Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I would request that the honourable member come back to speaking to the amendment.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is relevant because we're talking about border measures. We're talking about implications of potential trafficking issues and of the desperation of people getting to safety. The motion that I was raising ties exactly into that point.

Mr. Chair, if you allow me to finish, then I can actually complete my thought and my comments as they relate to the amendment and to the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Continue, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

To continue, it went on to say in that motion:

and that Canada is not the only country that faces these challenges; that the study include examination of the development and execution of the Government of Canada's special immigration measures to reunite and help bring Canadian Gazan family members to safety, including extended family; that the committee also consider Canada's use of its diplomatic relations to help facilitate the free movement of persons authorized to travel to Canada; that the committee consider testimony from affected families as well as Canadian civil society; that the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship to appear for one hour with departmental officials and that departmental officials appear for one additional hour

There were amendments to this motion as well. The motion then went on to say “that the committee invite other relevant witnesses in accordance with the usual practices of the committee”.

The amendments were to include—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

There is another point of order.

MP Zahid, go ahead.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

We have the amendment proposed by Mr. Chiang to the motion by Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. Is this relevant to that amendment? We need to debate the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

MP Zahid, I'm trying to figure it out.

If she's bringing a motion, there cannot be two motions on the floor. If she's going to come back to the debate and can somehow relate what she's saying to the amendment to the motion, then I have to accept that.

That's when I asked the honourable member to come to the amendment. She said that she's coming back to the amendment. I have given her the opportunity to finish quickly and see if she comes back to the amendment. If she does not, then I will stop her.

MP Kwan, the floor is yours.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

MP Dzerowicz, I'll consider your point of order, but before I consider your point of order, it is already 5:30, so I am going to release the witnesses because it seems this discussion is going forever.

On behalf of the committee members, I would like to thank the witnesses who have come to the committee to share information and help us with this.

Thank you, and you are released.

Now I will entertain a point of order from MP Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that I appreciate the caring comments of my colleague. I just don't know what the relevance is to the motion changes that my colleague has made.

My sense is that she does not support it. I don't know if she is trying to add things to it. I don't think we could consider two motions at the same time. We'll have to just deal with the motion, which is the addition to the current motion at the moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, MP Dzerowicz.

We will go to MP Kwan because she has the floor, and she is not bringing in this as a second motion on the floor. She is speaking to the amendment to the motion.

We have resources until 5:45. If you fellows don't come up with a conclusion before 5:45, then I have to make a decision on my own to either adjourn or suspend the meeting.

I will give the floor to MP Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was saying earlier that I remember very well the situation in the United States when we first saw the Trump administration come into office. It was in January and I was newly elected to the House of Commons. Being the immigration critic for the NDP, I moved an emergency debate in the House of Commons on that situation, which was ultimately granted because of the dire situation there and the discriminatory practices the Trump administration attempted to bring into play to impact the Muslim community, as an example. Their immigration policy, as we saw it play out, was devastating. There is no question about that. People were separated from their loved ones. Children were put in cages, if you can imagine it, Mr. Chair. That kind of approach was taken to impact the lives of people. There were toddlers separated from their parents. I've been informed that there are situations where children have not yet been reunited with their parents. They've actually been lost in the system.

Fast forward to today. What do we have? We have Trump winning the election. We all heard what he said during the campaign period. He said immigrants and migrants are “poisoning the blood of” the United States. I sure hope that's not what we're thinking here in Canada. You can imagine the rhetoric and the toxic description of migrants in the U.S. Trump administration, what that might mean and the implications for people who look like me—immigrants in that country. What will it mean for them?

Of course, they're holding Canada hostage in some way with respect to immigration policies and implications around trade.

However, nowhere in time have I heard anyone on this committee—or the government or the minister—talking about whether or not the United States is a safe country for migrants, despite the changing circumstances in the United States, the record of the previous Trump administration and Trump himself.

That is a real question that should be heard, Mr. Chair.

Has there been a change of chairs?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brad Redekopp]

Wait one moment, Ms. Kwan. I'm just checking with MP Dzerowicz.

Do you have a point of order, or do you just want to be on the speaking list? I want to clarify that.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I want to be on the speaking list.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brad Redekopp]

Okay, you're on the list. That's fine.

Thank you.

Go ahead, MP Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You have to wonder about whether the United States is still a safe third country. You have to ask the question of not only ourselves but the international community as well. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians and we have a responsibility as what I like to think of as a country that is compassionate and a country that puts the lives of people and the human rights of people ahead of all else, and not just for cheap politics or for political gain. All too often I feel like what goes on around this table and what goes on around the theatrics of Parliament and parliamentarians is simply about the politics of things.

Stripping down all of those pieces, we have to see the faces behind these policies. Why else are we here? I hope we're here because we want to actually create a better world. I hope we are here because Canada has a role to play in the face of this kind of regression and attack on the migrant and immigrant community.

Canada relied on the immigrant community to create and build this country. I still recall learning from the history books about the contributions of the Chinese migrant workers. We were brought here to Canada not because we were wanted but because we were a source of cheap labour. We were brought into this country to build the railway to connect the west coast with the rest of the country, from coast to coast to coast. The Chinese migrant workers were brought in to do the most dangerous jobs. They were paid the least amount of money, and they faced discrimination, and many of them died in that process.

Where are we today? We say we recognize history, and we apologize for the horrific treatment and discriminatory practices of the past, yet we perpetuate the situation. We allow for it to continue. In many ways, one might actually say that today's immigration stream, particularly with the low-wage stream with a closed work permit, is a modern-day program of the past with regard to how people are being treated. We have to live through it over and over again. Here we are once again. It's as though time has stood still and we have learned nothing.

In terms of the current situation with the United States, I think we can all anticipate what might be coming in the sense that people in the United States might have fear in their hearts. Whether you were a migrant or a person with or without status, can you imagine being told by the president-elect that you were the poison of that country? How would that make a person feel? Would you feel like you belonged in that country? I would think not. I would think that the government of the day was sending a clear message that migrants and immigrants are not welcome.

In fact, I think they are denigrating the people and their contributions to the United States, and some people might feel like they don't belong and they might need to leave.

On that question, isn't there a real question about whether the United States is a safe third country? Isn't that a real question not just for Canada to consider but, rather, for the international community to consider? I would even venture to say that the UNHCR needs to be considering that as well.

The United States, with its approach, is not a particularly safe country at this juncture. It's not safe for migrants, immigrants or newcomers. They're told they don't belong. They're told they're “poisoning” the bloodstream of Americans. Can you imagine that?

That's not too dissimilar in some ways, though, from the kind of message the Canadian government is sending and what the Prime Minister is saying. The government has put out ads to tell asylum seekers about the application process to seek asylum. I don't necessarily think the intention behind them is to inform people what the approach ought to be; rather, it is to scare people away from making an asylum claim. That's what I think is going on.

In some ways, Canada has picked up the narrative and mentality that the United States and the Trump administration are bringing forward. To me, that's just absolutely devastating. I never thought I would live to see that day here in Canada. I didn't.

I never thought I would hear the Prime Minister say that migrant workers and immigrants are a tap that should be turned off, as though we're some sort of weirdos who don't belong in this country, don't contribute to Canadian society and are somehow just an economic unit. We're not real people with real lives and real families, who have made Canada their home and contributed to building this country. That is the mentality that's forthcoming.

I have experienced lots of discrimination in my life. I always thought it would stop with my generation. My grandparents experienced it. People pushed them off the bus. My granddad, who has passed now, used to tell me these stories of what he had experienced. My parents experienced it. I've experienced it.

I never thought my children would experience it, but yes, they did. My daughter, just coming out of COVID, who was on the way to school on a bus, was spat on and racial slurs were yelled at her. She was 18 years old. I desperately do not want to see this happen—not here in Canada, not in my family and not for anyone else.

Often in this House, we get together and say we will not stand for hate, we will not stand for discrimination and we will fight against them. Where is that courage now, Mr. Chair?

When we see the president-elect of the United States during the campaign calling immigrants and migrants the poison of the United States bloodstream, do we think that is acceptable? Do we not think that perpetuates hate?

Now what are we talking about around this table? We're talking about how to secure a border against people who are not wanted and who are mistreated in that way. We're talking about building a wall. It's not dissimilar to the physical wall the Trump administration of the first term wanted to build. Canada built an invisible wall with the safe third country agreement by extending it further and further—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I'm sorry to interrupt, MP Kwan. We'll come back to this.

The meeting is suspended for now.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:45 p.m., Monday, December 2]

[The meeting resumed at 11:09 a.m., Thursday, December 5]

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brad Redekopp]

I call this meeting to order. We are meeting in public. This is a continuation of meeting number 119 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. I'd like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Whether participating in person or via Zoom, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

We're discussing MP Chiang's amendment to MP Brunelle-Duceppe's motion. At the time of the suspension on Monday, MP Kwan had the floor. The following members are on the list to debate the amendment after MP Kwan: MP Dzerowicz or Madam Kayabaga and Mr. Kmiec.

MP Kwan, the floor is yours.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We're resuming debate on this motion, and the motion, of course, is to talk about the situation or the anticipated situation with the United States, with the Trump administration being elected for the second time.

Last time in my comments at the committee, I was talking about the implications of what we experienced in the first Trump administration. You will recall that Canadians were deeply concerned and dismayed about Trump's appalling immigration ban in his first administration. I share those concerns, and I strongly believe that a travel ban against individuals based upon race, religion or country of birth implemented by our closest neighbour cannot be tolerated by Canada. This deeply misguided policy not only sent a chill of intolerance around the world, but I think it emboldened racist sentiments and contributed to unleashing overt acts of racism.

In fact, I witnessed some of those and experienced some of those. In my 30-plus years in elected office, I've always experienced racism. I've had horrible messages, hateful messages, sent to me, and a lot of the time they were sent anonymously. However, after the Trump administration was elected, I was attending a rally in my riding to celebrate, actually, the international day for the elimination of racism. A large group of us—families, children, elderly people—were marching up to Victory Square. I was getting ready to speak at the event and to hear the speakers. There were people who had experienced racism, particularly the elderly, the Japanese Canadian community, who had experienced horrific Canadian policies which separated them from their family members and actually caused them to lose their property. In Vancouver, they were housed at the PNE, where the stables are, where the cattle and horses were kept. In any event, we were all there to celebrate the international day for the elimination of racism.

As we gathered, there were these white supremacists who appeared around us. You could see them—the Proud Boys, amongst others—all circle around us. Things were getting intense. I was about to be invited up to speak, and the organizer of the event got so worried that he came to me and asked whether or not we should end the event then. I said that we should not because that was exactly their goal: to silence us and stop us from speaking up and speaking out for equality and against discrimination, hate and race supremacy.

I got up on the stage, and what did they do? They threw a smoke bomb into the crowd. There was a giant purple haze in the area. That's what happened. To disrupt the event was their intention. It was to get me off the stage, I suppose, to send me a message perhaps. I don't know. Even in spite of that, we persisted. The police were there. I wasn't going to be shut down by people who were full of hate and who wanted to spread their racism and discrimination and who wanted to attempt to intimidate, threaten and silence us.

I carried on, and we finished our event. In the meantime, the organizers had to phone for backup, if you will, because we were quite worried about the people who were there. The children at that point were crying. Seniors were crying. People were clearly shaken up.

We had to call for backup to make sure that they were assisted, as they made their way back to their car, to the bus station or to the SkyTrain station to go home. That was what happened after the Trump administration's travel ban and hateful immigration policies were announced. I experienced first-hand that emboldening of racism by white supremacists in the community.

I've always been proud of the fact that Canada has always been a shelter for those who need it. During that unprecedented time, Canada stood strong on that. I still recall the Prime Minister sending a clear message.

Now, I don't agree with the Liberals a lot of the time, but at that moment, he sent a clear message to say, “Canada welcomes you.” I take that to mean we are a country that will not discriminate, a country that will welcome everyone and a country that recognizes the contributions of the multicultural community, the ethnic community, migrants, immigrants, international students and newcomers. We say the colour of your skin doesn't matter; we all belong.

Despite Canada's very checkered history and some very dark history of racism and discriminatory laws, like the one that, for example, imposed a head tax on the Chinese community after the railway was built, when lives were lost and cheap labour was had. When the project was done, Canada tried to do everything to get rid of us, including putting a head tax in place.

There's been some very dark history in Canada, but in spite of all of that, at that moment, I thought it was an important message to send. It was critically important that we establish a clear path for Canada to step in and do our part.

I believe that all committee members are well aware of that situation. We all experienced it. We all saw it. People were risking life and limb to come to Canada. Why? It's simply that they did not feel that the U.S. was a safe country for them.

When you have a president—at that time, it was Trump—basically telling you that certain races are going to be banned from coming to Canada and they don't want you there, you get a clear message. If that hatred washed over to Canada, where I experienced first-hand the discriminatory sentiments that were hurled at me, you can imagine what it was like for people in the United States at that time.

On January 11, 2017, Canadians saw stories about Seidu Mohammed, who at the time was a 24-year-old refugee who nearly died making the dangerous journey from the United States to Canada, crossing into Manitoba on Christmas Eve. You can imagine it. Right now, it's not quite Christmas. It's early December. Here in Ottawa, I must say that this year, the cold weather has come late. I believe yesterday was the first snow day here in Ottawa, which makes me worry about climate change. That said, you can feel the chill in the air in Manitoba.

I went to Manitoba with my colleague Leah Gazan. We held a press conference at that very border where Seidu Mohammed crossed over. Oh my God, it was cold that day. The wind was howling. We were standing out there. I was so cold that my face felt frozen and I felt like I couldn't speak. Why were we gathered there? We were gathered there to talk about the safe third country agreement and the implications of what the Canadian government was doing at that time with the changes to it.

Mr. Chair, you're doing some hand signalling. I'm not quite sure what's happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

It's not for you. I was talking to Mr. McLean.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm sorry. I thought you were signalling something to me.

In any event, we were gathered there to talk about that with Mr. Seidu Mohammed, who shared his experience with us to highlight the dangerous, perilous journey he had to take and what it means, when Canada takes these actions, for the lives of people who are being persecuted.

By way of background, Mr. Mohammed was born in Ghana. He fled, hoping to rebuild his life in the United States out of fear for his life due to his sexual orientation. I know that the committee members would be aware of this. This was major news in the community. The media did cover this story extensively.

Mr. Mohammed is gay. We know that homosexuality is illegal in Ghana. It is punished under a section of their criminal code entitled “Unnatural Carnal Knowledge”. A 2012 U.S. State Department human rights report also pointed to widespread discrimination, police harassment and extortion attempts, citing several instances of violent mob-style assaults being carried out against suspected homosexuals.

Seidu Mohammed made an asylum claim in the United States after arriving in San Diego in 2015. He then spent a year in a detention centre. While in detention, he did not have access to legal counsel. He lacked the freedom to gather materials to support his case. As a Harvard report stated, which I'll speak to later today, this is all too common.

Ultimately, his claim was rejected. He felt that he had no choice: He headed north. He met another man from Ghana in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, area. The men took a bus from there to Grand Forks, North Dakota, and then took a $400 cab ride to the spot near the border.

The men then embarked on the most dangerous part of their journey. They walked for at least seven hours, at times through waist-deep snow, in -18°C weather, trying to cross into Canada. Of course, they were poorly equipped for the conditions. They tried to hitchhike for hours to see if they could get some assistance. This failed. They were stuck in the snow, you see. It was so cold that their pants were frozen, stuck in the snow. In fact, part of his pants were pulled off. He tried to actually take off his pants to see if he could move forward. He couldn't. He was frozen. He was stuck in the snow. Can you imagine?

He told me that at that point, he thought he was going to die. He thought he was going to die. They tried to get attention from people, but to no avail. Luckily, a truck drove along that way. The driver saw the two men stuck in the snow and stopped. He called 911 and help did come.

Mr. Mohammed did not lose his life that day, but he ended up losing all the digits of both hands. His fingers and his thumb had to be amputated as a result of the extreme frostbite he suffered trying to cross the border. Despite that, he said the journey was worth it.

We should also put this into context. Mr. Mohammed is an athlete. He's a soccer player. We can imagine how important his physicality is for him in terms of that sport.

That said, to save his life, he lost the digits of his fingers on both hands, and he said that the journey was worth it. He also said that he was happy to be here—here meaning Canada—because he knew that to go back to his country, to Ghana, would mean that he would lose his life.

That was one story, but that's not the only story about people fleeing persecution because the United States is not a safe country for them. I don't know if we can understand that. I have never experienced it myself, to be persecuted in that way. I don't know what it is like to fear for your life, for being who you are, for loving the people you love. To be so desperate as to take on such a dangerous journey, that's the state people were in. That's the state Mr. Mohammed was in.

By the way, Mr. Chair, I invited Mr. Mohammed to this committee when we studied the Safe Third Country Agreement, and he offered his perspective. Afterwards, I was outside, and I recorded his story, if nothing else, just to remind myself how important this work is and what it really means to hear from someone who directly experienced that. Although he gave me permission, I never put that video on the public record.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

On a point of order, Chair, I believe the bells are going for votes, and you don't have consent to continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That's what I was trying to figure out.

Is there unanimous consent to carry on?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

No.