As I was saying, there are people who routinely call it illegal when, in fact, it isn't. When they do that on purpose and deliberately, that would be, in my books, gaslighting asylum seekers who are trying to get to safety. It's very clear in our regulations, in our laws and in our act that, when people cross irregularly into Canada, it is not an illegal act.
I was mentioning about Amnesty International and their fact-finding mission. They held interviews with asylum seekers. During these interviews, they observed the following. One was the notion of abandoned dreams of freedom in the United States. When asylum seekers arrived in the U.S., individuals interviewed said that their original feelings of optimism about finding freedom and safety there were replaced with feelings of vulnerability and a lack of protection.
This was not just through the direct policy actions undertaken by the first Trump administration, but by the change in public atmosphere ushered in by the rhetoric and climate that the Trump administration had created. We're seeing it now, too. The anti-migrant, anti-asylum-seeker, anti-immigrant viewpoint is becoming more and more extreme to the point where people feel very emboldened by their discriminatory and racist views and don't even try to hide it anymore. This is, in essence, what people were talking about.
When you have the first Trump administration creating that atmosphere, going about its racist way, targeting migrants, immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees, you can imagine what the public is picking up on. They think if the president can do that and if the president can say that, then there's nothing wrong with them carrying on with their racist views publicly and openly.
This is what people had to endure. I'm sad to say—and I fear this—that this is going to be even further escalated in this second Trump administration. I'm sad, too, from this point of view, that the Canadian government actually played into all of that in the approach the Minister of Immigration has taken in changing the levels plan and in blaming migrants and international students for the housing crisis. We're playing into that kind of narrative, that kind of approach and that kind of racist attitude toward migrants, international students, immigrants, refugees and others.
To me, it's wrong. We're just simply then.... It's the government, so I shouldn't say “we”, because I'm definitely not in that space, but the Prime Minister, the minister and the Liberals are playing into exactly that kind of rhetoric. I don't even know if they know how dangerous it would be. It's politically convenient for them to blame migrants and international students for the housing crisis, but there's a price to pay, I think. There's a price to pay for the community and for people who look like me. That's what it will mean for them, ultimately, with the racism, the discrimination and the hate that is going to be hurled towards us.
Amnesty International also found in their fact-finding mission concerns about arbitrary immigration actions. Individuals from Somalia explained that, while they had made their asylum claims prior to the Trump administration at that time, their hearings had been cancelled without explanation and in some cases not rescheduled. That's what people were faced with during that time in the first administration. They weren't able to get any reassurances, including from their legal counsel. They didn't know if their claims would even be heard. They were just arbitrarily cancelled without any information about the status of their application.
You can imagine what that means for people. Many had feelings of fear. I guess that's one way to describe it and maybe the most appropriate way to describe that uncertainty, not knowing what your future is. What does it even mean that your asylum claim has been cancelled and that you don't have a date on when it would be heard? They don't know what further action might be taken. They don't know what their life is going to be like at that moment. This creates enormous stress, anxiety and fear in the hearts and minds of those who are waiting for their claim to be heard, for their status to be determined and for that fair procedural process to take its course.
The U.S. wanted to claim that they are a safer country. Can you imagine an asylum seeker whose application was arbitrarily cancelled and they have no idea when and if their claim will be heard and what it means for them in the meantime?
Another thing that Amnesty International found in their observations with their mission was around immigration detentions. Immigration detention had been well documented in the United States for decades, and the Trump administration expanded it with his hateful, discriminatory targeting of migrants with the travel ban and racist immigration policies. Several of the individuals interviewed explained that they were detained upon arrival and throughout the duration of their asylum claim process. That means they were never able to go out in the community. They were in detention the entire time.
As explained by the Harvard report, individuals under this detention are far less likely to have access to legal counsel or consultation and are also far less likely to be able to make a successful asylum claim as a result.
It was clear from the Amnesty researchers that individuals, including children, who were detained in the United States simply would not have been detained in Canada. This detention of individuals was in clear violation of the international legal standards and obligations governing the detention of refugees and migrants.
That's what happened to people in that first administration. We saw a lot of news coverage on this matter. As I indicated, I called for an emergency debate in the House, which was granted by the Speaker, to raise the alarming situation that was happening south of the border when the Trump administration came to office.
I remember this like it was yesterday. It kind of reminds me of what's going on today. It was cold. It was winter here in Canada. I remember people were lined up around the block outside to try to get into the gallery so that they could watch that debate. I had the opportunity to talk to some of the people there and ask why they were there. They all expressed their deep concerns for what was going on in the United States. Some of them raised the experiences of racism and discrimination that they had experienced themselves. Many of them raised the issue of how they wished for Canada to stand up, to be strong and to be on the right side of history. I talked to many of them. People braved the cold in order to try to get into the gallery to watch the debate in the chamber.
Now, of course, this was what was going on, so people did not get legal counsel. People were arbitrarily detained. People's application hearings were cancelled without knowing what their future held or when their hearing would even be heard.
Amnesty International also observed that claims were being rejected.
The Harvard report explained at length about how well-founded asylum claims were often summarily rejected in the United States. This was, in large part, due to the obstacles faced by the claimants, who were held in detention, in preparing their cases.
In a troubling example of this, an individual interviewed by Amnesty made an asylum claim in the United States based on his sexual orientation. He was held in detention and his claim was rejected. Luckily, he was able to raise funds to obtain a bond to be released from detention. Then he made the dangerous trip, crossing irregularly into Canada. That individual's claim was heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB. It was so clear to them that he immediately received a positive decision on his claim at the completion of the hearing.
That's a stark difference, isn't it? The United States rejected the claim. Canada, on the other hand, accepted the claim immediately. Normally, through an IRB process, the decision could take some time, but for this particular situation, the decision was rendered immediately because the person was found to be at risk if they were to return to their country. The persecution that they were experiencing was real.
The IRB, by the way, is an independent board that undertakes this work. It is not subject to political interference. These are individuals who are doing this work and making that assessment entirely on their own with full independence. In many ways, I suppose it is a quasi-judicial kind of process that people undergo.
With respect to that individual, the fact is that had that individual not made the dangerous trip to Canada, he would have been deported and his life would have been put in real danger. With the Safe Third Country Agreement in effect, Canada would have been complicit in that man's demise. That's a factual case that Amnesty had reported.
During that time, Amnesty also witnessed, in a fact-finding mission, increased immigration raids. Many of the individuals who were interviewed spoke recently of experiencing a significant increase in immigration raids. This was most frequently experienced by Somalian asylum seekers. That's what Amnesty International found. They spoke of friends and neighbours being suddenly arrested and detained when reporting for regular immigration appointments, as well as raids occurring at workplaces, apartment complexes and so on. This was considered a key factor for individuals to make the decision to undertake the dangerous trip to Canada.
I should pause here to say that I know that some people think that people make these trips because they want to queue-jump and take advantage of Canada's system. Let us be clear. People don't embark on a dangerous journey in the dead of winter, trekking through snow just for fun. People don't do that for fun. This is not like a tobogganing trip with family and friends. This is not like a cross-country ski holiday. People were doing it because their lives were in danger. They felt that they had no other choice. They felt that if they were returned to their country of origin, they could lose their life. It is not a walk in the park by any means. It is not a fun thing for people to embark on.
Many media reports pointed out the significant raids taking place and what appeared to be a shift from targeting only those with criminal records to targeting anyone. We're now actually seeing, very potentially, the repeat of this history with a second Trump administration, perhaps even more aggressively so.
I will put on the record a little later some of the reporting on what's going on now, and what we might anticipate with the second Trump administration.
During that time, Amnesty indicated that many of the reports spoke to the fear, which is now gripping immigrant communities, that perhaps the first Trump administration would move forward with its promised forced deportation. That's the reality people were faced with. It was very real for people.
For us who are sitting here in safety in Canada, we may not know any of that. We may not have any of those fears in our hearts and minds. Unless you're a person who's been persecuted, unless you've been put in that position, you may never understand it.
One thing is for sure, though. I can hear them. I can hear their cries. I see their cries, and I think that, as Canadians, as a country that stands for fairness, that stands for justice, we need to ensure that we do our part.
I have more to say with respect to that, especially now in the face of this second Trump administration.
Amnesty International also found that there was exploitation and danger at the border. Due to the nature of the asylum claimants' journey and in order for them to be able to make a claim in Canada because of the Safe Third Country Agreement, asylum claimants are not only vulnerable to the harsh weather conditions; they're also vulnerable to exploitation by the so-called consultants and agents who charge significant sums of money to get them near the border.
There were situations where people were faced with such dire situations that they were taken advantage of. In those situations, people would literally—I guess, in their desperation—spend that money in the belief that those who are there, whose goal is really just to make some quick cash and exploit the situation and who don't really care about the safety of these individuals, would undertake that kind of activity.
There are concerns being brought up as well around trafficking of people who are in these desperate situations.
Amnesty International concluded this fact-finding mission by once again advocating that Canada suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement. That was the end of the fact-finding mission, and that's what they were calling for.
Unfortunately, as we now know, not only did the government not undertake that measure, but in fact, they went further to create further barriers and blockades for people to get to safety. Then we saw a number of those measures put in place as well after this. Amnesty called for the Canadian government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement. They also suggested that, at minimum, the government invoke article 10 of the agreement, which allows for the agreement to be suspended for three months.
That would have given us some time to talk with the Canadian counterpart about the situation, to see how we can go about addressing this issue in a thoughtful way. Unfortunately, the Canadian government did not take that advice, did not suspend the agreement, and we had every authority to do so. Canada could have done so itself under that article in the Safe Third Country Agreement. We didn't need agreement from the United States. We could have done that work unilaterally.
Amnesty International was concerned enough with the state of asylum crossings that they felt obligated to get people on the ground to try to better understand what was happening on the ground. That was the incredible work that they did.
Despite what the then minister of immigration seems to try and claim, that nothing has changed, it is important to note that many people, including experts, disagree with that sentiment.
As the immigration critic at the time, I can tell you about the volume of correspondence that I got from people in all walks of life, from all across the country and, in fact, from outside of the country as well. There are people who are real experts on this issue, who will know about the Safe Third Country Agreement and its implications, its legality, far more than I would. They are the real experts, and they all expressed the same sentiments to me.
They all indicated how they believe the Safe Third Country Agreement puts people in danger and that, in fact, it is a violation of migrant rights and asylum seeker rights.
What's more, it was becoming evident that people in the asylum system knew what it felt like on the ground. To them, it was clear as day that the climate had changed drastically in the United States. That was a big part of the motivation for them to take their lives into their own hands to embark on those dangerous journeys.
Many of the media reports, such as the ones that I previously cited, detail both the number of hours that asylum seekers had to trek through the snow and the frigid temperatures. Often it was around -20°C. I think that in Ottawa today it's actually about -5°C or something like that. I am wearing snow boots and a big parka and I've been cold all day. I've been drinking hot water all day. For me it was only about a 15-minute walk from my apartment to the House of Commons. I can't imagine being in -20 temperatures for hours on end, being stuck in snow that's waist deep and just trying to labour through the field in those kinds of conditions. I can't imagine. I'm pretty sure that if I were put in that kind of environment, I wouldn't survive it.
Despite these conditions and despite many of these people not being well prepared and not having the right coats, boots and so on to deal with the conditions, they undertook those journeys. For all those who think that people do this just for fun, there is nothing fun about that. People do this with great risks. It means that the situation for these asylum seekers has reached that height of desperation. I can't imagine why else people would undertake such a journey.
With the current situation, I don't know what's going to happen for the people who are going to be there. We're hearing in the news that the Trump administration is working on putting together a massive deportation plan. What will happen to those people this time around? That is the big question. This is about people's lives, at the end of the day. That is what we're talking about.
During the time of the first Trump administration, many individuals and organizations voiced their concerns. It wasn't just over the winter period that they were concerned about this. Many were concerned about when the weather would get warmer. In the warm weather, as the snow melts, people were worried about potential flooding and how dangerous those fields would be. It would be very wet. It's quite possible that the flooding season could also create a dangerous environment for people.
I suspect that many of the asylum seekers will not be familiar with the weather conditions and what it means when the weather turns like that. Those are the kinds of things asylum seekers are faced with. They are in such a desperate environment that they would often embark on these journeys hoping there would be light at the end of the tunnel and that they somehow would be able to get to safety.
At the time, we talked about getting ready for the Trump administration, with the impact of the first Trump administration's discriminatory immigration policy. I truly believe that at that time, everybody wanted the situation to be handled properly.
I should note that in Quebec, many of the residents opened their hearts and minds, and some of them even opened their doors, by the way, for the asylum seekers who were trekking through.
I know that the CBSA and RCMP officials were tremendous in treating these asylum seekers in their desperate situation at the time. There are many stories about how people were treated with some level of dignity when they managed to make the trip and were in Canada. Later on, they were able to make their asylum claim and go through the process.
I think it is the case that nobody wanted the situation to go from bad to worse. I truly believed at the time that it included everybody at committee from all sides and political parties. People did not want this situation to get worse.
Resettlement organizations servicing the communities were also stretched thin, by the way, by the big promise of the government around increased refugee targets and the inadequate funding of the services.
Mr. Chair, I'll share this story with you.
During that first administration, many people used Roxham Road to get to safety. First it was Manitoba, and then later on it was Roxham Road. British Columbia, at that time, was the second province to have the largest number of asylum seekers crossing the border. There were some asylum seekers who made it to Canada.
This is just about how beautiful people are. There is a small organization in my riding. I won't name them. They weren't hugely funded by the government by any stretch of the imagination. At that time, there were asylum seekers who came in. Many of these asylum seekers, when they came in, weren't getting any resources or support from the government in any way, shape or form. They were unhoused. They didn't have any ability to survive. Do you know what happened? On their own, the people working in that organization invited these people into their homes to stay, albeit temporarily, to get out of the frigid cold and environment where they had zero recourse or ability to survive.
They weren't funded by government. They just did it out of the goodness of their hearts because of their compassion. They saw humanity. They acted. That's what that organization did. Some of their staff ended up having asylum seekers in their own homes. There was no support for them anywhere else. They couldn't see how they could just be displaced, further displaced, by the way, because these asylum seekers were displaced from their country of origin. They fled to the United States for safety and then were forced again to flee. They were people who were fleeing over and over again and who were displaced over and over again.
This group has a very special place in my heart. I saw how beautiful they were in their compassion, kindness and humanity in the treatment of a fellow human being in distress.
During this period, my office spoke with Greg Janzen, the reeve of Emerson, Manitoba. He told us that crossings were no longer just on some nights. As things escalated, they started to occur on a nightly basis. Temporary shelters for individuals were becoming a problem. As we now know, it's been an ongoing problem.
It does bring to mind the folks in Emerson, which is just a little town of about 600 people. He noted that about 300 people at that time had crossed into the town since February 3. The CBSA centre was full, and the local Salvation Army was also full. He was concerned that if these trends continued or increased, they would need to set up something, like a tent city, to house people.
As the people continued to get desperate, and as the crossings continued, asylum seekers and NGOs on the ground were doing the best they could. Some NGOs, by the way, without government funding, opened their doors and shelters to house some of these asylum seekers. The government had said they would retroactively fund these organizations in Manitoba. I don't believe they actually got the money, even though the government had said they would reimburse them for the services they had provided to the asylum seekers. I don't believe that actually happened.
The reality of this situation may well repeat itself in this second Trump administration. The question then is this: What have we learned from the first round, and what did the government do in preparing itself for this situation? Instead of taking a humanitarian approach, what I saw, of course, is that the government secretly negotiated an agreement, the Safe Third Country Agreement, with the Biden administration.
There were many occasions when questions were asked at this committee, when the minister showed up and committee members asked the then minister what was happening and what plans they had in place. They kept saying that there was nothing happening, that there were no negotiations and so on and so forth. Behind the scenes, of course, they were doing intense negotiations. We saw that when Biden came to Canada. Then, on that day, out of the blue, the government announced what they had secretly negotiated.
Canadians were kept in the dark the entire time. Members of Parliament were kept in the dark the entire time. There was zero inkling as to what the government was planning on doing. What we now know, of course, is that the government, in many ways I would say, built an invisible wall. It was not the wall that Trump talked about in terms of bricks and mortar, but rather an invisible wall by extending the Safe Third Country Agreement to the entire border, and then some. That's what we ended up seeing. They put in provisions that made it even harder for people to get to safety. It pushed them further underground, I think.
Mr. Chair, I know that committee members are asking why I am going on about this. I say all of this because I have to remind committee members that these are real people and real lives. We all have hopes and dreams when we come to Canada. I'm an immigrant. My parents had hopes and dreams for me and my siblings, for sure. We're all human beings. I learned this from the indigenous elders who taught me that we are all connected as one. I'm so grateful for their teachings. They have a phrase for it in their indigenous language, depending on which language they speak. They told me it's n¢ç¢mat t¢ ßx∑q∑el¢w¢n ct—we're all united as one. I hope I pronounced that correctly, but it was to my best ability.
That is the essence of it. That's why I'm going on about it, because it isn't just out of sight, out of mind. As well, we should not just look inwardly, just for ourselves. We have to look outwardly too and know that we're all part of the human race.
I often try to understand the situation, and in that process ask myself what I would do. I try to put myself in their situation and try to imagine what it would be like and what they would hope for, as a means to better understand this and to motivate myself to do the right thing, as a policy-maker, a legislator, a parliamentarian. I've had the privilege of doing this for over 30 years now in different capacities, at different levels of government.
As part of that process, I try to picture myself in someone else's shoes—not that I could ever fully understand it, as I'm not there to fully experience it. I do my best to try to understand it. I talk with them, so that I can hear their stories and they can share in their own words their experiences and thoughts with me. It's so that I can better articulate that and use this platform to emphasize and elevate their voices.
That's really what I think my job is, in many instances. It's to elevate their voices. It's to use this platform to give voice to them, so that they could be heard. It's with the hope that they could be heard. It's with the hope that we can work across parties collaboratively to find a path forward in the interest of humanity.
That's what I keep coming back to. There really isn't much about life in general really, with the exception of our own humanity and how we receive, respect and honour it.
I use that as a guide for me to do my work, especially in this portfolio, because that's what we're talking about. It's about people who don't enjoy the freedoms that I enjoy and who don't enjoy the privileges that I enjoy. It's those who don't enjoy safety. A very basic thing for us is to feel secure and whole and to have that safety and protection in place.
That's what I try to do. That's what I hope we could do. I keep hoping for that, although there are many signs that show me otherwise. Maybe some people don't care anymore.
Maybe that's why people ask, “Why is she going on about this?” I actually do think that at this juncture, we need to be reminded of it. I need to be reminded of it. I try to remind myself of it every day. I think that we need to collectively remind each other of it.
I don't think people want to do this with ill intent. I hope that is not the case, but sometimes I feel sad about approaches that we take because I think that we've lost sight of why we're here and the purpose of it. I think we've lost sight of humanity, Mr. Chair. It makes me sad when I think about that.
On that note, Mr. Chair, I'm going to cede the floor. I have much more to say. I'm interested in voting on the subamendment and seeing where we go with it. I know that there are other members who wish to speak. After that, I would like to get back on the speakers list after the vote on the subamendment, Mr. Chair.
