Debates of April 24th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Illegal Border Crossings

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the comments from across the way all day. They keep talking about providing more funding. The truth of the matter is that the government did provide more funding, an increase of $400 million through the Canada-Quebec accord, and the Conservatives voted against that. Why would they vote against that if they had been asking for it the whole time?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not remember asking for funding, but I do remember asking for justice and compliance with the law.

In this case, out of 22,000 people, nearly 18,000 entered Quebec illegally. The upshot is that there are 2,500 extra children in our schools. That is like opening five new schools. It is not me saying this, it is the Premier. Ottawa should definitely be footing the bill, because the Prime Minister is the one who created this problem.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I will preface my speech by saying that I will be sharing my time with my friend, the hon. member for St. John's East.

In the spring of 1847, Montrealers got word of a mass emigration on an unprecedented scale from Britain, mostly from famine-stricken Ireland, devastated by potato crop failures in the previous two years. Of the 100,000 who sailed to British North America, an estimated 70,000 landed in Montreal, instantly more than doubling its population. A local paper, the Montreal Witness, warned that “our shores are likely to be thronged with emigrants, chiefly of a class who will have little or nothing left when they arrive”, and urged the population to prepare.

However, nothing could prepare Montrealers for what arrived. Overcrowded “coffin ships” that brought the migrants to the new world were the perfect breeding ground for typhus. While fear gripped parts of the population, many more stood up to help: Protestant clergy, nuns, and priests, as well as regular citizens. Among them was the then mayor of Montreal, John Mills, who would later succumb to the disease. They all disregarded their own safety for the newcomers. As well, the Mohawks of Kahnawake, much like their ancestors did several hundred years earlier for the new immigrants, brought food for the starving.

The events of the mid-19th century shaped our nation. Indeed, 40% of Quebec now claims some Irish heritage and, with the exception of indigenous peoples, we are a country built by immigrants and their descendants. This fact has shaped our history. It makes us an open and welcoming country that is the envy of the world. It has shaped our policies and laws.

Canada is an open and welcoming country to those in need of protection, the most vulnerable people whom we have a legal and moral duty to protect. Case in point, we recently took in Syrian refugees and gave them a welcome everyone in Canada could be proud of. In return, these people are going to help shape our country.

However, in any modern country that cares about protecting its citizens, immigration needs to be done in an orderly fashion, in collaboration with all orders of government. Based on our recent experience with the influx of irregular migrants, the government feels it is very important to work more closely with its partners in managing the marked increase in border crossings from the United States over the past year.

These irregular border crossings have major local effects, which call for meticulous consideration and ongoing collaboration with the relevant provinces and territories. Although these irregular crossings are happening at various locations across the country, we recognize that Quebec is receiving a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, especially at the Lacolle border.

That is why we are working very closely with Quebec in order to ensure that we respond to their concerns. We gave our support to the work of the ad hoc intergovernmental task force on irregular migration, which provides a point of convergence to federal ministers and our colleagues in Quebec and Ontario, ensuring a coordinated approach across all levels of government.

To date, the task force has met nine times and continues to meet regularly to discuss the latest developments and the coordination efforts that are under way. During the most recent meeting of the task force, on April 18, in Ottawa, members agreed to take concrete measures to ensure the coordinated and effective management of irregular migration.

To that end, members announced that they will work together on assessing the details of Quebec's request for additional funding, including money for housing. Although housing is a provincial jurisdiction, Quebec has asked for help, and our government is working with its counterparts on determining the best way to provide assistance. We are exploring several options not just in Montreal, but also in the regions.

We are also working with Quebec on finding ways to help screen asylum claims and facilitate travel for those wishing to go outside Quebec.

As for preparing for another possible influx in the future, I want to emphasize the considerable progress made in recent months.

I also want to point out that these recent commitments are part of a series of measures taken by our government and are on top of the $3.2 billion Quebec will receive as part of the 2018-19 Canada social transfer and in addition to an increase of $112 million to support the settlement and integration services offered in the province under the Canada-Quebec accord,.

Moreover, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is expediting the processing of work permits for all asylum claimants in Canada and has committed to a service standard of 30 days. These people also want to work and contribute to the Canadian economy.

In addition, as soon as a refugee claim is found eligible and referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the federal government covers the cost of all eligible health care services under the interim federal health program, which provides short-term, limited health care coverage to resettled refugees, asylum seekers, and certain other groups, including victims of human trafficking and individuals detained under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Given the extraordinary circumstances and delays in the processing of asylum claims as a result of the increased volume of irregular arrivals last August, we are currently issuing certificates for the interim federal health program to asylum seekers in Lacolle, immediately after security screening, background checks, and setting the date for the initial interview to determine eligibility.

It should also be noted that in addition to working collaboratively with provincial counterparts, the Government of Canada is also engaging with the Government of the United States and the U.S. embassy in Ottawa on this issue as our countries continue to co-operate in the management of irregular migration at the border. The Minister of Public Safety meets regularly with his American counterpart and discusses these issues in depth. In addition, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship met with the new American ambassador in Ottawa recently specifically to discuss this issue.

As we work with our diverse immigration partners, we remain strongly committed to orderly migration and the safety of all Canadians. That is why, in the context of the 2018 budget, following the Harper government's major cuts in its last few years, $173.2 million has been invested into the management of irregular migration. These funds will be used to provide short-term support for border security processing and to support decision-making capacity at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Canada is a beautiful country shaped by immigrants. We often hear talk stigmatizing a whole group by calling it “illegal”. While the unlawful crossing of the border is not advised, and at times is dangerous, stigmatizing a whole group has a pernicious effect and sends signals to a certain party's base, which we find highly despicable. If someone crosses the border in an irregular fashion and is deemed to be an asylum seeker and a refugee protected under the conventions, that crossing is not illegal at all.

As descendants of the wretched masses yearning to breathe free, children of the wretched refuse from the teeming shores, we must not only ensure the health and safety of our people but remain open, free, and welcoming to those who seek our protection in accordance with the rule of law.

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

Madam. Speaker, there have been arguments about the wording of all this. Setting that aside, it is clear that there are a lot of irregular crossings and that the problem is growing. Why will the government not address this problem?

There is a problem right across the country, and it is important that the government speak with the U.S. administration in order to solve it.

I do not understand why the government is not talking to the United States government about this. Let me put this to the government: What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if Canada plunges into a deep recession as a result of a housing crash or some other deep recession, unemployment skyrockets, economic growth is negative, and we have the opposite happening? What if we have literally tens of thousands of people irregularly crossing the border from Canada into the United States? We would not have much leverage to renegotiate the safe third country agreement. We would be under inordinate pressure as a government and a country to give the Americans whatever they want in order to ensure that the free trade of goods and services continues to flow across that border.

Why is the government not taking the opportunity today to bring this challenge to the administration, to seek a remedy here that would stem the flow of irregular border crossers so that we can regulate this problem before it becomes a real crisis in the other direction?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the member opposite on his choice of words. He is indeed an example to this House and to his party in particular.

The member opposite should note that we are in constant conversation with our American counterparts on these issues and a number more. This is one of the most highly crossed borders in a regular fashion in the world, and indeed one of the best managed. I know the member opposite has been paying attention, so he knows that many ministers have been south of the border, including the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Immigration, to discuss specifically these issues and to have a concerted response on irregular migration and the management of the border as well. The member can rest assured, and I again thank him for his use of the words “irregular migration”.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the centre of this debate of course is to how to manage the situation with the irregular border crossers. One of the ways in which we can do that is to suspend the safe third country agreement. Suspending the agreement would mean that people would not be forced to go through the irregular crossings and that would put order to things. Within the agreement itself, article 10 allows for Canada to give notice to suspend it for a short period, just to see how it could work, and then to work with the international communities and others on a long-term plan.

Why can we not go forward with a sensible plan that would actually address the issue and the pressures experienced by Quebec and other provinces in the border communities, and also to ensure that those who are seeking refuge, which is what Canada is about, can do it safely, and then for us to do all of this in a rational way?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, again the working assumption in the member's question is that this should be done unilaterally. Certainly that would be highly inadvisable, given our partner across the border. Again, these are discussions that need to be taken privately and soberly in a whole-of-government approach to how the border is managed. Hundreds of thousands of people cross that border regularly. We are lucky compared to our European partners to have only one partner across a border. People cannot simply march into Canada and march through Canada. We have three quasi-impermeable borders, and our partner in the major crossing of 9,000 kilometres is indeed a safe country, but issues do arise and we are addressing them in a sober and orderly fashion.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs for sharing his time with me.

I am glad to rise today to continue the debate on the actions that our government is taking to meet the clear objectives of our fair and compassionate immigration and asylum system. These objectives are to save lives and to offer protection to the displaced, the most vulnerable, and the persecuted; to meet our country's international legal obligations with respect to refugees; and to respond to international crises by providing assistance to those in need of protection.

As we know, in recent months we have seen a considerable increase in irregular migration at key points along the border we share with the United States while asylum seekers have been entering Canada somewhere between official ports of entry.

People seeking asylum in Canada must be shown compassion and must avail themselves of all recourse under the law.

When we treat them with respect and give them the chance to be heard, we are acting in accordance with Canada's long-standing humanitarian tradition, for which our country is renowned throughout the world.

As I noted, this is a long-standing tradition, and Canadians are rightfully proud of our strong international reputation for humanitarian leadership, which was damaged by the Harper Conservatives during their 10 years in government.

Since the election, through the work of our former and current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the department, our government remains focused on efficient and streamlined processing as well as on developing more flexible and nimble responses to adapt to the influx of asylum seekers at the Quebec border and elsewhere.

One important response to this situation, and mentioned many times by the minister, is that our government has accelerated the processing of all applications for work permits for asylum seekers across Canada from three months to three days so that they are able to support themselves while they are in this country. This was something that both the governments of Canada and Quebec worked on together collaboratively.

To date, 97% of applications for work permits submitted by irregular migrants have been approved and only 3% have been rejected, mainly due to incomplete medical examinations.

Since April 2017, more than 12,500 work permits have been issued to refugee claimants in Quebec.

Our government is pleased to be working closely with the Government of Quebec to manage the influx of asylum seekers who are crossing the border in that province.

Given the influx of asylum seekers, budget 2018, as noted by the minister, has invested $173.2 million toward managing irregular migration to ensure security at the border and faster processing of asylum claims by the IRB. The Conservatives have flip-flopped on this. The member for Calgary Nose Hill called for this increase, and the Conservatives are now arguing against the additional funding, which is somewhat typical.

Quebec will also receive $3.2 billion as part of the Canada social transfer in 2018-19. More importantly, we have provided an increase, as my colleague said, of $112 million to support settlement and integration services in Quebec, under the Canada-Québec accord, which the Conservatives voted against, even though they are calling on the government through this debate today to provide more funding to Quebec. It is typical when the shoe on the other foot is a flip-flop.

At the same time, our government continues to lead the collaborative work of the ad hoc intergovernmental task force on irregular migration, which is ensuring a coordinated approach across all levels of government. Rather than the politics of fear and division, which lost the Conservatives the election, we are focused on working with Canadians together to manage the situation at the Canada-U.S. border. Our government is managing the volumes we are seeing now and is preparing for any fluctuations, as any responsible government would do.

Before closing, let me make some final points. Asylum seekers face a rigorous process to determine whether they have a legitimate claim according to Canadian and international law. There are no shortcuts and no guarantees that an asylum seeker will be able to stay in Canada. The member for Calgary Nose Hill should know this, having been the critic on this file now for over two years.

The New Democrats should also remember that not everyone is eligible to make an asylum claim, and not all asylum claims should or will be accepted. All eligible claims are assessed by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and are decided on a case-by-case basis.

If the IRB determines that individuals are not in need of Canada's protection, they are removed from Canada, something the member for Calgary Nose Hill knows and understands.

The NDP would open our borders to 11 million irregular migrants who are illegally in the United States with their proposal to completely undermine and tear up the safe third country agreement.

Let us talk about which side has been absent on our immigration asylum system. The Conservatives had families, spouses, and children wait up to 26 months to be reunited. Our government eliminated that backlog, and we now process applications within 12 months.

The Conservatives made applicants under the federal live-in caregiver program wait over six and a half years to be processed. We eliminated that backlog, and by the end of 2018, we will have a processing standard of one year; 12 months.

The Conservatives created the legacy asylum claim backlog, those who had to wait almost a decade to have their claims heard after the Conservatives left them behind. Our government will be eliminating this backlog by the end of this year. We are also working hard to eliminate the privately sponsored refugee backlog left by the Conservatives. Our government is processing study permits and citizenship and economic immigrant applications faster than ever before.

As the member for St. John's East, I am confident that the initiatives I have outlined will help us maintain our strong and compassionate immigration system. I trust that these points will help my hon. colleagues support our government's position and our efforts. We are fixing the mess left behind by the Conservatives. The movers of this motion and the motion itself seek to make things even worse. I will not be supporting it.

I have an opportunity now to talk a little about my time and the testimony I have had the opportunity to hear at the Standing Committee on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugees, on which I am one of the new members. This is obviously a topic on which we are greatly seized. While I trust that the government response is going to be safe and effective and is going to support the people who are irregularly crossing at the border, and have been since last summer, we will be briefed further as to the particulars of those efforts.

The motion itself is somewhat bizarre. It says, “take responsibility for the massive social services costs burdening the provincial government”. The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec have worked together to design a system so that the irregular migrants have work permits in three days so they are able to work, to earn money, to pay taxes, and to contribute to the economic development of the province of Quebec, just as all immigrants have the possibility to do. That lowers their burden on the social services system, so in fact, point three is completely wrong. We are addressing this problem head on, in collaboration with our partners.

The motion says, “admit the Prime Minister's irresponsibility of” something that was in a tweet. However, Canada is a welcoming country. We are welcoming immigrants to Canada. We are helping and supporting refugees. We are accepting legitimate asylum seekers who come to the border, and that is widely determined. Those people who cross irregularly at the border with a valid asylum claim are not illegal migrants. They are merely irregular migrants, and this is how they are choosing to seek asylum, and we support them. We welcome them. We will meet our international obligations to them.

The other point is “ensure the agencies responsible for our borders are properly equipped so that they can continue to do their jobs effectively”. This is what budget 2018 does that the Conservatives voted against ad nauseam, point by point, line by line, every item, yet here we are on this item, and they are saying to do more. We are doing what we need to do.

Finally is the request that the government “table in the House no later than May 11, 2018, a plan to (i) stop the influx of people”. Again, if asylum seekers come to the border, we have an international obligation to them. It is a fundamental human right that all citizens of the world whose countries are members of the United Nations enjoy. They have the right to leave their countries or the country in which they are located. If they are legitimate asylum seekers, the country they enter should accept them and process their asylum claims in accordance with the rule of law. That is what we are doing.

Every point in the motion makes no sense. It is dog-whistle politics, and I do not want anything further to do with it. I urge all members of the House to defeat the motion today.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be the first to denounce racism or dog-whistle politics when I see it. However, some of the rhetoric coming from the Liberal members does not match reality. The fact is that both Liberal and Conservative governments have strongly supported Canada's immigration and refugee system.

In preparation for this debate, I downloaded some statistics from StatsCan about the number of immigrants who have come to Canada every year. They tell a story. The facts do not lie. The facts are that during the Harper government, some 10 years, a record number of immigrants were admitted in the postwar period. Some 260,000 immigrants and 26,000 UN refugees a year were admitted during that 10-year period, which is much higher than during the Chrétien or Martin years or the Mulroney years. Therefore, I think we have to tone down some of the rhetoric and focus on the issue at hand, which is that border crossings are taking place in Lacolle, Quebec, and Emerson, Manitoba.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the measured tone and respectful dialogue from the member in his question.

It is true that Canada is an open country and has been for many years. If we look precentage-wise at the size of the population of the country and the amount of immigration that has been permitted from time to time, I am not sure that would bear out the statistics that were proposed. Perhaps they would with the raw numbers. However, if we look at the percentage of the population, I would like to see whether that is borne out.

When we look at the text of the motion, and if we look at what the citizenship and immigration committee, of which the sponsor of the motion is a member, is currently studying and being briefed on, we cannot help but think that what is being proposed in the motion, with the antics and the rhetoric to the media, including this morning at the member's press briefing, is not solely about whether people are crossing irregularly at the border or what needs to be done. Obviously the government is doing a lot. It has devoted a lot of resources to this. I trust that with all the efforts through public safety and immigration it will handle this as well as or better than the similar situation that happened with the Mexican migrants.

If we look at the text taken as a whole, it goes beyond that. It is attempting to drive a wedge in Canada. It refers to people who cross irregularly as “ illegal” immigrants or “illegal” aliens, or some such deprecating language that insults and intimidates newcomers to this country. I do not want to stand for it. I appreciate that the member himself has not used that term in his discourse. I appreciate that he has not taken this tack, but the rest of his party has.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's colleague raised the issue of suspending the safe third country agreement as a unilateral move. For the information of all members, it is in the act itself that both countries, Canada and the U.S., can give notice and temporarily suspend the safe third country agreement. It is not in violation of the act or anything like that; rather, it is absolutely within our right to do exactly that.

Somehow the member seems to think that the NDP is suggesting that we should simply open up the border and allow anyone to come through without the proper assessments. That is simply not true. What we are saying is that people should come through in an orderly fashion. We can do that by suspending the safe third country agreement so that people are not forced to cross over irregularly. If they cross over when the safe third country agreement has been suspended, they will still be processed accordingly. In my 20-minute speech today, I went through the entire process. Therefore, I would like to ask the member to retract his comments.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I was not convinced by the arguments put forward by the hon. member. When I look at the totality of the logistics and what is realistic to expect from people, if we open the borders to all asylum claims to process regularly, we will make a bad situation worse. It is totally inconsistent with the government's position today or with the previous government's position. It is inconsistent with our relationship with the Americans in managing our shared border for regular crossings. It is unrealistic to expect that Canada, a country of 35 million people, could potentially expose itself to irregular crossings at the border in Windsor or at the airport in Toronto of up to 110,000 special migrants, even if it is only 1% of the number of illegals in the United States—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to address this whole issue of “illegal” versus “irregular” up front. I think both are acceptable, but even the CBC uses the term “illegal” in its news articles. The CBC, I trust, is a trustworthy news source, so other people have used it. At the end of the day, in order to focus on the issue at hand, I am going to avoid focusing the argument around the term itself, and rather focus on the issue at hand.

Let me start by saying that I think everyone in the House understands and supports the need for immigration to Canada. We have a below-replacement birth rate as a country, so we need immigration in order to maintain a constant population. We have labour market shortages, so we need immigration to fill jobs. Also, we are a country of immigrants. Since the early 17th century, immigrants have come here and have built our country.

I am proud to be the son of immigrants. My father was Chinese and my mother was Dutch. They moved to Canada in the 1950s and 1960s to start a new life. I am proud of my history and my family's history with respect to this issue.

I am sure members in all parties of the House have similar stories about immigration to this country. Also, because Canadians are fair and generous, we also believe in and support our policies on refugees and asylum seekers, people who have been dispossessed. That is why subsequent and successive Conservative and Liberal governments have taken in refugees from Hungary, from Vietnam, today from Syria, and other people who are dispossessed, such as Yazidis.

Therefore, the debate in front of us today is not about whether we support immigration, because we all do, and as I pointed out earlier, some of the highest levels of immigration intake during the post-World War II period came during the Harper years. We admitted some 260,000 immigrants a year for almost 10 years of the Harper government. That is 2.6 million immigrants. In addition to that, we admitted roughly 26,000 UN refugees each and every year. That is 260,000 UN refugees over that 10-year period. I think we can all say that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have supported immigration and the need to take in those dispossessed and those who are refugees.

That does not mean we agree on every aspect of our immigration and refugee system. For example, during the last election, the Conservatives said we would take in approximately 25,000 Syrian refugees. The Liberals promised to take in approximately double that number, at 50,000. The Canadian people spoke, and they elected a Liberal majority, and I respect that. The Liberals had a mandate to take in some 50,000 refugees.

In 2006, we disagreed with the previous Liberal government's position on charging prospective immigrants a $975 fee to process their application. We promised to cut that fee in half, which we did. We may disagree on the details of our system, but we agree on the fundamentals, so let us focus on the details of what is going on here and why this motion is in front of the House.

Madam Speaker, I am supporting the motion, as indicated. I am also splitting my time with the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

The motion in front of us today is not about whether or not we support immigrants or refugees; it is about one particular issue that has gone unresolved, the irregular border crossings that are taking place, especially in places like Lacolle, Quebec, and Emerson, Manitoba.

The Liberal government has mismanaged this issue. A country ultimately has sovereignty over two things: its people and its geography. By mismanaging our borders, the government is weakening the sovereignty of the Canadian state, and by failing to address this problem over the last two years, it has created a host of other problems.

First, we have seen a significant increase in spending to process people crossing the border irregularly, and the government has had to significantly increase spending to provide for social services for people in Quebec. That is $173 million more for processing and $180 million more for social services, and this is just the start. The cost could spiral into the billions of dollars.

All the while, the government is not delivering on the spending it committed to Canadians on repairing our nation's ailing roads, bridges, and transit infrastructure, all the while running much higher deficits than the Liberals promised.

The Liberals have also created another problem. Because they have had to divert money and resources away from regular immigration and refugee processing in order to process the people crossing the border in Quebec and Manitoba, there is now a backlog of some 45,000 applications for privately sponsored refugees. I am told the wait times for processing are now seven years. There is now an 11-year wait time for the processing of asylum claims. The problem is only going to get worse unless the government supports the motion and takes action to address this problem.

Last year, we admitted some 20,000 people who crossed the border in Emerson and in Lacolle. This year, it could well be north of 60,000 people. To date, about 60,000 people have crossed at those two locations, and officials are predicting that this summer some 400 people a day will be crossing. We could be looking at 60,000 people this year who are crossing through non-normal channels, a fifth of our overall immigration intake.

For decades, Canada has had an orderly, planned, controlled, and safe immigration system. Our immigration system has for decades been controlled through the vetting and screening of immigrants. As a result, we enjoy very high levels of public support for immigration and for refugees. As a result, Canada has one of the highest intakes of immigrants and refugees in the world. The two are linked: orderly, planned, and controlled immigration and refugee resettlement and high levels of public support for those systems. This is not true of Europe and the United States.

For example, in the United States, the Americans for decades have had no control or planning of their immigration system. U.S. administrations and U.S. Congresses dating back to the 1980s have failed to deal with their challenges of irregular border crossings and people entering the country illegally. As a result, today the United States finds itself with some 10 million people who have entered irregularly and who are without documentation and without papers. It is causing huge problems, and the problem is in some ways insoluble. We do not want to go down that path here in Canada.

The same is true of Europe as it is in the United States. That is why I am supporting this motion. We need to maintain high levels of public support for our system, and that begins by maintaining an orderly, controlled, and safe immigration and refugee system so that Canada can continue to benefit from the world's brightest and best and so that we can continue to receive and welcome the downtrodden and dispossessed in this world.

There is a final reason that I am supporting this motion. What if the shoe is on the other foot? Let us not forget that the 2002 third country safe party agreement between the government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the administration of Bill Clinton came about because of the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We were under an inordinate amount of pressure from the Americans, who wanted that agreement in place and who had the cards to play in those negotiations. We managed to keep the borders open to trade so that we could continue to grow our economy. However, what if we go into a severe recession? What if the housing bubble pops and we see a reverse flow of migrants in irregular crossings from Canada to the United States? We would have no leverage to deal with an American administration that wants the problem fixed. That is why the government needs to sit down with U.S. administration, talk about this problem, and find a solution to these issues in Emerson and in Lacolle, Quebec.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have two problems with the motion. One is that it does not come across as being genuine. For a party that cut resources so badly during its time in office to ask that agencies get the resources they need does not connect very well. The other problem is that asking the Prime Minister to admit irresponsibility in this matter smacks to me more of partisan politics than it does of any genuine attempt to fix something.

I would ask the hon. gentleman, whom I enjoy working with on our committee, if he would go back to his party and say that if they really want to give the government the path of least resistance to doing something they think is a good idea, then they should cut the partisanship and get on with really good ideas for Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, on the issue of the previous government's deficit reduction action program, I do not think that the reduction in budgets for the then Department of Citizenship and Immigration actually created any backlogs in the system. I thought the system quite orderly and quite planned. In fact, backlogs went down for many streams of immigration.

With respect to calling on the Prime Minister to withdraw his tweet, I think social media is relevant to the story. The fact is that even today social media is having a huge impact on these irregular border crossings. It is the social media networks that are suddenly triggering a surge in people from Nigeria coming through Lacolle, Quebec, as a result of the power, pervasiveness, and ubiquity of social media.

It was the Prime Minister's tweet that first got people thinking about doing this. The Prime Minister, who has millions of Twitter followers, should tweet out and clarify what the situation is at the Canadian border and tell people not to cross the border at Lacolle, Quebec, or at Emerson, Manitoba, and to do so through regular means. That will strengthen our immigration system and public confidence in that system.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the civilized tone in which the member's comments were made. I want to identify this one piece, though. It is not just about semantics, because the words used are absolutely critical. There is a major difference between the words “irregular” and “illegal”. It is like saying to somebody that what they are doing is illegal versus saying to someone what they are doing is irregular. There is a difference.

From that point of view, this is why I take issue with this motion. I have highlighted a number of areas where I take issue with the motion. If the Conservative members really want to get on with a real debate on how best to manage the situation before us in the best interests of border communities and Canada, then why did the Conservative members not support my amendment when I put it on the floor today?

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

Madam Speaker, I support the motion. I am comfortable with the wording of the motion.

At the end of the day, the issue is that the government has mishandled this file and needs to seek a remedy with the American administration. In my view, it needs to seek it because there is a broader issue at play. The tide of people flowing from the United States to Canada could very well be reversed, and in that situation we will not have any leverage. The American people, their administration, and their economy, which is 10 times bigger and more powerful than ours, are going to drive those negotiations and get what they want. We are much more reliant on exports to the United States than the Americans are on exports to Canada. We need to seek a remedy to the situation before we find ourselves in a much more difficult situation where we will not have any leverage to negotiate a suitable outcome.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my speech today by taking a moment to remember the lives lost yesterday in Toronto. Today, I think all Canadians are thinking of and praying for those who have lost loved ones, a friend, a co-worker, or a neighbour. Just as Canadians have rallied around to support those affected by the tragedy in Humboldt, I know Canadians will rally to support the people in Toronto today and into the future.

I would like to address the Conservative motion, and I will use the term “illegal border crossers”, because that is what they are.

The motion is straightforward. Most Canadians will readily understand what the Conservatives are seeking. It is not drastic or partisan. It is simple. We want the Liberal government to acknowledge the problem that we are seized with, take ownership of it, and act in the best interest of all Canadians to address the flow of illegal border crossers.

As has been said, tens of thousands of illegal border crossers came to Canada last year. This year experts are predicting even more, potentially up to 60,000 in 2018 alone. Already, up to April 15, over 6,000 individuals have crossed over to Canada, the majority of whom have come in since March 1. That is an increase of 128% over 2017.

What is the Liberal plan? What is the government doing to deal with this issue? It is not unreasonable for Canadians to expect better than just “everything is fine”, because in reality, everything is not fine.

In my riding, I hear from people continuously about this issue. What concerns them, in addition to the increased risk to public safety, is that the illegal queue jumping significantly impacts immigration for legal immigrants, with delays in security checks, delays in immigrants getting their applications processed, and delays in families being reunited. Legal, law-abiding immigrants and refugees are stuck waiting years to have their hearings and applications processed. All they are ever told is that their file is pending. Why are those who want to come to Canada legally being punished, while the illegal crossers are being rewarded? That is their question.

In addition to the impact on legal immigration, there are issues with costs, resources, public safety, and potentially national security.

The sudden and unexpected influx of people has stretched the capacity of our border agents, our police forces, our immigration processes, our support systems, and our not-for-profits like food banks. The cost of providing for these people, who are allowed into Canada to claim asylum, are extensive. It includes the cost of keeping them in Canada for years until the processing is completed, providing housing, health care, food, social assistance, and the cost of preparing them to enter the workforce.

When we take border agents and police out of their communities to deal with this crisis, it of course leads to problems elsewhere in the country. Reduced resources, longer shifts, and limited vacations mean that border agents and law enforcement cannot operate at their best. Communities do not receive the policing services they deserve or expect and borders are backlogged by skeleton resources. It is Canadians who pay the price and taxpayers who foot the bill.

So far, the Liberals have no plan for dealing with all of these issues. Last year, we heard from Liberal ministers that everything was fine and that there were no issues here. There were no cost issues, no safety issues, and everything was fine. In fact, the Minister of Immigration testified that there were no concerns, no costs, and no problems with these illegal border crossers.

However, it becomes much harder to trust those empty words when we hear the real stories from front-line officers. We know that the number of people awaiting deportation rose from 291 in 2012 to nearly 1,200 in 2016, and I can only imagine the thousands who are in the queue today.

Canadians saw recent media reports that hardened, repeated offenders who were ordered deported remained in our country to continue to victimize Canadians. We heard about known associates of terrorists still in the country for decades after being ordered deported. Clearly, we have a problem and clearly there is a need for much more work to be done.

We know officials were told to rush screening to reduce wait times. That comes from the officials who are doing the screening. The number of initial questions asked of illegal border crossers were reduced from eight to two. That is not what I or most Canadians call “no change will be made to our system”. In fact, it is exactly what the minister said was not going to happen, the downgrading of our security screening.

Canadians are being shown that when it comes to national security and public safety, the Liberals cannot be trusted to make tough decisions and put what is good for Canadians ahead of their own political interests.

I have little doubt they will attempt to demonize anyone who points out their incompetence, especially on tackling these tough issues. However, as Canadians, we must point out the many ways the government has completely failed to protect Canadians, enforce our laws, and provide the tools and policies for border agents and law enforcement to do their jobs.

How did we get here?

It all started with a tweet, and in my opinion, another example of a flippant, immature Prime Minister who is stupidly naive to the consequences of his actions. He tweeted out that anyone could come to Canada, that we welcomed anyone. He forgot to add that they should please respect our laws and follow our processes.

Tens of thousands of people streamed across the border in 2017 from the U.S., a safe third country, a place where democracy and rule of law hold strong. “This was not a crisis” the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship told the committee. There were no resource problems. Everything was being managed internally. There were no safety risks. Now, in an effort to address their so-called non-issue, the Liberals have sought $174 million more to deal with the massive influx, and we know it will not stop there.

Here we are yet again with no plan, in a crisis with no plan.

From the few bits of information provided by the government about Immigration and Refugee Board proceedings, we know there is a massive backlog of thousands of cases, with the usual timelines being pushed from months to years. People may be here three to five years as asylum seekers before even being called for a hearing. That means not only those who have come here illegally, but those who are genuine asylum claimants fleeing oppression.

In nearly two years, the Liberals have gone from pretending this is not an issue to admitting there is a problem. They say it is fine, that they have it managed. They are now saying it is still fine but they just need more money to fix it.

The Quebec government has said that the Liberals are wrong. Border agents have said that the Liberals are wrong. National Security experts have said that the Liberals are wrong. The opposition has been saying, and will continue to say, that the Liberals are wrong.

Here we are with this Conservative motion calling for what seems to be common sense, something that is far from common with the Liberal government. All we are asking is for government to provide Canadians with a plan.

A plan means doing something to stop people from illegally entering Canada without following an honest, independent, and fair system of immigration. My colleague suggested we make the entire border with the U.S. a port of entry. This could be a temporary measure that the government could use until it gets a grip on the illegal border crossing crisis. It must close the current safe third country loophole.

A plan means immediately deporting criminals and all those who do not have a case for asylum and will eventually be deported anyway, which from media reports is around 90%. This will save taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars.

A plan means eliminating the appalling backlog and endless delays of legal refugee claims, ensuring that support goes to those who legitimately need it.

Our border agents, the RCMP, and the Immigration and Refugee Board should be provided with the resources to get the job done. The Liberals should stop saying everything is fine. They should take responsibility for the costs of their mistakes, costs that have been pushed onto the provinces, which is expected to increase even more.

It seems unlikely that Liberal backbenchers will vote in favour of a common sense Conservative motion, but rather will continue to blindly follow the myopic meandering of their leadership.

Canadians need a secure border. We need our rule of law enforced. We need our men and women in uniform to know that when they do their jobs, they will have the support of the government. We need to know that people who come to Canada are seeking to follow our laws and join our communities, not exploit our rules and abuse our generosity. We need leadership, leadership that will act in the best interests of Canada.

Perhaps a plan will need to wait until 2019, when there is a new Conservative government to put a plan into action.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the passion with which the hon. member spoke, yet I recognize the difficulty in speaking to this motion due to its schizophrenic nature.

I will point out a couple of glaring issues. The motion complains about gaps in the security screening process and it is worried about a backlog in scheduled hearing deportation orders, and the like. My sense of the matter is that we have an agreement in place with the United States that allows our international agreements to be met. I do not sense anyone in the House would find it wise to rip this up.

The member, in particular, was talking about border security guards and the amount of time spent asking questions of people, all those things that government services can provide. Our solution is that, yes, we recognize there is an emerging situation and we want to do this in an orderly, professional fashion. We are investing $179 million in the CBSA and other institutions that will allow this process to go smoothly. In a sense the member is looking for that. Most of his solutions appear to need government investments, which we are doing.

Am I wrong to suggest that the member in all of his rhetoric was saying this was not the solution? Do you have another means besides investing in those institutions to make the situation better?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address the questions to the Chair, not to individual members.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that, yes, this issue requires resources, but it also requires a common sense approach. As we have allowed this to start, where will it end? We have already gone from a few thousand entries in 2017 to potentially 60,000 in 2018.

There are no systems readily available in our country to deal with this influx of illegal border crossings. We can pour all our money into this issue, but pouring money into it will solve the problem by itself. We have to stop illegal crossing in the first place and deal with it in a legal, orderly fashion of immigration.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is always a pleasure to work with him on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

It is rather interesting to hear the Conservatives talk about a plan, because the union that represents border officers clearly told me that they are still paying the price for the cuts made by the Conservatives.

I would like my colleague to explain something. If the Conservatives' approach is supposed to reassure us, how does he explain that, when it was in power, this same party cut resources? How does he explain that the cuts made by the Conservatives exacerbated all of the issues that these officers face, including the valid issues he raised, such as overtime and even, in some cases, post-traumatic stress?

How does he explain this?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the great work he does on a lot of different fronts.

I would like to clarify this. During the time of the former Conservative government, the CBSA was funded to the tune of $6.5 billion. In 2017, under the Liberal government, the CBSA was funded by $6.4 billion. I do not consider that to be a cut, but it was under the Liberal government, not ours.

Also, under the former Conservative government, CBSA border officials and officers were increased by 26% in the last number of years. I do not see that as a cut. I see it as a positive step to improve a system that surely is overtaxed at this current time.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît.

She will certainly not say this about herself, so I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her on the work she is doing in her community on the refugee file. As the NDP's public safety critic, I have had the opportunity to work with her and, unlike the Conservative members, she sits down with people on the front lines, such as border services officers or representatives from the municipalities grappling with this issue. I congratulate her on that. I think that her fair-minded approach is a good example of how best to represent our constituents and to manage an extremely difficult situation.

Before I go on and talk some more about the situation of immigrants, I would like to thank the border services officers at the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP, the police, the Sûreté du Québec, the non-profit organizations, and the community organizations in the regions and municipalities. Unlike the federal government, they have all been working on the ground. Border services officers and the RCMP fall under federal jurisdiction, but these men and women have worked hard despite the rain and the fact that their government does not have a plan. I would like to take this opportunity today to commend and thank them. This is a very difficult situation to deal with.

I would like to provide a little background on this situation. In January 2017, when Trump took office and was inaugurated as the President of the United States, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the member for Vancouver East, and I told the government in the foyer of the House of Commons to take into account the fact that, with the arrival of spring just a few months after Trump officially took office, we would see the consequences of having a racist president that was not shy about using cultural communities to score political points.

We warned the government numerous times to take that into account. We requested an emergency debate in the House on the situation so that we could talk more about what we were hearing from municipalities, border services unions, and Canadians. The government, however, did nothing.

That should come as no surprise. I asked this question last year at a joint meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but of course, I did not get a satisfactory answer. I pointed out that when Mr. Trump visited Minnesota, which shares a border with Manitoba, he talked about Somalis and problems associated with the Somali community in that state. It just so happened that, afterward, people from the Somali community crossed the U.S.-Manitoba border. When Mr. Trump said he would end the moratorium on deporting Haitians who had been through major disasters like earthquakes, Haitians came to Quebec to join their families. That was no coincidence. There is a direct link between what happened and what Mr. Trump said. To suggest otherwise would be an attempt to kiss up—my apologies for using that expression—in hopes of resolving all kinds of issues that, frankly, are far from being resolved, such as NAFTA and U.S. tariffs. We can see how well that strategy has worked.

Despite everything, our officials have not been able to take a stand. When I said these things to my colleagues, I was thinking about a CBC program where Jean Chrétien talked about his decision to stay out of the Iraq war. Canadian business people approached him and said that it was a disaster and that Canada would pay the price, because the Americans would no longer want to do business with them, since we were not supporting the U.S. in that war. Mr. Chrétien said he would not change his mind and told them to let him know if they suffered any consequences. As he wryly pointed out in the interview, about 15 years later, he was still waiting for their complaints. Obviously, there were no negative repercussions, because countries are capable of expressing opinions and criticizing the behaviour of other heads of state without burning any bridges or ruining any relationships with their most important partners. That is what this government has been unable to do.

Not only did the government not denounce this, but it did not listen to the NDP in January 2017, over a year ago now, when we noticed that the situation was becoming strained. We saw it last summer. I remember meeting a journalist at the Quartier DIX30 centre, not far from home in Chambly. The journalist had just returned from the Stanstead border crossing. He had just filed a story and said that the situation was completely insane. We talked about the situation. We made the same request again. I said in a public forum that we were calling on the government for a plan, we were calling for help for the Government of Quebec, for the municipalities, for the community organizations, and for the border officers who had come to our offices to say that they were fed up.

Now we are getting back into this debate just as the weather is improving, and I am proud to say, as I have said many times throughout my speech, that the NDP has been on this issue from the start. Before anyone was talking about it, we knew that this was a problem and we wanted to deal with it.

It is quite the opposite for the Conservatives, who come here with a motion designed to spread fear instead of truly solving the problems and giving Quebec the money it is owed, offering assistance to those fleeing hatred in the United States, and providing help to the CBSA. The only thing the Conservatives had to offer these people when they were in power was cuts, and we are still suffering the consequences.

The NDP has concrete solutions that do not require a war of words or an attempt to pit communities against each other. We support Quebec. We want to give the CBSA the resources that its officers need to do their jobs. We are calling for the suspension of the safe third country agreement, since the United States, in its current state, is no longer a safe country for people fleeing violence, hatred, and all kinds of terrible situations around the world.

We are calling for the agreement to be suspended in order to make it easier for such people to cross the border in an orderly and regular manner, if I may say it that way. It would make things easier not only for the people who work at the border, but for the people crossing the border, since their lives are in danger when they try to cross the border irregularly. They are not doing this for fun. They are facing very real hardships. However, there was a party in power for 10 years that did nothing to advance any immigration or public safety issues, in spite of its never-ending overheated rhetoric. Now, that party has moved a motion that, although we agree with certain aspects of it, does not really help fix the situation.

The solution is what the NDP has been saying from the beginning. It is to address all of these elements, to help these communities, to do what the member for Salaberry—Suroît did, or what the union did, namely meet with members and explain what is really happening on the ground. It is to do as the Government of Quebec did and ask for help, and to do as organizations have always done, I might add, even in the face of widespread austerity, and offer assistance despite being stretched beyond their limit, because it is the right thing to do. We are not here to pass judgment. We must help everyone. Everyone is shouting for help, and the government is turning a blind eye. The only solution for some people is to spread even more doubt and fear regarding this situation. Instead, we need to talk about real solutions, as the NDP has been doing for over a year now.

If we look south of the border, with President Trump, it is clear that the situation is not getting better. This government keeps spouting hollow words, blaming the previous government, and pinning everything on a bogeyman by the name of Stephen Harper. They are no longer in power, so for crying out loud, the Liberals need to realize that they are the ones in power and that Mr. Trump has been in power since the November 2016 election and his installation in January 2017. None of that is a surprise to anyone except, apparently, the federal government.

Today, we oppose the motion because we have seen one Conservative failure after another for close to 10 years. Nevertheless, we will keep asking the government for a real plan, just as my colleagues have done, as my colleagues from Quebec have been doing for weeks by supporting Quebec's demands, and as my colleague from Vancouver East did when she talked about the importance of protecting refugees. There is no need for heated rhetoric. What we need to do is stand up to a president who says dangerous things and stand up for the men and women in these dangerous situations, be they first responders at the border or people seeking a better life here.