Debates of April 24th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Illegal Border Crossings

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the IRB, we made that initial investment of $74 million for faster processing of refugee claims. We feel that this is an important investment, because when refugees claimants have a legitimate claim for refugee protection, the faster they can get the decision, the faster and better it is for them not to have their lives in limbo. They can integrate faster into the community and move on with their lives. For those who do not have legitimate claims for asylum, they can be removed from Canada faster, which is something we would like to do.

In addition to that, the hon. member should know that the IRB, prior to this investment, achieved productivity growth of 40% in its ability to finalize cases. That is very encouraging news, and it shows that the IRB's efforts to find efficiencies to improve processing internally, before we even made the budget investment, were working and are working. We have an independent review of the IRB, which was launched by our government. That report is coming soon. We will see what further recommendations are contained in the report so we can see what additional resources the IRB may require in addition to the internal efficiencies it was able to achieve.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to visit Lacolle and to speak to the men and women who serve in the Canada Border Services Agency, in immigration, and with the RCMP. They do a remarkable job every single day not only keeping our borders safe but making sure that we are fair and that we uphold Canadian values. I had an opportunity to speak with the people who live on the border and to local officials, either municipal or local leaders, about their experience of what is happening in Lacolle, how we can do better, and what we are doing right.

First let us be very clear about the process. Canada is a signatory to the UN convention that guarantees that when people land on our soil, we will ensure the veracity of their refugee claims. That is something that should be baked into the DNA of our country because of the experience globally of people arriving in another country's land when their lives are in peril, when they are the most vulnerable people in the world. We have an obligation to ensure the veracity of those claims. If those claims are not valid, if they are economic migrants or their lives will not be in peril as a result of being sent back to their countries of origin, then obviously they are going to be turned away. There are no free tickets.

The idea that we not attest to the veracity of a claim is abhorrent and frankly is an aberration of all-party consensus that has existed on this issue for a great length of time, because while Canada has done great and proud things when it comes to refugees and people who have landed on our shores, so too have we made mistakes. While we have done well dealing with situations like the Vietnamese boat people, or the Congo, or Sri Lanka, or most recently Syria, there have been other examples, such as Jewish individuals who were sent away.

We have to separate those two things. It seems that the picture being painted by the Conservatives is that people walk onto Canadian soil and somehow evade the rest of the system. There is even talk that it is going to slow down the rest of the system, when across the board, as the immigration minister was just saying, we have reduced wait times. The result of the investments we have made to make sure that we are able to process those volumes were seen first-hand in Lacolle.

We can go in and target the communities that are coming in large numbers. Last year we saw a huge number of Haitians. This year it is a large number of individuals from Nigeria. We are looking at the specific reasons that large migrations of people from those communities are happening and specifically target them, because frankly, it is an enormous waste of their time and our resources to just send them back.

When we look at some of the proposals from the Conservatives as alternatives to how we are dealing with this issue, they makes no sense.

The number of migrants who come across our border, the number of refugee and asylum claimants in any given year, varies greatly from year to year. We have fluctuations. In different periods in the 2000s, it was very high. At some points it was even higher than it is now, and we have had years that were lighter.

The MP for Beauce suggested that we militarize the border. It makes no sense, and I do not see how it would in any way improve the situation. Cutting transit funding for municipalities to try to help asylum seekers makes absolutely no sense. Maybe the one that makes the least sense of all of them is the MP for Calgary Nose Hill's suggestion to declare the entire border a port of entry. The only way that could be effective is if across thousand and thousands of kilometres of our border, we had border agents standing shoulder to shoulder effectively turning people back. The effect of that would be that some of the most vulnerable people would be pushed into even more vulnerable, dangerous circumstances.

If we have any doubt about that, we only need to look at the actions taken on the American border. When the Americans created a situation where it was harder and harder to cross, we saw a spike in deaths. There were perhaps 10,000 deaths. They have an enormous problem.

The solution is not pushing people deep into forests and crossing lakes in the middle of the night with children. If that is the suggestion of the Conservatives, it is one I wholeheartedly reject.

When they talk about a hole in our system, the hole that was cut into the Canadian fabric was the $390 million the Conservative cut from the Canada Border Services Agency. It was the cut they made to the IRB and the cuts they made to immigration. The hole the Conservatives talk about was when they said that they were going to deny refugees health care. The hole cut in our fabric was when we all watched the crisis unfolding in Syria and we saw absolutely no action from the previous government, a complete departure from the historical norms of what our country would do.

We have more than doubled the number of refugees we have taken into this country. We have more than quadrupled the number of private sponsorships. That is because we understand that we have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable people. When people think of Canada, they see us as a nation that ensures that we protect and assist those people who are most in need. The reality is that most of those people crossing at Lacolle do not fit into that category, and where they do not, they are turned back.

What we need to be doing is dispensing information, collaboratively, in a bipartisan way, to help folks understand that the futile journey is not going to work for them and that there is a process that exists to make an application. That is something we should be doing together.

While there is no magic solution, we know that the answer lies in working within the context of the existing process. Personally, I think this is an issue that deserves a lot more than talking points. There is no question that when people see people crossing the border, they become concerned about the abuse of process and how it might work. Distorting the facts and trying to propagate false information about what that system is, how it works, and how different categories of refugees or different categories of immigrants are moved through different processes creates confusion that can be exploited politically. This is far too important for that. Making sure that we do the right thing to protect the world's most vulnerable people, making sure that we do the right thing to uphold the international conventions we have signed, and making sure that we turn back those individuals who do not have legitimate claims should be goals we all share.

Solutions that are fantastical and that members absolutely must know would not work in any practical sense must be rejected. On that basis, I find it unfortunate that this motion is in front of us, but I also find it fortunate, because it gives us a chance to illuminate the facts.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member outlined the government's position on this issue. If he does not agree with the member for Calgary Nose Hill's suggestion that the government work with the United States to amend the safe third party agreement to declare the entire 9,000 kilometre border a port of entry, why does the government not simply declare Lacolle, Quebec, where he has visited and talked to local officials, a port of entry? If people are coming through that point irregularly, why not just declare that point, and other points in the country where people are coming through, ports of entry so that these persons will be treated the same as every other person who tries to enter Canada through an official port of entry?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. However, my concern is based on international experience on this issue. If we were to turn Lacolle into a legal port of entry, then, very simply, they would go elsewhere. These are people who are seeking to cross irregularly. They are seeking to evade the current system.

I would bring this back to an example in the United States. In the United States in El Paso, when the decision was to effectively create a blockage on the entire border and border agents were literally lined up for miles and miles in every direction to block people, what ended up happening was that those migrants moved into the desert. The U.S. still has the same movement of migrants and has not fixed the problem at all. In fact, the number of illegal migrants is just as large, but the difference is that about 10,000 migrants have died in the desert. They had simply been forced into more dangerous, more vulnerable positions where women and children were dying in dangerous places.

Canada is no different, in the sense that we have a very formidable wilderness. What we need to do instead is get into the places where misinformation is being disseminated in these communities to stop them from making this futile journey, because if their claim is not legitimate, they will be turned back. Second, we need to work with our American counterparts to ensure that people who are coming into the United States are not just coming with the intention of trying to jump to Canada. Obviously, that is something that we are working on with the United States as well.

It is a complicated situation, but there is firm international evidence that if we take inappropriate action, it will lead to a continuation of the problem and loss of life.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which really focused on the region of Lacolle, where migrants are entering Canada through Roxham Road. Lacolle is located in my riding. Its residents have come together on multiple occasions to ask questions, find out just what was happening, and learn about the safe third country agreement. We know that this situation stems from the immigration orders signed by Mr. Trump south of the border. Another wave of migrants may be on the way, because many have temporary permits that are going to be revoked or simply not renewed.

As a result, many members of immigrant groups who are in the United States want to come to Canada irregularly. That is not a crime, as my colleague says. This is why groups like Amnesty International, local organizations like Bridges Not Borders, and 200 law professors are calling for the safe third country agreement to be suspended, as the NDP has been demanding for the past year and a half.

Furthermore, my colleague has repeatedly said that everything is fine and dandy and that services are working well. However, it can take over 20 months for an application to be processed, and there is a backlog of 46,000 claims at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Obviously, everything is not fine and dandy. We need a structured plan. We need investments to be made in the right places, investments in border services officers and in the board, for example. I hope the government has a response for this, because otherwise the problem will only get worse.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned Lacolle because I recently visited the area. The situation is exactly the same across Canada and at the borders. Clearly, the situation is definitely not perfect. We have to continue working on this issue and making investments. That is why we are allocating almost $200,000. I hope that we will be working with the member on this issue.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for 15 months now I have been raising the issue around irregular border crossings in this House, at committee, and in the public. As members may remember, it started with your granting my request for an emergency debate on this very subject in January 2017.

Since that time, we have seen the influx in irregular border crossings and asylum claims. Back on April 10, 2017, at the immigration and citizenship committee, I moved a motion for the committee to study the issue of irregular crossings. Unfortunately, the Liberal members of the committee saw fit to adjourn debate on my motion repeatedly. Not only did they want to study the issue: they refused to even have a debate on the need to study the situation.

Fast-forward to April 17, 2018. I once again tried to advance the need to study the issue at committee. Again I was impeded from doing so. It was not until last Tuesday that I was able, despite attempts to shut me down, to make mention of a motion I would like to see pass at committee. That motion was for the committee to look at the impact of the increase in asylum claims on the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, the provinces, and the NGOs that provide settlement services in areas where these crossings are more frequent, and for the study to hear from both the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Note that my motion to study the issue differs from that of the Conservatives. It does not aim to misrepresent a situation, create fear, or further inflame anti-refugee sentiments. Since the Trump administration took office, I have called for the Canadian government to condemn Trump's discriminatory anti-immigrant policies and to work with the international community to devise a plan to address the fact that we now have a powerful leader in the free world—our next-door neighbour, no less—openly targeting the immigrant and refugee community, striking fear in their hearts and minds, and creating an unstable environment for their well-being.

It is truly a shame that many developed nations, including the United States, have seen a significant rise in anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric and policy implementation. As a result, despite an unprecedented need for refugee resettlement, many of the world's wealthiest nations are turning their backs on people in desperate need.

I am proud to say that Canadians have gone against this trend, but their compassion and humanitarianism cannot be taken for granted. That is why I first brought this issue up in this place over a year ago. We must ensure the integrity of our system is world class and that Canadians trust it. That is why provinces must not be left to fend for themselves.

In 2017, we saw 20,593 individuals make an inland asylum claim through an irregular crossing and 22,140 individuals make an asylum claim through a regular border crossing. That is a total of 42,733. In 2018, so far we have seen 6,373 irregular crossings. The vast majority of them—5,609, to be exact—crossed over in Quebec. Even though about 40% of them say that they are planning to settle elsewhere in Canada, there is no denying the impact is significant for the province to manage. That is why we need to have leadership from the federal government.

Globally, the United Nations estimates there are over 65 million people forcibly displaced. Of those, 22.5 million are refugees and 50% of the refugees are under the age of 18. These levels are unprecedented. To put everything into perspective Canada's resettlement effort contributions to the global stage, including the Syrian refugee initiative, is only 0.1%. Before anyone jumps up and down and shouts for us to close the borders, we should keep these figures in mind.

That does not mean to say that Canada should not seriously study the issue and devise a plan. The New Democrats have been calling on the Liberals to develop a comprehensive, durable solution that will protect the rights of asylum seekers, maintain the integrity of our system, and ensure this influx does not result in a strain on border communities. I am sad to say that instead of a proactive approach, the Liberals have resorted to a reactionary approach, taking action only when absolutely forced to. This failure to lead is giving oxygen to those who want to misrepresent and fan the fears of division. In fact, the Conservatives' motion before us today positions themselves as champions for exactly that kind of an approach.

To be clear, I support the call for a study, but the deliberate words chosen to misrepresent the situation in the Conservatives' motion is not an approach I support. At the right time, I will move an amendment to the motion, but before I do that, let us fully examine the Conservative motion.

First, on the use of the word “illegal” in the motion, there is no question the Conservatives are intentionally labelling irregular crossings as “illegal” crossings. That is plain wrong. To be clear, asylum seekers crossing at unofficial border crossing are making irregular crossings, not illegal crossings. Crossing the border at a point not designated as a port of entry is not an offence under the Criminal Code. On the contrary, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states specifically in section 133 that:

A person who has claimed refugee protection, and who came to Canada directly or indirectly from the country in respect of which the claim is made, may not be charged with an offence under section 122, paragraph 124(1)(a) or section 127 of this Act or under section 57, paragraph 340(c) or section 354, 366, 368, 374 or 403 of the Criminal Code...

The regulations for the act also state in subsection 27(2):

...a person who seeks to enter Canada at a place other than a port of entry must appear without delay for examination at the port of entry that is nearest to that place.

That is exactly what is happening.

Just so everyone is clear on the process, after crossing irregularly, individuals are taken into custody. They are questioned, and their identity is checked. Once cleared by the RCMP, they are handed over to the CBSA for processing. They are interviewed about their personal history and how they got to Canada. They are fingerprinted, photographed, and asked to fill out paperwork. A background check is done. If the person is deemed admissible, their case is transferred to the IRB to adjudicate their refugee claim. No one is jumping the queue, and individuals found not to have met what is prescribed to be a refugee under Canadian law, his or her claim would be rejected by the IRB. That is how the system works and how it should work. These asylum seekers are following Canadian law.

I was deeply troubled by how quickly the Minister of Immigration capitulated to aggressive questioning from the Conservatives at committee on March 19 about the use of the word “illegal” to describe irregular crossings. In fact, he said he was “happy” to use that term. It is as if the Minister of Immigration is ignorant of sections 117 and 133 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He is the minister responsible for the act. If the issues were not so serious, it would make a good joke.

Second, the motion raises the issue of gaps in screening. The way in which the motion is worded, one would think every irregular border crosser has failed the security screening. To be clear, with the influx in irregular crossings, the government should address gaps in screening where they may exist. However, we should take care not to smear all asylum seekers with the same brush.

Currently only 1% of all asylum seekers, regular and irregular, are detained for security reasons. Officials will use extensive information-sharing with allies around the world to determine an individual's admissibility to Canada. Individuals could be inadmissible for security reasons if they had committed serious crimes, or for other financial or health reasons. People who are deemed inadmissible must leave Canada and may be detained pending removal. That is the current process. Everything is done by the book. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Third, on the point of the Prime Minister's #WelcomeToCanada tweet, when I saw that, I was proud to be a Canadian. The issue here is not the sentiment behind the tweet, but the fact that the Prime Minister's rhetoric does not match his actions.

The Liberals have failed to ensure adequate resources are provided to the provinces and agencies working on the ground to deal with the influx of irregular crossings. In fact, the federal government provides no resources to NGOs in support of inland refugee claimants. Provinces and agencies should not be abandoned by the federal government when it comes to inland asylum seekers. The federal government needs to take a leadership role and be a true partner with them.

The NDP is therefore calling for the government to match its words with action. Let us talk the talk and walk the walk. The vast majority of Canadians take pride in Canada's compassionate stance in welcoming refugees to Canada. We saw that through the Syrian refugee initiative, when Canadians overwhelmingly stepped up to volunteer and to privately sponsor refugees to Canada. Even today, Canadians continue to call on the government to lift the cap on the privately sponsored refugees to Canada. The failure of the Liberals to match actions with words will only give oxygen to those who want to instill division and fear in the hearts and minds of Canadians. This needs to stop.

Fourth, the Conservatives suggest that this is somehow a loophole in the safe third country agreement. They are wrong. The Conservatives are taking a page out of the Trump discriminatory anti-refugee rhetoric by advocating for Canada to apply the safe third country agreement to the entire border, thereby effectively erecting an invisible wall on Canada's border. At a time when there is an unprecedented number of people in the world who have been forcibly displaced, Canada must continue to do its part.

To put things into perspective, even with the Syrian refugee initiative, Canada's resettlement effort to this global crisis is only 0.1% of the total need. Instead of pandering to the alt-right, the Liberals need to stand strong and reaffirm that Canada is a fair and compassionate country that respects and celebrates our diversity. Canada can afford to continue to be a beacon of hope on the international stage.

For those who are wondering where the money will come from, if Canada closes the stock option loopholes for the ultra-rich and shuts down access to tax havens, we can reinvest those lost revenues to the most vulnerable. To show leadership, the Liberals should not allow this hateful and divisive approach of pitting the vulnerable against the vulnerable to win the day. Canada needs to show leadership and live up to its obligations under the international law as signatories to the 1951 UN refugee convention and its 1967 protocol.

When the Prime Minister on November 23 took a dramatic departure from his original #WelcomeToCanada tweet and started to parrot anti-refugee rhetoric by stating, “Would-be Canadians need more than just a desire for a better economic future if they expect to be granted refugee status in this country”, I was truly ashamed. By insinuating that refugees are trying to cheat the system and jumping the queue is the textbook far-right anti-refugee rhetoric and a level that I did not expect the Prime Minister would stoop too.

If the Prime Minister can reduce himself to that level of rhetoric, no wonder the Conservatives are now suggesting that we close our border to irregular crossings with an invisible wall by declaring the entire border an authorized port of entry. No doubt the Conservatives are inspired by the Trump's overblown obsession to build a wall.

When the Conservatives suggest that irregular border crossings are a loophole in the safe third country agreement, they are deliberating misleading Canadians. Sections 117 and 133 of IRPA clearly show that assertion is false.

The New Democrats and experts agree that the problem on orderly crossings is the safe third country agreement. For over a year now, I have been calling on the government to invoke article 10 of the safe third country agreement and to provide written notice to the United States that we are suspending the agreement.

If the safe third country agreement is suspended, asylum seekers can make safe, orderly crossings at designated ports of entry. This will protect the rights of the asylum seekers, provide safety and stability to Canada's border communities most impacted by this influx, and allow for the government agencies, such as the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, and the IRB, to strategically deploy personnel and resources necessary to establish border infrastructure instead of this ad hoc approach. This is the rational, reasonable response to this situation.

Furthermore, immigration is in the federal jurisdiction. The federal government has a responsibility to provide leadership on this issue, and to ensure that the situation does not negatively impact provincial governments and services.

Quebec has seen the overwhelming majority of irregular border crossings. The situation is having an impact on its budgets and service provision. That is not right. When the Quebec government reached out for assistance, the Minister of Immigration opted to chastise it instead. That is not acceptable.

In addition to suspending the safe third country agreement, the NDP has long been calling on the government to provide the needed resources to provincial governments impacted, government agencies, such as the CBSA, RCMP, IRCC, and IRB, and resettlement agencies on the ground.

It is unacceptable to pit vulnerable groups against vulnerable groups and to allow for an asylum claim influx to negatively impact Canadians' access to vital social and health services. Quebec should not have to fight the federal government for resources it needs to help with the influx. Its request should have been met immediately.

Aside from the support for the provinces, the government also needs to show leadership and ensure that the IRB has the appropriate resources.

I wholeheartedly agree that the government has mishandled the situation, but I cannot support this motion. The Liberals are ignoring the situation and the Conservatives are engaging in fearmongering hyperbole to stoke anti-refugee sentiment. Neither party is approaching this situation responsibly. Suspending the safe third country agreement is the way to go forward.

At this point, I would like to move an amendment to the motion: That the motion be amended by: (a) replacing the words “crisis created by the influx of thousands of illegal border crossers travelling across our southern border between ports of entry, that the agencies responsible for dealing with this crisis have found gaps in security screening for newly arrived refugee claimants,” with the words “situation created by the influx of thousands of irregular border crossers travelling across our southern border between ports of entry, that the agencies responsible for dealing with this influx should address gaps in screening where they may be found”; (b) replacing the words “irresponsibility of tweeting #WelcometoCanada to those seeking to enter Canada through illegal means” with the words “irresponsibility of tweeting #WelcometoCanada to those seeking to enter Canada through irregular means without following rhetoric with action to maintain the integrity of Canada's asylum system;” and (c) deleting all of the words in subparagraph (d)(i), and substituting the following: “address the influx of people irregularly entering Canada from the United States, through the suspension of the safe third country agreement.”

I hope my amendment will be accepted so that we can have a rational debate about the impact of irregular crossings without fearmongering and determine what actions should be taken to address the issues without violating Canada's international commitments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill if she consents to this amendment being moved.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

As there is no consent, pursuant to Standing Order 85 the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians would agree that this government in particular has improved our country. We have demonstrated that we are open and welcoming to those in need of protection.

I cannot help but think we have it right when the Conservatives accuse us of not doing enough with respect to security and the NDP accuse us of not doing enough with respect to affording those protections to people who are in need of it.

I take issue particularly with the comment that was made by my colleague from the NDP when she said that this government was demonstrating what it was willing to do in a reactionary measure. The reality of the situation is that we have invested $173 million to strengthen security operations. We have worked with provinces and territories to develop operational plans. We have extensive outreach into potential migrant communities. We have expanded the processing capacity in Montreal. We are continuously working with our U.S. colleagues on how we can ensure this happens in a proper fashion and everything is dealt with appropriately.

How can that member say we are reacting instead of proactively taking measures, which we are doing? I have illustrated a few of the ways we are doing that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the Liberals always say they are adopting the right decisions because the Conservatives are leaning to the far right and the NDP is going too far left when we put forward reasonable suggestions and solutions to an issue.

The reality is that when people are forced to cross our border through irregular crossings, they are risking life and limb. When they are being forced to do that, they are putting border communities under enormous pressure and stress. That is exactly what is playing out right now before our very eyes.

We could alleviate that if we stopped forcing people to go through irregular crossings. By suspending the safe third country agreement, we would have orderly crossings through the border. This would alleviate the problems.

The member said that the government was doing everything it could. If it is doing everything it can, then why is the IRB only receiving $74 million in this year's budget? That $74 million will not even address half of the backlog already in the system, in which there are some 46,000 people. At the rate of 2,100 new claims a month, that budget will not address the issue. How will this ensure that the public has confidence in the government to address this issue?

All the government is doing is creating legacy 2.0, an environment where people's lives are stuck in limbo. That is not good for Canada, it is not good for asylum seekers, and we need to fix that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of my colleague's time was spent on talking about how she would suspend the safe third country agreement, which would essentially take away any ability for the CBSA to control our border. She talked about the many millions of extra dollars that she would spend rather than trying to encourage people to enter the country through planned and orderly migration.

The member also used an amendment to talk about the word “illegal” rather than really offering anything substantive to the debate on today's motion.

To a lot of folks across the country, and certainly those in Quebec right now, this is an acute issue. A lot of representation by both the Liberal Party and the NDP has already failed on this matter.

Just to clarify for the people who are watching, what would she do as immigration minister to address this issue?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had actually listened to my speech, she would know that I spent the majority of the time criticizing the Conservatives' motion and stating my reasons that I would not support the motion. The Conservatives' motion is a misrepresentation of the issue and is not helpful to the situation. Frankly, it is not helpful to all of us as Canadians who pride ourselves on the fact that we welcome the vast diversity that makes up Canada's demographics.

In response to my question earlier, the member said that using the word “illegal” versus “irregular” was just semantics. It is not just semantics. As elected officials, we do our jobs by talking, and we need to choose the right words. When we deliberately choose a word that inflames an issue, is not accurate and is factually false, it is not just semantics. The word “illegal” versus “irregular” makes a substantive difference. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, clearly states that there are provisions for people to cross irregularly and that it is not against the Criminal Code.

However, suspending the safe third country agreement would in fact address the issue the member herself indicated is key here, which is orderly crossings. Stop making people cross irregularly, which is creating the disorder that exists today. Let us start with that. Suspend it temporarily and engage with the international community on how to deal with Trump's discriminatory policies that are striking fear in the hearts and minds of the people from America so that we can move forward and provide the level of leadership that is required and which I think people want to see from Canada.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her passionate, fact-based speech.

She stated that the Liberals are not talking about suspending the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement even though that is the main reason why we find ourselves in this situation. With President Trump, immigrants are not welcome in the United States and many orders and agreements concerning temporary permits used by several communities will not be renewed. Quebec is receiving 90% of this irregular immigration. That is why the National Assembly made a unanimous request to the federal government for an additional $146 million to manage the situation by helping organizations that provide services to irregular migrants.

Bridges Not Borders and Amnesty International have organized a number of public meetings in my riding, with a focus on prevention. This is what the government should be doing. Would it be a good idea for the federal government to work on prevention, especially when the majority of migrants who are trying to cross the border irregularly from the United States have documentation, since they have already applied in the United States? These people have already prepared their files and are coming here in good faith with all of the required documentation. They are not trying to enter illegally. Most of these cases are documented.

The government should continue to provide resources to the CBSA, which lost 1,300 officers. The government should also invest in the Immigration and Refugee Board so that it can deal with the backlog and ensure that cases are processed in less than 60 days. There is currently a 20-month wait, which is completely unacceptable.

What does my colleague think about this backlog, in light of the fact that 90% of these migrants are crossing into Quebec?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the irregular crossings in Quebec are impacting the member and her community in a very significant way. The government needs to step up to ensure that the resources are there for all of the agencies, provide them with the kind of support they need, be a true partner with them, and resource them accordingly.

On the question around processing claims, it is absolutely critical that resources be put in place. When the Conservatives were in government, they did not provide adequate resources to the IRB so that these cases could be processed in a timely fashion. When the Liberals came into office, they also did not do that. The sum of $74 million will not do the job. We need to increase the funding if we want to ensure that the integrity of the system is protected.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the very important motion moved by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill.

I want to begin by saying that this is about our country's sovereignty and the control of our borders. Much has been said on the issue. The parties have been throwing around all sorts of ideas, but what is important to me, as the shadow minister for public safety, is that sovereignty and border control be made the top priority.

The Liberal government seems unable to address the crisis created by the influx of thousands of illegal border crossers travelling across our southern border between ports of entry. What is more, the agencies responsible for dealing with this crisis have found gaps in security screening for newly arrived refugee claimants. They have indicated that there is a major backlog in scheduled hearings and in carrying out deportation orders, and that this trend is expected to increase over the summer months.

In our motion, we are calling on the government to ensure that the agencies responsible for our borders are properly equipped so that they can continue to do their jobs effectively and that those arriving at Canadian borders go through the appropriate processes.

We want the government to admit the Prime Minister’s irresponsibility in tweeting #WelcometoCanada to those seeking to enter Canada through illegal means and take responsibility for the massive social services costs burdening the provincial governments. We also want the government to table in the House no later than May 11, 2018, a plan to stop the influx of people illegally entering Canada and take appropriate measures to handle those who have already claimed asylum.

Now that the weather has warmed up, the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, is reporting significantly higher numbers of illegal migrants crossing at non-designated ports of entry, in this case, Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle in Quebec. The number of illegal entries has grown considerably since the Prime Minister's infamous and irresponsible January 2017 tweet in which he told the whole world, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength. #WelcomeToCanada”.

No matter what the Liberals or anyone else says about it, that is at the root of the problem we are discussing today. That extremely unwise and potentially disastrous tweet was heard loud and clear by foreign nationals residing in the United States illegally who know that the U.S. government will take temporary protection status away from hundreds of thousands of them in July 2019. Worse still, the Prime Minister's tweet was heard around the world by people who are not refugees, just people looking for a country where they can make a better life for themselves. CBSA officers told my office that quite a few of the illegal migrants crossing into Quebec at the non-designated port of entry are from Nigeria. As everyone knows, Nigeria is not a poor country. Its GDP is one of the highest in Africa. However, the Liberals want Canadians to believe that all illegal migrants are refugees and that anyone who does not agree with their position is heartless and lacking in compassion. This is really a big problem. With their ideology, the Liberals want everyone to believe that we Conservatives are heartless because we want to protect our border and we want immigrants to come to Canada legally. I would like that to stop. There comes a point when enough is enough.

This crisis is entirely on the Prime Minister. We are talking about the most important elected member, the one with the most power in Canada: the Prime Minister of Canada. This problem is his doing. The Canada Border Services Agency has been swamped by this crisis. To date, more than 20,000 illegal migrants entered Canada through Quebec in 2017. What I am about to say next is important. Border officers are reporting that upper management is pressuring them to drastically reduce security processing. Security processing usually takes eight hours. The process now takes less than two hours.

The Liberal government has been known to give these illegal migrants expedited work permits, health care, and housing services at no cost to them, while those attempting to immigrate to Canada through legal channels have to wait longer and pay immigration fees.

The government has yet to take any steps to stop the influx of these migrants. In 2018, an estimated 400 illegal immigrants will enter Canada daily during the summer at a non-designated point of entry in Quebec. This has already started. Four hundred immigrants a day is 12,000 a month. If we multiply that by the next three or four months when the weather is nice, we get 50,000 immigrants. It adds up quickly.

The $146 million that the federal government owes Quebec for the cost of dealing with illegal migrants in Quebec is nothing compared the anticipated cost in 2018. The Liberals are also guilty of playing with words, since the $85 million that was announced for the Canada Border Services Agency to deal with these new illegal migrants is not even enough to cover overtime pay and other costs related to this crisis.

Meanwhile, the situation at the border is getting increasingly chaotic. It is becoming painfully clear that the safety of Canadians is not a priority for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister needs to understand that Canada's immigration laws were not written and passed by one particular political party. They have been written over a number of years by the Parliament of Canada. This legislation has been introduced by Liberals and Conservatives alike over the years. Immigration procedures in Canada have been administered by all political parties that have been in power for over 150 years.

The same holds true for public safety. Every party that has been in power has worked on developing public safety rules, and we have a duty to enforce them. All of this is in the best interests of Canadians. When they get up in the morning, Canadians need to know that their various governments are there to protect them and ensure that they live in a trouble-free country.

On weekends, when I am out and about in my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, everyone talks to me about the massive fiasco the Prime Minister created with his now infamous tweet. Migrants are flooding into Lacolle, and people are worried, with good reason. I receive a lot of information. I get it from border services officers; they say they want to talk to me but are prohibited from doing so. There are confidentiality issues to consider, of course, but the situation we are in defies belief. These people just want to make sure someone in the opposition knows what is going on. They have tried, in vain, to talk to their bosses and to someone in the government. Border services officers do not feel that the government understands or accepts their concerns.

Officers have a duty to perform. I was in the same situation when I was a soldier. We have an obligation to serve our country as efficiently and professionally as possible. We are sworn to do our duty. The same goes for border services officers and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They are there to enforce the law. When they are asked to do less and to let things slide, they do not understand. It is not in their nature. That is not why they chose this line of work. These people are worried and cannot agree to such a request.

It is still a sensitive subject, but there is one case I could talk about. An officer contacted me and told me that he was baffled, that he was not supposed to be telling me this, but that someone needed to know. I will read out part of what he wrote to me about the migrants coming in right now. On the subject of illegal migrants, the officer wrote:

They land at JFK in New York and head for Roxham Road. Everything is planned in advance. The government says it is monitoring them, but it is not. We are being pressured to minimize detentions. We let in guys from Sudan without a passport, without any ID besides a library card, and they do not get detained. We got a known murderer from Senegal, and we had a really hard time hanging on to him. They want us to exhaust all other options before considering detention...but a murderer?

It is clear that the situation is serious.

Our border services officers question people whose identity is not clear, who have committed crimes in their country, but the government is pushing to not jail them. The government does not want people to say that it is putting people in jail and is asking officers to leave them in the wilderness. Do my colleagues believe that is what Canadians want and that all parties accept this type of situation? I do not think so. Border services officers are getting tired of this.

This is a chaotic situation. Chaos arises when officers are asked to do things that run counter to what they were hired to do and to the pledge they made to serve our country well. On the one hand, the safety of Canadians is at stake. On the other, there is chaos, the cost, and the social impact, especially in Quebec at this time.

What prime minister with a modicum of common sense would allow our border and immigration laws to be flouted by foreigners? Furthermore, what prime minister would allow these abuses to happen and reward them with better service than that actually afforded to genuine immigrants? We often hear about George Soros. Is the Prime Minister really going to swallow what this man says? That is worrisome. Does he not know about the chaos in other countries where lax border policies have left communities in shambles with drastic increases in violence? More importantly, is the Prime Minister imposing his vision of Canada on the Quebec nation?

Quebec signed an immigration agreement with the federal government. By allowing illegal migrants unrestricted access to Quebec communities, the Prime Minister has found a very creative way of undermining Quebec's authority. In other words, the existing immigration agreements between the federal government and the province of Quebec are now void. Actual immigrants and refugees attempting to come to Quebec legally are forced to wait longer because the Prime Minister decided to reward law-breakers first. That is a real shame.

Furthermore, since immigration resources are already stretched so thin, we must consider the other costs for Quebec and the other provinces. The Prime Minister's odd decision to allow illegal immigrants to enter Canada unimpeded puts enormous pressure on provincial social services. Let us be honest. The provinces are responsible for the vast majority of government services provided to newcomers in Canada. Provinces provide income support to newcomers. Food banks, housing, schools, and health care services are all under provincial jurisdiction. As we have seen, Quebec has had a lot to deal with.

Using simple arithmetic, we have a pretty good idea of how much Quebec will have to pay as a result of the Liberal Party's new border policy.

Do my colleagues know that the Prime Minister is setting up a committee to examine the situation and ask illegal immigrants where in Canada they want to live? That is unbelievable. Quebec has said that it has done enough, and rightly so. Rather than resolving the problem and putting a stop to illegal immigration, the Liberals are going to set up a bus stop of sorts, which says “Quebec is full. Where do you want to go? Ontario is this way. Alberta is in the same direction, but a bit farther away.” What is that all about? Is the government saying that people just have to line up and they will be redirected when they arrive in Canada? That will not work. It is unbelievable.

Meanwhile, every week, my colleagues from every party and I are meeting with legal immigrants in our riding offices because they have a problem. Some have been here for three or four years. They submitted their application but, somewhere along the way, one of their documents was lost somewhere in the public service, and they are being threatened with deportation. I am not joking. There are at least 100 immigrants per year in my riding alone who encounter this sort of problem and are constantly worried about being deported because of administrative issues. Meanwhile, illegal immigrants are streaming across our borders and are being directed to different areas of Canada. What is more, the provinces are required to give them money and everything they need.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, an NDP colleague disagrees with what I am saying. She will have her chance to talk later.

Quebec has done enough, and everyone knows that. We need to continue working to protect the other provinces and put an end to this problem immediately.

We therefore have a choice to make as a society. We must choose to enforce our sovereignty, which is what Canadians expect, and especially the sovereignty of our borders. That is why we are calling on the government to adopt a plan, because right now all it is saying is that it will send money, millions of dollars. At the end of the day, the problem will persist. Even if we rehire thousands of border officers and hire hundreds of immigration officers, until the issue of border management is resolved by changing the safe third country agreement, the problem will persist. People will continue coming to Canada, because they know that they can cross into Canada without any problems through the back door.

The government therefore needs to step up, come up with a plan, issue a clear directive, and ask the United States to amend the safe third country agreement to fix the loophole. This message must be sent around the world. The Prime Minister could then tweet something intelligent, telling the world that Canada will continue welcoming them and we are still open, but people must cross our borders legally and stop using roundabout ways to come to our country, because it will not work.

A crisis is brewing. At least eight out of the 10 people arriving here currently do not meet the requirement to be deemed a refugee. These people will have to be deported. At some point in time we will have to track them down because they will try to run and hide. They do not want to be deported. We will be facing a crisis trying to deal with families that have to go back to their country of origin. That will be another problem with its own set of costs, including the human cost.

The Conservatives are accused of being heartless, but that is not so. We do think about things. That is why we want to fix the problem. We see the big picture. We think things through. We currently have a government that simply reacts to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars instead of saying that we have a problem on our hands and we need to address it. It is time to take action. That is all there is to it. If the government could take immediate action then we could come back here in a year and see that everything has changed. People will keep coming to Canada legally and we will gladly welcome them.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks, although I do not necessarily agree with them.

I want to make this debate more personal. My wife and her family are refugees from Poland. In 1980-1981, they fled Poland and ended up unexpectedly and unplanned in Austria. The Austrian people took them in. They provided shelter, health care, and food, and they provided my wife with education. They did this for six months, until the family was relocated to Canada.

Interestingly, my wife's younger sister married a very fine young man from Vietnam who, when he was a young man, fled Vietnam with his family and ended up here in Canada. When I sit down with my wife's family for dinner, I am the only non-refugee at the table.

When will it be Canada's turn, like Austria, to accept unexpected refugees? Under what circumstances would he ever think that Canada would accept unplanned and unexpected refugees and provide generous accommodation, as happened with my wife's family's experience in Austria?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a perfect example of how Canada has been welcoming real refugees for decades, maybe even a hundred years. I know many refugees who fled Vietnam in the 1970s. People come to Canada from all over. We happily welcomed Syrian refugees last year. The Conservatives even set the targets, to help out and to bring in Syrians. We have never been against refugees. We are talking about real refugees, not people who buy a plane ticket to New York. They are making a detour to come to Canada through the side door. This is our problem. We have never been against refugees. On the contrary. We have no problem happily welcoming refugees, like my colleague's friends, who file legal claims and come here.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely appalled by my colleague's speech.

With all due respect, I think that his comments were completely irresponsible. He said that border services officers and Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers were letting criminals cross without checking their identification, passports, or documents, and that people could freely walk into Canada. I do not know where he got the figure that eight out of 10 people do not meet the refugee criteria and that they are free to go anywhere in Canada and take advantage of our services. Come on.

A public speech like this from a member of the House of Commons is shameful. I cannot believe he said this in the House of Commons. He is saying that the people of Lacolle who welcome Nigerian migrants coming from the United States are worried. Indeed, they are worried. They are worried about whether they will be able to provide services to the people who need help.

I do not know whether the member is aware that even though Nigeria is a rich country, Canada is discouraging people from travelling there because of the political instability. It is dangerous to go there. Therefore, when the member gives a speech, perhaps he could be better informed about what the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement is all about and why so many migrants are crossing into Canada irregularly. It is because there is an agreement that prevents them from entering legally—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can show my colleague the evidence outside the House.

I would never dare come to this place and trot out falsehoods just to give a speech. I have proof from people on the ground. Everything I said is based on facts. I would be pleased to share the evidence with my colleague. My main goal is to solve the problem.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech, yet I found it long on rhetoric and very short on solutions. I note that he is highly concerned about some of the gaps that are emerging, the backlogs, and he calls for a reinvestment in being “properly equipped”. I think those words are code for investing in the CBSA.

I would like to ask the member if he looks at some of the issues that may be arising as having been caused by his government's cutting $400 million to the CBSA and not preparing for an immigration system that works.

Another thing is that if we look at situations like this, we see the difficulty of people throughout the world when they struggle to find places to go that have reasonable immigration systems in place. Canada is an example of that.

Does the member not think that having a compassionate system that recognizes this great difficulty is important to our nation?