House of Commons Hansard #284 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was refugees.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Pursuant to subsection 23(5) of the Auditor General Act, I have the honour to lay upon the table the spring 2018 reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons.
These reports are permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie concerning its participation at the meeting of the Political Committee of the APF, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on April 10 and 11, 2017.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by several Quebeckers who want money in the employment insurance fund to be used exclusively for employment insurance benefits. They want the fund to be shielded from partisan manipulation. They want more flexible employment insurance criteria so that precarious and seasonal workers are provided fair, equitable coverage. Lastly, they want the employment insurance program to include better training opportunities and job search assistance.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition that was initiated in my riding of Perth—Wellington by Tanner Bergsma, a student at Stratford Central, a school in Stratford.
The petitioners call on the government to increase environmental protections in the resource industry.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table.
The first is an e-petition signed by hundreds of Quebeckers. Canada imports large amounts of fish and seafood from Vietnam, and only about 3% to 5% of it is verified by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The Formosa steelworks dumped large amounts of toxic waste in the ocean in 2016, killing a huge number of fish and damaging the Pacific marine ecosystem along the coastline of central Vietnam, and despite this ecological disaster, Vietnam's exports of fish and seafood totalled $7 billion last year, which is why the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to pay special attention to inspections of fish, seafood, and derived products from Vietnam in order to ensure they are safe for the Canadian public to consume.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition has been signed by about 100 people from Soulanges. Given that more than 80% of Canada's original wetlands have disappeared and that global warming is increasing, they feel that the importance of protecting wetlands has become very clear, and that the municipalities have no choice but to embrace ecological trends. The signatories therefore call on the Government of Canada to ensure compliance with the 1996 federal policy on wetland conservation, which aims to improve and preserve the environment so as to prevent increasing natural disasters by designating the wetlands bordering Lake Saint-François as protected areas.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
moved:
That, given the government’s failure to address the 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, as well as a backlog in both scheduled hearings and carrying out deportation orders, and that this trend is expected to increase over the summer months; the House call on the government to:
(a) ensure 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;
(b) admit the Prime Minister’s irresponsibility of tweeting #WelcometoCanada to those seeking to enter Canada through illegal means;
(c) take responsibility for the massive social services costs burdening the provincial governments; and
(d) table in the House no later than May 11, 2018, a plan to (i) stop the influx of people illegally entering Canada from the United States, (ii) take appropriate measures to handle those who have already claimed asylum.
Today I want to lay out what exactly this problem is, why it is a problem, how the Liberals got Canada into this situation, the failure of the Liberals to manage the problem, and potential fixes that the Liberals could undertake to stop the flow but have elected not to do.
What is the problem? First of all, in the last year we have seen a massive influx, and by massive I mean tens of thousands of people illegally crossing the border from the United States into Canada and then claiming asylum. This is, of course, precipitated because Canada has an agreement with the United States called the safe third country agreement, which I am going to speak to later. Essentially, the agreement says that if someone claims asylum in one of the countries and then tries to enter the other country, that person should not make an asylum claim in the other country because we respect the fact that our asylum claim systems are mutually generous. They are run free of political interference, and they are regarded as some of the strongest in the world.
The problem is that the agreement is silent on what happens when someone illegally enters the country. Because the agreement is silent on that, this loophole allows people to illegally enter the country and claim asylum. Of course, when someone claims asylum in Canada, that person is automatically entitled to all the generous social benefits Canada has, including our health care system, social programs, welfare, and many other things that are designed as a social safety net in Canada but are also extended to those we are bringing in as humanitarian immigrants. The point is that this massive influx is not planned and it is not orderly. Therefore, the government has been scrambling to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at this, rather than looking for a way to solve the issue and bring Canada's immigration system back to order.
Briefly, the statistics show that last year there were 20,593 persons who illegally entered Canada and claimed asylum. This year, these months alone in 2018, which includes the winter months, there have been 6,373. Government documents project over 400 persons a day this summer. Certainly, based on those projections, we could see anywhere between 50,000 and 70,000 persons. This number of people means that we now have more people illegally entering the country and claiming asylum than those legally entering the country and claiming asylum. There is no plan to deal with this.
Very briefly, this is why it is a problem. Canadians are compassionate, but they want a planned and orderly immigration system. These numbers are not accounted for in the government's immigration levels plan. This means that, because the government has not accounted or planned for this, provincial governments are unable to budget for the impact on social services. The government is unable to understand the cohort that is coming through illegally and claiming asylum, and adequately budget for integration services. It does not understand the impact this might have on the Canadian economy one way or the other, because it does not understand the cohort. It does not understand how people might or might not be able to contribute to the Canadian economy.
This makes integration support much more difficult, and certainly we are seeing provincial governments saying it is impacting them. In fact, the Government of Quebec made a major push over the last couple of months, saying that the federal government owes it because of the federal government's inability to manage the borders. Certainly, the federal government did capitulate and had to spend hundreds of millions more of Canadian tax dollars to give a transfer to Quebec to manage the flow, rather than try to stop the problem.
It also renders us less able to help the world's most vulnerable. There is an immigration plan for a reason. The government should stipulate how many people we allow to enter the country through humanitarian means so we can do all those things I just talked about, such as plan for integration. Because the government has had to redirect resources to processing illegal migrants, we see massive wait times in other streams. The private sponsorship refugee stream has a backlog of over 45,000 cases. Across party lines, we all have cases where people are waiting. I have seen cases of people who are trying to privately sponsor people from Eritrea. There is an 89-month wait for that now. Let us think about that. A privately sponsored refugee from Eritrea has to wait over seven years. Does that not defeat the purpose of a refugee program?
Furthermore, regarding Immigration and Refugee Board government documents, and again, the government refutes this is the case, The Globe and Mail published an article in June 2017 which showed a government report which stated that based on the current track we are on for the increase year over year for the number of illegal migrants, the IRB is on track for an 11-year wait time for processing asylum claims.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleague could shut off his phone, that would be lovely. It is quite distracting.
The 11-year wait time means people who are making asylum claims after they illegally enter the country can then stay in Canada, claim social assistance benefits, and have expedited work permits. They can do all of these things, which are unplanned and unbudgeted, while we do not even know if their claim is valid. To me, that is not fair. Many people who are trying to legally enter the country think it is not fair.
The Liberals' failure to manage our border has created a demand and placed a burden on the Immigration and Refugee Board. The head of the Calgary Catholic Immigration Society was quoted in a Calgary Herald article a few months ago talking about how it is unfair to people who have come into the country legally, made asylum claims, and who are then forced to wait for years to learn whether they can stay in Canada. While he did not say this to me, that could also create a disincentive to work, to put down roots, and to establish any sort of commitment to integration over time because they do not know if they will be able to stay here. To me, that is absolutely ridiculous. There is a burden on the IRB system.
My colleague who is our shadow minister for public safety, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, is going to talk later today about the impact this massive influx of illegal migrants coming into the country has had on screening and border security. He has statistics he is going to speak to today about how the CBSA has said that it has reduced by 400% the amount of time spent screening people entering the country. I do not think any Canadian would be satisfied with the fact that the government is accommodating people illegally entering the country by reducing the amount of time our border agents spend on screening them for security. Certainly this is a burden on the system.
We have heard the Canada Border Services Agency talk about how it has placed a great strain on its resources and it does not feel it has enough. Again, the government's response has been to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at the problem, but all that has done is make things worse. It has made our border services and the IRB less effective because of the demand being put on the system.
A Liberal response to a crisis like this is to throw money at the problem and not look at ways to stop the problem. In fact, what I think the government has done here by doing things like creating a refugee camp at the U.S.-Canada border, and to pay for heated tent trailers, has actually incented more people to come into the country through this mechanism. That is very irresponsible.
Also, I am concerned about the fact that the government has basically said to come hither through this mechanism and that might incent people in terms of human smuggling and crime. We have certainly seen cases in the media of things like a child pornography ring that was busted up. We need to put more control on this situation.
As well, my colleague is going to talk about the fact that while we have seen a great increase in people illegally entering the country, we have also seen removal orders steadily increase, but the ability of the government to execute those removal orders has diminished. What I am trying to say is that when people have been found to have no reason to be in the country and a removal order has been issued for them, the government actually lacks the capacity to remove them. Someone can come into the country illegally, make an asylum claim, and claim social benefits for a long period of time without having his or her claim heard. After that time passes and after the person has claimed all these benefits, even if the person is found to not have a legal reason to be in the country, the person will have to wait a long period of time to be removed. That is unacceptable. Placing more demand on the system this way is unacceptable and, frankly, it is not fair.
Canada is a country where everyone will proudly say that they support immigration. It is not a matter of “if”; it is a matter of “how”. We want to be compassionate. However, the government has turned a blind eye to this, and people who have legally come to this country and other Canadian taxpayers are sitting here and looking.
The Prime Minister stood in Edmonton only a few short months ago, looked at a Canadian veteran, and said, “You are asking for more than the government can give.” We then had the immigration minister stand up in the House of Commons and talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the government has proudly thrown at people who are illegally entering the country.
That is not fair. As someone who supports compassionate, planned, orderly migration, and sees it as a key to sustaining the Canadian economy over time when done properly, legally, and safely, I worry that by abdicating the responsibility to do this, it is actually the Liberal Party that is creating divisiveness in the country, because people are starting to talk about “if” rather than “how”. People start talking about “if” when the government abdicates its responsibility to get the “how” right, which is why we put this motion forward today.
Again, let us think about this. This has been going on for 18 months. We are going into another summer. Report after report has been issued by government officials saying there is a problem, it is happening, and here it is. All the government has done is throw hundreds of millions of dollars at the problem, and it has gotten worse. The analogy I used in the House yesterday is that it is like having a big hole in the roof during a rainstorm and planning to replace the hardwood every day. It does not make sense to me.
Also, the fact that the Liberals have done nothing to structurally close the problem is irresponsible. It is taking away that social licence, and that is irresponsible, not just in the expenditure of money and the prioritization of tax dollars, but also in terms of sustaining Canada's hope in immigration over time.
Why do the Liberals need to table this plan? They knew that this was happening. They are projecting 400 persons a day, starting now. They need to table a plan that does not say they are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. They need to table a plan that does one of two things, or both: close the loophole in the safe third country agreement that I mentioned earlier, or designate the entire Canadian border as a technical official point of entry in order to stop the flow of people illegally entering the country to claim asylum.
I want to spend my last few minutes talking about the safe third country agreement and some of the things the Liberals should be including. I hope they support this motion today when they table their plan, as this motion requests, by May 11.
I should note as well that I tried to raise this issue in the citizenship and immigration committee last week. I asked committee members to study this at the citizenship and immigration committee in terms of developing a plan. The committee members voted that down, which is very irresponsible. I encourage anyone watching today to write or phone the members of the immigration committee who voted against that motion.
I want to talk about the safe third country agreement, very briefly. I gave an outline of what it was, but I want to read an excerpt from an article called, “The meaning of borders: Lessons from the last world war”. It was written by Howard Anglin and published on March 12, 2017, in iPolitics. It states:
One of the most contentious debates during the drafting of the 1951 Convention—
—this is on refugees—
—was between the United Kingdom and France over the scope of what would become Article 31, the provision that deals with the circumvention of national borders. Recognizing that “[a] refugee whose departure from his country of origin is usually a flight, is rarely in a position to comply with the requirements for legal entry … into the country of refuge,” Article 31 exempts persons who enter a country seeking refuge in violation of that country’s laws from the normal consequences of their illegal entry and presence.
Worried about large numbers of refugees in the countries bordering France, the French delegate to the drafting convention sought assurances that if those refugees crossed the border from a country where their lives were not in danger, France would be able to return them to the frontier. According to one account of the deliberations, the French delegate observed that, “[t]o admit that a refugee who had settled temporarily in a reception country was free to enter another, would be to grant him a right of immigration which might be exercised for reasons of mere personal convenience.”
That is what I see happening in the situation at the Lacolle border crossing right now, because we know, with even the very few cases that have been processed by the IRB, certainly not a majority of them are being found to be valid. This argument prevailed in the drafting of article 31, so there is an argument saying we have international obligations. In fact, legally the safe third country agreement is based on the exact provision that I just mentioned.
I will quote some Liberals. After the safe third country agreement was negotiated, to pre-empt American talk of increasing security at the U.S.-Canada border, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien dispatched then deputy prime minister John Manley to Washington to ensure that the legal flow of goods and people between the two countries was not interrupted. The resulting agreement, the safe third country agreement, was signed by then immigration minister Denis Coderre, who personally predicted that it would allow Canada to turn back 15,000 people a year to the United States.
In his article, Howard Anglin quotes John Manley, who at the time was the deputy prime minister, as explaining, “it's not a matter of shopping for the country that you want, it's a matter of escaping the oppression that you face.” To build on this quote, I think anybody here would be hard pressed to say that people are fleeing oppression from the United States of America. I would be fairly offended if somebody said that, and our foreign affairs minister would have a great deal of difficulty trying to explain that statement in her negotiations with NAFTA.
If that is the spirit of the safe third country agreement, and the immigration minister and the Prime Minister have said they support its application, it begs the question why they have not approached the Americans about closing the loophole I mentioned earlier. I have asked the immigration minister many times at committee. He says they simply have not raised it with the Americans. Is it a lack of character, a lack of conviction, fright, or something else? I do not know.
However, the fact that they have not raised this with the Americans begs the question why they would support the application of the agreement in the first place. They cannot suck and blow. They cannot say they support the application of the safe third country agreement and then say they will do nothing to close the loophole that lets thousands of people into the country. My former colleague Jason Kenney tried to do that. He is on the record saying he feels that the Americans under the previous administration saw this as a way for people to self-deport into Canada.
What can we do here in Canada? The immigration refugee protection regulations define ports of entry as “(a) a place set out in Schedule 1” and “(b) a place designated by the Minister under section 26 as a port of entry”. Schedule 1 identifies more than 70 land ports. Section 26 refers to the authority to designate points of entry by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and says the minister “may, on the basis of the following factors, designate a place as a port of entry as well as the port of entry's dates and hours of operation”. It goes on to list a series of criteria.
There might be some legal requirements around putting infrastructure into place. That could easily be changed so that the entire Canadian land border could be defined as a technical application for the safe third country agreement, so that it would apply. Then we would not need to set up tent trailers. Then we would not need to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the RCMP and CBSA for the sole purpose of managing illegal immigrants.
The spirit of the agreement would apply. Frankly, as we see needs in legislation, we should be seeking to solve problems. That is what we do here. If we are going to see this agreement apply, then we should be looking to a solution like that. I would love to say we would do that if we were in government. However, it is the government's responsibility to table a plan, and that is what the spirit of this motion is today.
I want to close by again saying how we got here. Members will remember that when the Americans issued an executive order around immigration, the Prime Minister tweeted, “#WelcomeToCanada”. Of course, we saw an article in the National Post, dated April 3, 2018, based on information obtained through access to information. It describes the confusion of embassies with respect to citizenship and immigration, because all of a sudden they were inundated with requests from people saying, “I can just come in, right?” This is when we started seeing the spike in people illegally entering the country.
We know that the Prime Minister has never taken responsibility for this tweet, and he certainly has done nothing to rectify the problem it caused. It is incumbent upon him to solve it before the summer, before we have another 45,000 to 55,000 people enter the country illegally, which creates all of these issues.
Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this motion and I call upon the government to table a concrete plan that does not just replace the hardwood but actually solves this issue, so we can get back to the principle of compassionate, planned, orderly immigration.
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick
Liberal
Serge Cormier LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration
Mr. Speaker, we see again today the Conservatives' strategy to create a climate of fear.
I took some notes as the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill was delivering her speech. Let me first assure all Canadians that we check the identity and criminal record of any person that crosses the border irregularly. If they do not pass this security check, they are sent back.
The Conservatives say that the immigration system is broken, but we inherited it from the previous government. We put our immigration system back on track. In her speech, the hon. member said that we threw money out the window, but that is not true. We made investments of $174 million, $74 million of which are being used to process asylum claims as quickly as possible. The previous government cut more than $400 million from the immigration budget.
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill said several times that she asked us to include more investments in budget 2018. That is what we did. We invested $174 million.
My question is quite simple: is there or is there not more money for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to process claims more quickly?
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, for those who might be listening to the floor feed and could not understand my colleague, he started off his speech by saying that I was fearmongering.
We have a Liberal Prime Minister who stood in Halifax last week and talked about divisive politics, yet the number one thing the Liberals put forward when we say we would like to have a planned, orderly, compassionate immigration system, and that we encourage immigration but it should be done fairly and safely, is that we are fearmongering. Let us think about how irresponsible that is. I am not going to go into what fearmongering means, but anybody listening knows what it means. Let us think about the fact that they bring up the concept of fearmongering, as opposed to coming up with a plan. That is such a Liberal, leftist tactic. Rather than deal with the problem, they say we are fearmongering. Canadians are rejecting that en masse. Canadians are rejecting that sort of divisive politics.
My colleague also defended this by saying we are spending $1 billion, or $2 billion. I do not know. I would just push back and ask him to look at the metrics. What is it, a 100% increase over the last three months of last year, with tens of thousands more people coming in? The problem is not being solved. Canadians who understand that tax dollars have a prioritization do not think this is the best expenditure of money.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will first say very clearly that I absolutely agree there needs to be a study on this issue so that we can work on a plan.The Conservatives claim to want this to be compassionate and orderly, yet with this motion they insist on misrepresenting the situation, using words like “illegal”.
The member sits on the immigration, refugee, and citizenship committee, and she knows the file. Therefore, from that perspective, she ought to know that in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sections 117 and 133 specifically indicate that a person could cross to Canada irregularly, and that by crossing over irregularly, the person is not committing a crime under the Criminal Code.
Given the facts of the case, and given that Canada accepts people who come over irregularly within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, why would the member and the Conservatives insist on fearmongering with the term “illegal”?
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, if people come to the United States border, they will see a large sign saying in effect not to cross or they will be arrested. When people do that, including those who are entering the country to claim asylum, what happens to them? They are arrested. Therefore, it is illegal.
We are arguing semantics over the fact that people are illegally entering our country instead of coming up with a plan to encourage orderly, planned migration. Why do members of the NDP want to do this? It is because they, with the Liberals, do not want to see a plan in place to encourage people to enter the country through planned, orderly migration.
That is the fact here. News outlets have used this term. I am not going to sit here and argue semantics. What I am asking for is action on the fact—
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
An hon. member
It is misleading people.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Order. I am not far from the member who is speaking, but I am having a hard time hearing her with all the shouting. I will let the member proceed, please.
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, for some reason, the Liberals will not table a plan to stop this problem. If the policy of the Liberal government now is to encourage people to illegally enter the country and claim asylum, then just say that. People will hold them to account in the next election.
That is not the immigration system that I envision for our country. I want to ensure that the world's most vulnerable have priority access into our country, and that we have planned, orderly migration that meets the needs of the Canadian economy, not billions of dollars of unaccounted federal money that we do not have that makes the problem worse.
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave an amazing speech. I know she worked long and hard on that one.
In my riding and particularly in my hometown, there is a church community that has been waiting for four years for a Syrian refugee family which it has been trying to settle. I know that each time the backlog gets longer and longer, and groups like that church community that have been waiting for Syrian refugees are continually told that it is going to be a longer and longer wait.
Would my colleague have any comments on that?
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, as a country we should celebrate the fact that we have so many families and so many groups across the country that privately raise money to sponsor people to this country, to start new lives and to contribute to the Canadian economy, people who are fleeing areas of persecution. That is something we should be promoting, encouraging more of, and be supporting more robustly.
Let us think about the hundreds of millions of dollars the government is spending to accommodate illegal migrants into this country. That money could go to ESL programs in small communities or to processing privately sponsored refugees. I know there are 45,000 cases where people have raised money to bring people into the country legally, and what the government has been doing is redirecting and processing resources from those streams to Montreal to process illegal border crossers.
What kind of a message does that send to people who are trying to support this wonderful process that we have in our country? What kind of a message does it send to somebody who is trying to reunite with one of their family members?
The priorities of the government are backward. We are arguing semantics. We are arguing about spending hundreds of millions of dollars when there are very easy legal fixes that could restore order to our immigration system, and yet the government does not even want to talk about them. The government does not even acknowledge that they exist. To me, that is divisive. That is what is going to cause a loss of social licence in this country for immigration. That is what is really irresponsible.
The government should table a plan. It should be concrete. It should have legal actions to stop the flow, not just accommodate people coming here. That is what our focus should be. Certainly, that is what a Conservative government did and would do in the future.
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Parkdale—High Park Ontario
Liberal
Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)
Mr. Speaker, I have three brief comments.
First, in the context of a robust debate, my response to the member for Peace River—Westlock is that it is precisely because of people like his constituents who are trying to privately sponsor Syrian refugees that we have quadrupled the amount of private sponsorship that is available in this country, as compared to the number that was put forward by the previous Conservative government under its tenure at the head of this file.
Second, I find it quite astounding that the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who moved this motion, has raised former immigration minister Jason Kenney as some sort of paragon of proper stewardship or administration of the immigration portfolio, a man under whose watch health care for refugees was cut, a man under whose watch refugee selection from the Middle East during the height of the Syrian refugee crisis was done on selective minority religious grounds only, and a man under whose watch processing times ballooned to the point where waiting times were two to three years.
Third, specifically for the member for Calgary Nose Hill, is with respect to the myth that her and her party continue to propagate in this House and outside of this House, which is that somehow inland asylum seekers are queue jumping. Clearly, there is a humanitarian category and there are separate categories for people who come here for permanent resident status under family reunification or economic migration. The two categories are distinct and disparate.
After two and a half years as the opposition critic, I would have thought the member for Calgary Nose Hill would have an understanding of that specific differentiation.
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is in for a big wake-up call, because people are going to be aghast at everything the member just said.
Very quickly, on health care, many Canadians would say that those who legally enter the country should have priority access to our generous social programs, and that we actually have to talk about the sustainability of our social programs in terms of our immigration system through the concept of planned, orderly migration.
With regard to the selection of refugees, it took me over a year to convince the Liberal government to bring in Yazidi genocide survivors through its Syrian refugee initiative. It was that member opposite who sat in a committee meeting with me and disgustingly for an entire summer tried to argue why they should not come here. Those are the principles of the Liberal government.
We will always stand proudly and support planned, orderly migration as opposed to the disaster that the government has shamefully turned our immigration system into.
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
York South—Weston Ontario
Liberal
Ahmed Hussen LiberalMinister of Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ajax.
I appreciate this opportunity to have an important debate on Canada's approach to addressing irregular migration. The world is facing an unprecedented movement of people, with 65 million children, women, and men on the move. Canada is not immune to the challenges presented by a rise in displaced people, nor must we turn our backs on our humanitarian tradition.
I am proud of our government's record and leadership on this file. Most of all, I am proud of Canadians' kindness, generosity, and commitment to human rights both at home and abroad.
At the same time, our government believes in an orderly rules-based and efficient immigration system. Make no mistake. We are steadfast in our commitment to protecting the safety and security of Canadians and our border.
That is precisely why we are investing the appropriate resources into our border security agencies, with a further investment of $173.2 million announced in budget 2018.
While the Conservatives like to talk a good game on border security, their record is abysmal. In fact, the Harper Conservatives cut nearly $400 million from the Canada Border Services Agency. They devastated the asylum system and left asylum claimants waiting for years to get a hearing and a decision on their cases. They callously cut off refugee health care. Refugees, including pregnant women and victims of torture, were told they had no access to health care. This was a practice that Canadian courts ruled as cruel and unusual treatment.
All of those policies failed to provide timely protection to vulnerable people. The Conservatives' policies failed to ensure well-supported border operations. Their policies failed to minimize the impact on provincial health and social services. They failed to live up to what Canadians expect of their government, which is courage, strength, leadership, and compassion.
Now the Conservatives are arguing against our investments in border security and against our investments in faster decision-making processes of asylum claims. Instead, at various times, they have proposed to deploy the military against families fleeing conflict and persecution. They have suggested that we break international law by preventing people from making asylum claims.
They have incredulously suggested that we turn the entire 9,000 kilometre stretch of the border into one continuous official border crossing. I am eager to hear my colleague from across the way explain how she intends to have enough border agents stationed continuously along 9,000 kilometres, while at the same time eliminating the additional funding that we have invested into our border security agencies.
Designating the entire border as an official border crossing would also mean that all legitimate travel, such as business travellers, tourists, and trucks carrying goods, would be allowed at any point along the border. The Conservatives cannot decide if they want to close down our borders completely or open a 9,000 kilometre border.
These are not real solutions. This is throwing everything against the wall and hoping something sticks.
Even more irresponsibly, the Conservatives are now trying to pit immigrants against refugees. The asylum system, as they should know, is fundamentally different from all other areas of our immigration system. There is a completely separate process in place for asylum claims, one that has absolutely no bearing on wait times for immigrants.
This is especially rich coming from a party whose failed immigration policies kept families apart for years, forced vulnerable women to stay in abusive relationships, refused to act in the face of the world's largest refugee crisis, and failed to secure and rescue Yazidi women and girls.
Our government is laser-focused on protecting the safety and security of Canadians, securing our border, upholding our humanitarian obligations, treating people with dignity and compassion, and following the law. I will explain how our government is doing just that.
Our primary priority is the safety and security of Canadians, and we are making investments into strengthening border security. Let me be clear. Every individual is carefully screened, and no one is released into our communities until the individual has cleared security checks.
Canada is a signatory to international conventions and we have legal as well as moral obligations to assess asylum claims and not turn away people who have legitimate fears of persecution, violence, and risk to their lives. However, irregular crossings do not provide a free ticket to Canada. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that asylum seekers are well informed about the robust assessment process in place. We have undertaken an extensive outreach program to reach potential migrant communities to ensure they understand Canadian immigration laws and the consequences of crossing the border irregularly.
We also know that quick decision-making on asylum claims is vital for minimizing pressure on social services, while ensuring that asylum claims are not in limbo for years. That is why we are investing an additional $74 million into the Immigration and Refugee Board to speed up asylum claims.
We have worked with the provinces and other partners to take what we learned last summer and develop a national operations plan to manage possible scenarios and any fluctuations at the border. We have established an intergovernmental working group of federal and provincial ministers to address emerging issues quickly and ensure a coordinated approach.
We have reviewed our operations and developed more flexible and nimble procedures that can adapt to shifting movements. This includes cutting processing times for work permits from three months to three weeks, deploying mobile processing teams to the border, expanding our footprint in locations such as Montreal, and working with our partners in Quebec and Ontario on innovative solutions.
Finally, we have continuously engaged with our U.S. colleagues, including a meeting just yesterday between my colleague the Minister of Public Safety and the U.S. Secretary for Homeland Security, to ensure seamless co-operation in managing our common border. This includes working together to understand movements, share information, and address issues such as visa granting in source countries.
I would like to emphasize that all of our actions to date underscore our commitment to a well-functioning process that protects Canadians. Independent observers such as the UN refugee agencies have praised Canada's handling of the situation. Just last week the head of the UNHCR in Canada said that Canada's border is secure, that Canada is very well equipped to respond to any increased number of asylum seekers in Canada, and that the Government of Canada adapted to the increase with measures that reduced congestions at land ports of entry and strengthened asylum processing capacity.
Our government is unwavering in its commitment to protect Canadians while supporting a strong asylum system and meeting its obligations to provide due process to persons seeking protection.
I have appreciated the opportunity to participate in this important debate.
Opposition Motion—Illegal Border CrossingsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get some information from the minister for months and months, so I would love the opportunity today to ask for this information. I know many Canadians are watching and would like this simple piece of information.
Between the increases in demand at the IRB in terms of processing, the demand on the social programs of the provinces, including health care and affordable housing, how much per year is the government forecasting that the increase in illegal asylum claimants, or people who are entering the country illegally to claim asylum from the United States, is going to cost? Is this included in the federal budget? How much is this going to add to the federal deficit?
Ahmed Hussen Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have made investments in budget 2018 to address precisely what the hon. member is addressing. Budget 2018 contained an investment of $173.2 million for border security operations, as well as an investment of $74 million in the Immigration and Refugee Board.
In addition to that, to minimize pressures on provincial social services, we have invested heavily as a department to fast-track the issuing of work permits. This is important because when work permits are issued for asylum seekers, they are less likely to rely on provincial social services. They will rely on themselves by getting a job and supporting themselves while they wait for their asylum case to make it through the Immigration and Refugee Board, which we have also invested in, as I said, so that asylum claims can go through faster.
This is precisely something that the Province of Quebec had asked us to do last year, because the province said it was concerned about the numbers, and wanted us to equip asylum seekers faster with work permits. We listened and responded.
That is how we are addressing this situation.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I note that in today's speech the minister is now using the word “irregular”, which I am glad to hear. On March 19, at committee, the minister, under aggressive questioning from the Conservatives, conceded to the word “illegal” and in fact said that he was “happy” to use the term “illegal” to describe these asylum seekers. Perhaps the minister has now had a chance to review the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sections 117 and 133, and has realized that under the act, those individuals who cross over through irregular crossings are doing it within the law. If that is the case, would the minister please apologize to the asylum seekers for using the word “illegal”?
Second, on the investment in the IRB, the government is providing $74 million for the processing of claims. The minister must know that there are some 46,000 cases in the backlog and that it is increasing by 2,100 cases every month. The $74 million will not reduce even half the backlog that exists. Will the minister also commit to increasing dollars to the IRB so it can do the job effectively to protect the integrity of our immigration system?