Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to finish my thought, despite the ongoing interruption from Liberal members.
To my point, Mr. Chair, if I can finish my thought, the motion was then amended by the Conservatives to add Sudan to it, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I further had made an amendment to that motion to indicate that:
the committee order the production of all documents and records related to the policy-making considerations that led to the specific dimensions of the temporary public policy that opened on January 9, 2024, including the 1,000-person cap, the gradual issuance of access codes and delays in receiving codes experienced by many applicants, and the information requested from applicants on additional screening forms; that, while respecting s. 19, s. 23, and s. 69 of the Access to Information Act, these details be provided within 30 days of the adoption of this motion and relevant documents are released in full to the public;
The motion goes on to say, “that the committee report its findings to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109 the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”
That was paused because we ran out of time. Of course, we have not been able to come back to debate this motion, which we absolutely should.
How does this actually tie into the amendment at hand, Mr. Chair? We're all talking about the grave situation with respect to our borders, borders that tie into the United States, of course, now, with the Trump administration and what those implications might be.
I think about borders also in other countries, as well. In the situation with the Gazans, they have not been able to get to safety. Many of them have been subject to trafficking, as well. I think many of them have been subject to having to actually pay exorbitant fees and bribes in order to stay safe.
All of that has implications for borders, including the Canadian border. It's interesting to note that this amendment and this main motion, Mr. Chair, exclude that community and the implications for them and the hardships they have to face. If we really want to look at the implications of trafficking and what it means in terms of border control and so on, we should actually be looking at this community as well.
However, we consistently and persistently refuse to do so, and we allow the continuation of these atrocities to take place. Community members have actually come before this committee in a dire situation. In fact, as they wait for the government to do what is necessary to move forward to fix the problem and to facilitate the process, what the government has done instead of doing that is create further barriers.
In the meantime, family members have come before the committee and indicated that their loved one had passed. Their loved one had not been able to get to safety as they tried to manage to get through the many barriers, whether it's the Gazans or even the Lebanese community.
You have to ask the question of what's going on with the Lebanese community, where the government refuses to even bring forward a special immigration measure so that Canadian family members with loved ones in Lebanon can get to safety. How is it even possible that the Canadian government would not consider that? How is it even possible that the Canadian government, for example, would tell a Canadian family member in that dire situation that they have to leave their spouse and their child behind because they are not Canadians and do not have PR status?
If I were a Canadian stuck in a situation like that in Lebanon, let's say, and my child and my spouse were there, and I was told that I had to leave them behind in that dangerous situation...and think it's okay. I don't think any of us would think that's okay.
Why is it that the Canadian government will not bring forward a special immigration measure to expedite and bring to safety those family members and allow those Canadian family members to bring their children and their spouses to Canada? This persists and continues in certain countries and in certain approaches. The Canadian government continues to do this and allow for this to happen.
Therefore, if we're going to do a study on border measures, then we should be examining this as well. Why is there differential treatment for different countries?
Some have already said that perhaps it's because of the colour of their skin. Is it? I don't know. IRCC has a history of discrimination and discriminatory practices. That has been shown before. Reports have indicated as such. Is this an ongoing perpetuation of that from this government? Should we not, then, include these elements as part of the study, Mr. Chair?
We often just—I don't know what it is—turn a blind eye, perhaps, or just set those issues aside as though somehow they are not crucial or critical for this committee to examine. I don't understand it; I really don't. I don't understand the practice and the approach here. I don't understand the cavalier response from the government. I would like to think that I'm wrong. I hope to think that I'm wrong; however, the practice has been consistent from the government. It continues, and it doesn't matter how dire the situation is. At the end of the day, lives do matter.
I wonder why, in this whole conversation with this amendment, with this motion, there is no discussion about whether or not the United States is a a safe third country now in light of what's happened and in light of what we've learned from the previous Trump administration and their practices, where they separated child and parent and where they put children in cages. I have even heard that some of those children have not been reunited with their loved ones. Why are we not having that conversation at this committee?