Ms. Kwan.
Evidence of meeting #142 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 programs.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #142 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 programs.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Chair, I was so hoping that we wouldn't deteriorate into this kind of situation, but I guess I was being too hopeful.
What is important here is to put things in context. The truth of the matter is that the Conservative Party has been vilifying refugees. They've been calling them illegals, even though the Canadian law is very clear. The Canadian law states that those who cross over irregularly for the purposes of making an asylum claim are not committing a criminal act.
I think it is in that context, perhaps, where that comment might have come from from Ms. Zahid, not that I want to put words in her mouth, but that's the context in which this is cast. I do worry about it in terms of this motion, that it will spin into that kind of thing to vilify refugees in that way.
That said, that's why I opened my comments by saying that I hope this is not what we're doing. I hope that, as we work together, the purpose of this is to examine our processes to make sure that the integrity of the process is protected, to make sure that it's properly resourced, to make sure that it has the tools that it needs to do its job, and then, of course, to have the accountability mechanism that is required.
We know that the CBSA is the only such institution that does not have public accountability. That, to me, is problematic, not only on the security screening, but on many other fronts as well. If we're going to look at all of these issues holistically, that is the reason I moved the amendment: to put it all in that larger context of what we're dealing with.
Mr. Chair, I want to be very clear on my intention, because I know that comments are thrown from different sides almost as a screen or a shield, for whatever purpose. I want to be very clear about the reasons I have moved my amendment and why it is important to do this work in that context. It is not my intention to allow for an approach where people can use this process to vilify a group.
Sometimes situations happen, and we need to look at that to see what has happened there to see how we can fix it. It's not to say that the idea is to close the borders, for example, as the Conservatives have suggested, by saying that we should apply the safe third country agreement to the entire Canadian border. I do not support that, categorically, and that is not the approach that I wish to see us undertake, not only for this study but for any other work we do, because when we do our work in that way, we are doing a disservice to humanity, and that is a shame for all of us.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I have Mr. Ayoub and Ms. Rempel on the list.
Before you continue, I want to let you know that if this motion was only to hold a single meeting and was on the issue about CBSA and accountability, I would have ruled it out of order, because that is not the purview of this committee and it's not within our mandate. Our mandate is given to us by Parliament. It has very specific roles that we can undertake. It's not within our purview. However, because the motion called for a joint study and it is allowed that we could do a joint study on matters that do engage two committees, I did allow it.
I will repeat that the motion has been defeated by the other committee. I take Mr. Tilson's point that they could reconsider after our very brilliant arguments here. However, right now, as it stands, the other committee has declined to do this study with us and has not indicated that they would reconsider that motion.
Right now, the motion is in order. However, it would cease to be in order if it were a single study.
Is Mr. Ayoub no longer on the list?
Are you on the list, Mr. Ayoub?
February 4th, 2019 / 4:55 p.m.
Ramez Ayoub Thérèse-De Blainville, Lib.
Yes, I'm on the list.
Mr. Chair, it's very hard to stay impassive and not say anything. I'll try to limit my comments.
I admire passion, especially that of my colleague, who prides herself on defending the interests of Canadians and says she is outraged that her motion does not seem to be moving forward. At the same time, she says that she is in favour of immigration and motherhood. Ultimately, it's all fine rhetoric. And now we are being told that for our part, we're creating division.
May I remind my colleague that there were 167,000 family reunification files waiting to be processed when we came to power. This means that members of their families in Canada were waiting on 167,000 prospective Canadians to join them. On average, these people had to wait seven years for their file to be processed.
You were talking about funding, but this is not about money. Rather, we must understand the intent that is behind this. Given these fact-based figures and statistics, one has to conclude that the government had no means to reunite these families at the time. For 10 years, immigration was certainly not a priority for your government.
For our part, however, we quadrupled the number of people who could apply. We increased that number from 5,000 to 20,000. Moreover, we decreased the wait time from seven years to two. I think the intention is quite good.
You tabled your motion while witnesses were present. I'm embarrassed for them and for the Canadians who may be watching what is going on here. We're conducting a serious study on immigration and on the settlement and integration of immigrants. We want the organizations that receive government funds to that end to explain what they are doing right. They do very good work. We want to see what more we can do, as a government.
However, you introduced a motion with no regard for collegiality. We were never apprised of this motion. In addition, you introduced it during the time allocated to debate. We are wasting the witnesses' time, when they took the trouble to travel here, and while they are still here listening to us. I thank them for that, even though I am embarrassed by this situation. You know that in the end this motion will not pass. It will not pass for the simple reason that its underlying intentions are false and do not align with the wording.
It goes without saying that we want to improve security. It was never this government's intention to neglect border security. That said, quite honestly, I need to remind you that our committee is focused on immigration. There is another committee that examines public safety issues. It will deal with these matters. We reject this motion. That committee may consider it.
We have studies to carry out. We have set our priorities, but we can't manage to do those studies. The last time Minister Hussen was here, you made us waste the whole hour. We weren't even able to put questions to the minister. This was not our fault, but yours. You were busy raising trivial issues during the time when we could have asked questions.
I'll stop here. I know others will certainly want to comment. For my part, I have to say without hesitation that I will be voting against this motion.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I have a few comments, Chair.
First of all, through you, Chair, my colleague mentioned that he had never heard of this before. I would advise him and his staff to perhaps become aware of the processes that we have in place through the clerk on notices of motion. He might want to become acquainted with that.
In terms of it being a waste of time for the opposition to do their job and hold the ministers to account and ask for studies on things like screening processes, I think there would be many Canadians who would take offence to that.
In terms of waiting lists, for the parents and grandparents program, in 2006, the Conservative government at the time inherited a waiting list of 100,000 cases. We put in place the super visa program and limited the number of spaces on a no-hope waiting list. When the Prime Minister came into office, Chair, the number of cases, I believe, that were on the waiting list had been reduced to about 25,000 or 26,000.
What this government has done is increase the number of spots on a no-hope waiting list, and a waiting list is not the same as access to the country.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Chair, you allowed him to talk about this, so it's fair to rebut. Come on.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
To my colleague's point about terminology and vilifying people, there is a policy discussion that this country needs to have. My colleague has one position on it, and I'm not sure what the Liberal government's position is on it. My colleague raised the issue of entries from the United States and whether people.... My colleague, I think, is arguing that people who are in the United States should be able to enter Canada and claim asylum.
I would argue that people entering from the United States should not be able to claim asylum, given the safe third country agreement. I don't actually know where the Liberal government stands on this because, on one hand, the Prime Minister stands up in the House of Commons and says the safe third country agreement should apply, but on the other hand, he's allowing people to enter the country and claim asylum from the United States of America. This is a public policy discussion we need to have. We all have different positions on it.
On the point of vilification, there are large signs at every part of the border which say it is illegal to cross there. Under Canada's Customs Act, it is illegal to enter the country. The issue is whether—
5 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Chair, decorum.
The issue is that those charges are stayed if somebody claims asylum. That's why these two discussions are so important to have together.
I do not believe, and the Conservative Party of Canada does not believe, that somebody who has reached the United States of America or upstate New York should be able to claim asylum in Canada. From what I understand—I'm not clear—the NDP believes that they should. Those are two different opinions. We can discuss that. But to articulate the action of illegally crossing the border and violating the Canada Customs Act as vilification is hyperbole.
I just wanted to point out that, just to be very clear, my colleague Mr. Ayoub said that the government wants to improve service and secure our borders. Then why would we not have this study? Why would the Liberals not want this study? If that is their goal, then why would we not be examining this process here? He said—again, it's this contradiction—“We want to do this but we're not going to review it in committee.”
At this point in Parliament, Chair, I actually thought that the Liberals would support this because this was an opportunity for them to put it out, but instead we've got this.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm just going to make one very quick comment, so that we're all very clear on the question around illegal versus irregular. It's true that there is signage which says that crossing the border at the unofficial points of entry is illegal, and that is in the case where you cross over without the intent and the purpose of making an asylum claim.
If I crossed over to the United States today with no intention of making an asylum claim whatsoever in the United States, it would be illegal and I would be arrested. However, if I was seeking asylum for whatever reason, the Canadian law, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, states very clearly that it is not a criminal act.
When we call those individuals who seek asylum and cross over from the United States at the irregular border crossings “illegals”, we are vilifying those asylum seekers in a way that is detrimental to humanity. That is my point, Mr. Chair.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you.
Seeing no other speakers, I'm going to call the question now on the motion, which stands. It was not amended.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
We want a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 3)
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
That completes Ms. Rempel's time at 60 minutes.
We're going to take a brief pause.
I'm going to suggest that we do have time to get statements from our second panel of witnesses.
To the other panel, if you would like to hear them, that's fine, but I'm afraid we don't have time to ask you questions today.
Because we have three witnesses here who have come to join us, we'll take just a two-minute break and then we'll hear three seven-minute statements.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm going to call the meeting back to order.
I'm going to thank our witnesses. I'm afraid there probably won't be time for questions today. However, we will get your statements read into the record, and we may call you back if the committee has questions that they would like to ask you.
Mr. Sarai.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. Ms. Rempel isn't back yet. Are we waiting or should we resume?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
You can start. She has an important discussion out in the hall.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Tilson.
We're going to start with Mr. Dyck from the Mennonite Central Committee Canada.
Welcome.