Evidence of meeting #105 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was irb.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to hear Ms. Kwan continue. I'm a little bit confused as to whether or not she's proposing to amend the amended motion to make it her motion. She read out her motion, and it's not the same as Ms. Rempel's as amended by Mr. Maguire. I just want to make sure I'm following the debate.
If she could clarify that, then I would better understand what she's....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Procedurally, this is very difficult, because we're in the midst of a debate on an amendment to a motion. Giving notice of motion during that debate is a grey area, which I've checked on. I ruled that it was not appropriate at the last meeting. I still agree it's not appropriate. I would prefer that the member make a subamendment to the amendment to get her motion in, to have her wording in if she wants it. It would be appropriate to amend that.
I think it would be better to do that, but she has the right to amend the amendment if she would like to make it closer to her wording. However, there's overlap in these two motions, so the committee will have to sort that out and decide which venue is the best place to sort out that discussion.
Ms. Kwan.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I did not move my notice of motion. I was simply making a point that I would have, on Tuesday, and I was putting the notice on motion that I would have put on record. I was moving into the discussion to say that the amendment and that of the main motion before us are very similar in intent to what I wanted to accomplish. That was really the point I wanted to make, if members were listening carefully, Mr. Chair.
On this point, Mr. Chair, I was saying that back in 2017, last year, the irregular asylum seeker numbers were at 20,593. For 2018, for January and February, the RCMP have intercepted 3,082 individuals to date, of which 2,944 were in Quebec, Mr. Chair. Those are the numbers that are available before us. I do think we do have a situation in which it would be much better for the government to devise a plan on how to go forward to address this issue.
I do think it is absolutely essential that resources be provided to the communities on the ground that are dealing with this situation.
I do take issue, Mr. Chair, with the wording in the main motion that says, I believe, “illegal asylum seekers”. I take issue with that. I believe the appropriate term is “irregular”, Mr. Chair. I want to state that very clearly on the record.
In the comments that....
Liberal
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
On a point of order, do you want to then amend the amendment to make it “irregular”?
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I thank the member very much for her intervention. There may be a number of amendments that I would like to make to the motion. I will be considering that. I will do that at the conclusion of my comments, Mr. Chair.
On the issue around this, I do think that we need to come up with some sort of strategy. I don't think this is good for anyone. To be frank, what I'm most fearful of is the people out there who want to fan the fear. They will say that things are so out of control that we need to close our borders.
In some ways, the suggestion of declaring the entire border as a safe third country agreement application is like us trying to close the border. It is as though we are saying there is this invisible wall. We are forcing people to find alternative ways to try to get entry to safety, risking life and limb. This is happening. That is why people are coming through the forests and so on, and endangering their lives. That process is disruptive for the communities that are receiving these individuals.
Canada has signed onto an agreement internationally, saying that we would receive asylum seekers, that they are entitled to come here, and that they are absolutely within their legal rights to do that. That's why we have a process in place to process these inland asylum seekers once they cross over. That's why when they arrive they are not arrested and thrown in jail. They actually go through the process of making an application.
We have always done this, by the way. That has always been Canada's history, and I'm so proud that this has been Canada's history. I guess it has not been since the beginning of Canada, but it has been our practice for a very long time.
To that point, because of the safe third country agreement, we are forcing people to come through the border at these irregular crossings, and that is why we have the situation before us.
There are a number of mechanisms that I think the government can look at to see how we can address this issue.
In my view, first and foremost, we need to look at how we can ensure that people's safety and the community's safety are addressed, how there can be an orderly fashion with the asylum seekers as they cross over into Canada. Suspending the safe third country agreement would be one approach to going forward with that. Of course, there are other possibilities as well. The purpose of the study would be to do exactly that, to examine different opportunities to say how this should be properly handled.
From that perspective, as my colleague mentioned, it may well be that we might have different reasons for thinking the study should be done, or different approaches to how to handle the situation, or even ways in which we define the situation. My Conservative friends continue to use the word “illegal”, whereas I would like to use the word “irregular”, for example. I may have a different approach to how to devise a plan. I hope there will be opportunities to work collaboratively with government members to devise a plan that would work for everyone.
I think the government members share my interests in reinforcing Canada's standing in the global community, to show that we are a compassionate country, that we have open borders. As the Prime Minister himself has indicated on the global stage, Canada welcomes this diversity.
We need to find a way to move forward on this instead of continuing with the current situation we have. The longer we do not study this issue, the longer we do not come up with a plan, the more oxygen we provide to fuel the fire of the people who want to fearmonger, who want to create an environment that paints a picture of what I hope Canada is not.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
This is important work, and I will support it. To that end, I would like to make a subamendment. I do disagree with the word “illegal” being used and I would like to amend that to—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We will have to deal with the amendment first, because your subamendment does not relate to the amendment. I get it. You want a second amendment on the body of the motion.
NDP
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
—and then when we get to that moment, we can actually deal with that. I would like to make that amendment at the appropriate time.
The other amendment I would like to make also, though, is this component, Mr. Chair.
Let me just find it, please....
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think we have to deal with the first amendment before another amendment is made. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Sure.
I would appreciate it if the members would all keep their discussion on the subamendment—
Liberal
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Okay. I'm happy to do that, Mr. Chair. I will, then, at the appropriate time....
Well, I'll just state this. At the appropriate time, I would like to make an amendment to say that the study should also examine the impact of these increased asylum claims on the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, the IRB, NGOs, and the provinces that provide settlement services in areas where these crossings are more frequent.
I won't move it at this point, Mr. Chair, but I will at the appropriate time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Mr. Maguire, you requested to speak on the motion. We now have the amendment. Would you still like to speak on the amendment?
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
The only follow-up I would have, Mr. Chair, is that this is tremendously important to the province of Manitoba as well. There's been a load of illegal immigrants over the last year still coming into Manitoba. It's not just the Quebec border crossing that's involved here, although it is the most extensive misuse of the system we have today. With all due respect, it's still an illegal process, or I believe it is. Even some of the government members have referred to that in committee before.
I just want to say that I will continue to support it and move forward on the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I have Mr. Whalen on the list.
Would you like to speak on the amendment to the motion? If not, that is fine.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
No, no; I think we already studied this in the fall, and I look forward to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration implementing their plan for this year.
My view on this should be pretty obvious.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Seeing nobody on the list, we now have the question on the amendment.
Could I have it read, or at least stated?
Mr. Maguire.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Yes, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to clarify what I had made...in the amendment before: that is, that we move forward immediately with the motion that's been put forward. I think it's extremely important that we move forward immediately and that the report back to the committee be done by the end of the first week of June.