Citizenship and Immigration Committee on July 16th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I have just two points, Mr. Chairman.

My colleague doesn't like the word “illegal”. I'm just going to quote again the question I asked the minister at one of our former meetings. It was the question on border crossing from the United States: You've used the word “irregular” but almost everyone else uses the word “illegal”. Mr. Cormier, Ms. Alleslev, and others have used the word “illegal”.

The minister responded by saying:

I'm happy to use “illegal”....

I responded with:

...because it is illegal.

In fact, a sign put up by the government on Roxham Road states:

Stop

It is illegal to cross the border here or any place other than a Port of Entry.

You will be arrested and detained if you cross here.

I don't know what else.... Again, I'm repeating what Ms. Rempel said. I think you're trying to soften the seriousness of this whole issue. It's incredibly serious. We're concerned about the safety of our border. We're concerned about a whole slew of things. We also want to assist people who are waiting in refugee camps around the planet, who are facing persecution in dangerous places around the world and who must wait longer as more and more resources are spent processing people crossing into Canada from the United States.

This committee went over to Africa because we were concerned about the camps there. Well, we're continuing to work on that study, but this issue is taking away from the work that the government can be doing in other areas.

As far as the word is concerned, my colleague says, oh, we have a plan. Again, Ms. Rempel has adequately described that. There clearly is no plan other than spending money, and even in terms of spending money, it's not being spent. Premier Ford has asked for $72 million to deal with the influx of asylum seekers. Mayors in other cities are worried about whether asylum seekers are going to be shipped to their municipalities. My mayor in Orangeville, with a population of 30,000, is concerned about whether the Town of Orangeville will be asked to house some of these asylum seekers.

The issue is clearly out of control. I'm opposed to the amendment, because it's clearly watering down the motion put by Ms. Rempel. I think the amendment should be defeated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to address a number of different points. On the issue of terminology, first off, I do think that both of my colleagues, Ms. Rempel and Mr. Tilson, are correct in what they have read into the record. I remember that meeting like it was yesterday, because I was genuinely upset at the fact that the minister capitulated and said on the public record that the use of the word “illegal” was the same as the word “irregular” to describe asylum seekers. I called on the minister to correct that terminology, to retract his misuse of the word “illegal” in this context. In fact, when we were dealing with the budget debate in the House of Commons, I subsequently raised that issue with the minister again. He ignored it and did not answer the question, but I did note that his terminology did change and he used the word “irregular” and has not used the word “illegal” since then.

I also note that in question period in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister himself used the word “illegal” to describe asylum seekers. I was very upset about that as well and rose on a point of order after question question to call on the Prime Minister to retract his use of that word and to apologize for it, which of course he didn't do.

When the government itself uses the wrong terminology, it does not help the situation because it allows people to talk about this very important issue as if it were somehow just about semantics. It's not just about semantics; these words have real meanings, and it is very different to call somebody “illegal” versus somebody who is doing something “irregular”.

I think we all know that. I am not an expert on the English language, by any stretch of the imagination. I am an ESL student, but I know the difference between “illegal” and “irregular”. It was inappropriate for the government to make that statement, both by the minister and the Prime Minister, and now we are caught in this situation. I do hope they will find the time to state very clearly on the public record a retraction of the use of these words so we can get on with the situation and deal with the matter.

I also heard Mr. Tilson say as well—and he is right—that there are a lot of people across the globe who are in need of resettlement support because they have been displaced for a whole variety of reasons. He is absolutely correct to say that.

However, let us not conflate the different streams of settlement and resettlement. The refugees who come under the stream of the government assisted program are entirely different from the stream of inland refugees. The levels plan actually indicates that. Inland refugees, who under the levels plan are called the protected persons in Canada and dependents abroad class, are in a different stream. Accepting more people under that stream does not take away from the stream of government assisted refugees, or the privately sponsored refugees for that matter. They are different streams, and I wish people would not conflate these different avenues for accessing resettlement support here in Canada, because when you do, you are creating confusion, misrepresentation, and fear in the hearts and minds of people, as though somehow one group of people is queue jumping over another, taking advantage of someone else when in fact that is not the case. That is not how Canada's immigration system is set up.

On the issue of the proposed amendment, I think it is important to look at the impact, absolutely. I also think it is important that when you look at the impact, you also look at the response to that impact.

If it is not generally accepted that the intent behind this motion—and perhaps I can get clarification from Gary on this—is to look at the government's response to the impact, then I do think we need to add those words in and, I would say, add, after “impact”, the words “and the government's response”, so that we can be clear. When you look at the impact, you are looking at the response as well. How else can you look at the impact if you don't look at the response?

Perhaps, just to be clear, in moving forward in an effort to address the concerns that Ms. Rempel has, that somehow this is meant to sidestep looking at the response, we can actually put those words in there. I would perhaps move this as a friendly amendment to this amendment to the motion, by adding “and the government's response” and the word “impact”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Because our procedure doesn't allow friendly amendments, we'll take that as a subamendment, an amendment to the amendment. Is there any discussion on the subamendment?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

All right. If I could finish, then, I would move that as a subamendment to the amendment, just to be very clear, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Very good.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

The purpose here, really, is to get on with the study so that we can look at the issue. Then coming out of that process, we can determine whether or not it's adequate. I have a view about that; Ms. Rempel has a view about that, and we can let the study take its course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

So the subamendment is to insert the words “and the government's response” following the words “the impact”, so between the words “the impact of” and “regular”. It's, “the impact of and the government's response to”. Would that be okay?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It is, “the impact of and the government's response to irregular border crossings”.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes.

Now, the other thing I do want to raise on this motion is that I'm a little bit disturbed—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We now have a subamendment on the floor.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Oh, we have to vote on this, and then I'll come back to the point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is there any discussion about the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Okay.

Now you can continue.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much for that.

I'm a little bit disturbed, and I hope that this will be accepted as a subamendment as well. The words “be invited” are included in here. Normally, in our motions, we invite the minister to appear. Our motions normally simply say that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship appear before the committee. It's not to say that we invite a minister. What I'm worried about is that if we make the invitation, they'll say, “Well, I'm too busy. I can't come.” Then we have done our job. We have accommodated this motion, but then we actually didn't achieve the result of having the minister here.

I would ask that we strike the words, “be invited to” and simply have it read that these different ministers appear before the committee, Mr. Chair. Then that, I think, will set aside potential concerns that if the invitation has been extended that we have satisfied this motion, even if the ministers are not available to come to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I've consulted with the clerk. It has been the normal procedure of this committee, since I've been here, to invite. That's the word we have used in the past. However, there is apparently no substantive difference between inviting and requesting. There's no difference in that, if it makes someone feel better, but the subamendment is in order to strike the words “be invited to”. The line would read that the minister, etc., “appear before”. The impact is still that an invitation will be extended to them.

Is there any discussion about that?

All in favour? Opposed?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It carries. One vote over there. That's all you have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

The Chair will decide when it carries or not, thank you very much. Did everyone who wanted to vote have a chance to vote?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the vote was closed. One vote went up—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I didn't close the vote.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

What were you doing? You said “all those opposed”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I did not close the vote.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

—one hand went up, and that's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Tilson, you're out of order now unless you have a point and want to challenge the chair.

May I ask all in favour?

Any opposed?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It is carried with one against.