Evidence of meeting #118 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 federal.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Alexandra Mendès  Brossard—Saint-Lambert, Lib.
Pierre Poilievre  Carleton, CPC
Lisa MacLeod  Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues, Government of Ontario
Randy Hope  Mayor, Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Jean-Pierre Fortin  National President, Customs and Immigration Union
Randy Boldt  As an Individual

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you very much.

Ms. Kwan, go ahead.

July 24th, 2018 / 2:20 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister and all the witnesses who are here before us.

I think it was unfortunate that the Liberal members adjourned the debate on simply calling for the committee, after this study, to table a report and to get a response from the government.

I think we're in this situation of having a summer session, an emergency sitting if you will, on this issue because the Liberals, on five occasions last year, voted to adjourn debate on my motion calling for a study on this very issue. Had we done that, we might not be having this conversation today. Had we done that, we might actually have a real plan in place. Had we done that, we might not be saddled with the challenge we're faced with to the degree that we are. I think it's unfortunate. Hiding yourself, sticking your head in the sand, is not going to solve the issue. Simply reading from your talking points, to say you have a plan, doesn't mean that you actually have a plan. I do think it's unfortunate. I would have supported that motion, but adjournment of debate on that motion was made prior to my even getting the floor to speak to it. I think that's too bad.

I want to turn to this issue with you, Minister MacLeod. You mentioned that you're simply using the word “illegal” because the Minister of Immigration used that word. You're correct. The Minister of Immigration used the word “illegal”, on March 19 I believe, to describe asylum seekers. He said that both words are accurate, and he uses the terms “illegal” and “irregular” interchangeably. In fact, the Prime Minister himself, in question period on April 25, used the word “illegal” as well. I think they're wrong.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act clearly states that when a person crosses the border, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of seeking asylum, they are not committing a criminal offence. The act actually states that very clearly.

My question for you, Minister MacLeod, is this. If the Minister of Immigration admits that he was wrong, will you also stop using this word and admit that you're wrong as well?

2:25 p.m.

Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues, Government of Ontario

Lisa MacLeod

Well, thanks very much for the question. Also, thank you for your leadership, along with MP Rempel, in making sure that these committee hearings are taking place and that I have the opportunity to come here and speak on behalf of Ontario.

Look, many people have used many different terms. The minister himself has used “irregular” and “illegal”. The new minister for border services used “unlawful” the other day on Metro Morning. I'm not going to get into a debate on semantics and what we're calling them. We can agree to disagree on language, but I think what we must all agree on is what the first ministers came out with on Friday, which is that the federal government has created this issue.

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you. I'm going to pause here because time is of the essence. It's not just semantics; it is the law. The law actually states that when people come to Canada for the purposes of immigration, under IRPA, when they cross over to Canada through an irregular point of entry, they are not committing an offence. That is the law. It's not just semantics. It's very important to actually get the language right and correct. I am going to make every effort to get the Minister of Immigration to admit that he was wrong so that we can set the record straight once and for all and stop casting aspersions against asylum seekers by calling them illegal.

I'm going to move to another question here with respect to a plan. We've been talking about a plan. One issue, of course, is the need to admit that the safe third country agreement is causing people to cross over irregularly in substantial numbers. I think that's created disorder, if you will, particularly for border communities. The plan would need to incorporate an action with respect to that, and that would be to suspend the safe third country agreement.

Now, the immigration levels plan actually has a stream for protected persons. The target for 2018 is 16,000. That number has already been exceeded, of course. My question to you, Mr. Fortin, is this. For the purposes of planning for CBSA staff, for IRB staff, for RCMP staff, and so on, doing the work your members do each and every day, would it not be better for the government to establish a plan by adjusting the immigration levels number to more accurately reflect the reality we are faced with today? We knew, I think, since January 2017, since the Trump administration formed office, that these numbers were going to increase significantly. We're seeing that. We knew it then. We know it now.

Would you support the call for the government to adjust the immigration levels plan for the protected persons stream, to increase the number or double the number, to more accurately reflect the reality that we're faced with today?

2:25 p.m.

National President, Customs and Immigration Union

Jean-Pierre Fortin

Part of the plan that the government has put in place, and that's where we do disagree—I wouldn't say the government but more the CBSA—is that they have created a number of officers who volunteer to be deployed at Roxham Road or Lacolle to help with that situation. The problem is that the volunteers are coming from the offices, which are already very tight with their resources. To answer your question very directly, if tomorrow morning we triple the number of asylum seekers coming across, we would be in trouble. That's the way we had voiced our concerns about the levels of resourcing we have right now.

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Right, so precisely, if you adjusted the levels plan targets in anticipating a greater number, then that would mean that you would have to adjust the resources accordingly—not rob Peter to pay Paul, but rather, increase the staffing for CBSA, increase the staffing for RCMP, increase the staffing for IRCC, and equally important, increase the resources at the IRB so these cases can be processed expeditiously and we can actually get on with dealing with the issue effectively. Would that not be required as part of the plan?

2:30 p.m.

National President, Customs and Immigration Union

Jean-Pierre Fortin

Yes, that would be required. Right now, as I said, the situation is being contained. The problem is that we're forecasting that more than 200,000 people in the United States who are on TPS permits, which will be ending, will have two choices: either to leave and go back to their country or to try to come to Canada. We suspect that they would be taking the second option.

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

It remains to be seen what will happen, but right now people are coming through and there are pressures created for the border communities. If the government adjusted the numbers to reflect what we saw last year, by doubling the protected persons numbers, I think we would be more equipped to deal with this situation. Of course, we've had a chronic problem of underfunding the IRB. From the Conservatives to the Liberals, this has been a chronic problem and it continues to persist. If we actually funded it properly, we might not be faced with the kinds of challenges that we are faced with today.

Ms. MacLeod, you also mentioned processing—

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I'm afraid I need to end it there. You had an extra 30 seconds.

I'm just going to extend the meeting for a few minutes unless there's unanimous consent to adjourn.

Mr. Fraser, if you have just a couple of minutes, then you can close.

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Excellent. Thank you very much.

As a fellow Pictou County native and StFX graduate, Ms. MacLeod, congratulations on your appointment. It's a pleasure to see you here today.

One of the things I want to touch on is as much a plea as it is a question. You've described, I think, in an innocent way the use of the term “illegals” as simply being semantics.

The fact is that, as Ms. Kwan pointed out, it is a matter of law, but it's also very important to recognize that words very much do matter. When we refer to people as illegals or queue jumpers, when we talk about there being a crisis when the evidence we hear is actually that there is a well-managed response to this challenge, it creates a second class of human being who's living within our borders today. That is not something I'm okay with.

One of the things we have to be very careful about is the warning we received from the representative from the UN today, who said that this kind of language could be populist rhetoric and it can dehumanize asylum seekers. I don't think that you use this language maliciously. As I said, I think it's innocently held—

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

One thing we really have to be careful about is that we need not—

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

We have a point of order.

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I seek unanimous consent from the committee to table the blues from the March 19 meeting, where the immigration minister under this federal government said that he used the terms interchangeably. It might help my colleague's comments.

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Unanimous consent to present the blues.... I just want to check. The blues no longer exist after the—

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

My apologies. I'll clarify. Unanimous consent for the Hansard

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

It's the record of proceedings, the actual minutes of the meeting—

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Yes, the record.

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

The blues disappear, do they not?

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I mean the record of the proceedings, my apologies.

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

The blues are replaced by the record of the proceedings, which is a public document.

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Yes, it might be helpful.

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Is there unanimous consent?

2:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you.