chair, that you respond on behalf of the committee to the Uighur project email that was sent to us. They were concerned that the committee's motion that was passed a few weeks ago excluded them. I think it is very important to indicate clearly that it was not an exclusive motion. It includes everyone. With that being said, this additional motion does not detract from that last one. It simply states clearly why this should be done in this instance.

Finally, once we vote on this amendment, I have an amendment to move. I think what's really important is that we get a response from the government on the motion that Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe has moved."

 

The Chair Salma Zahid (Liberal)

"I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Kwan. Right now we have an amendment, so we cannot go—"

 

Jenny Kwan (NDP) Vancouver East, BC

"Yes, I know. I'm not moving an amendment. I'm just telling the committee members that I intend to move an amendment once this other amendment has been dealt with."

 

The Chair Salma Zahid (Liberal)

"Yes, so first we have to deal with the amendment that is on the floor, and then we can go further."

 

Jenny Kwan (NDP) Vancouver East, BC

"I'm not moving an amendment. I'm just putting these words on the record for consideration. At the appropriate time, I will move an amendment to add the words “and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report”, just so that we get an official response from the government to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe's motion."

 

https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/44-1/17/jenny-kwan-7/

Latest posts

CIMM#93: Closed Work Permits and Temporary Foreign Workers and Briefing on Recent Changes to International Student Policy and Plans for Future Measures

On the question around student housing, I absolutely think that it is essential for institutions and provinces do their part and I think that the federal government should show leadership and perhaps initiate a program wherein the federal government contributes a third of the funding, institutions provide a third of the funding, and the provinces and territories provide a third of the funding towards the creation of student housing, both for international students and domestic students. That way you can have a robust plan to address the housing needs of the students.

I'm going to park that for a minute and quickly get into the students who were subject to fraud. We have a situation in which students have now been cleared and found to be genuine by the task force, but they have not gotten their passports back yet. I don't know what the holdup is, and I wonder if the minister can comment on that.

Second, there are students who are still waiting to be evaluated by the task force, and the task force work can't proceed because they might be waiting for a date for the IRB to assess the question on their permit on whether or not it was genuine or whether or not there was misrepresentation. They are consequently in a situation in which people are just chasing their tails and they can't get to the task force.

On that question, will the minister agree that instead of making people go through that process with the IRB, the task force evaluation can move forward first so that they can be found to be either a genuine student or not a genuine student?

 

CIMM#92: Closed Work Permits, Temporary Foreign Workers and Committee Business

I want to thank the special rapporteur for joining us today at committee. I also very much appreciate your coming to Canada and looking into this issue.

As many of the witnesses have said to us, the issue around the immigration system as it's set up, with the closed work permit approach, is that it actually sets these workers up for exploitation. From that perspective.... It's not to say, as the Conservatives would suggest, that you were alleging that all employers abuse workers. I don't believe you said that at any point in time; rather, I think the issue is about the immigration system that Canada has.

Instead of having this closed work permit situation, what would you say is the remedy to address the exploitation that many of the migrant workers you spoke with directly experienced?

 

Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, United Nations, As an Individual
Tomoya Obokata

My recommendation is, certainly, to modify the closed nature of the program. If the workers are able to choose their employers at their own will, that reduces the instances of abuse and exploitation.

More importantly, whether it's closed or not, employers have to comply with the relevant legal obligations. I accept that a large number of employers already do. It's those others who do not who require further attention from the provincial and federal governments to see whether they can take appropriate law enforcement actions against those who breach labour standards legislation.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

With respect to exploitation, one of the issues that migrant workers are faced with is that they don't have full status here in Canada; they have only temporary status. One issue that has been identified is the closed work permit. The other issue is in terms of having rights. Being able to have their rights protected also means that they have to have status here in Canada.

How would you suggest the policy side of things should be amended to ensure that these migrant workers have their rights protected?

CIMM#91: Government's Response to the Final Report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan and Committee Business

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I thank the committee members for supporting the last motion.

I have another motion that I'd like to move at this point. Notice has been given for it. It reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and relevant officials together for two hours, or invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship with relevant officials for two hours, and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities to appear separately with relevant officials for one hour to update the committee on:

(a) the work of the task force addressing the exploitation scheme targeting international students as many students are still reporting that they are in limbo and have not heard back from officials about their status;

(b) the measures taken by IRCC and institutions to help prevent and protect international students from fraud schemes;

(c) the justification to increase the financial requirements for international students by more than 100% to $20,635;

(d) the justification for putting a cap on international study permits; and

(e) the plans to address the housing crisis for international students and efforts made to collaborate with provinces, territories and post-secondary institutions.

I think the motion is self-explanatory on all elements, and I think we would benefit from having the two ministers appear before our committee. We've also deliberated this issue at length at another meeting, so in the interest of time, I won't revisit all of those points.

I hope committee members will support this motion.

 

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates