Pierre Paul-Hus

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Transport for answering the question on behalf of another minister, and, yes, of course I saw what an excellent job our officers are doing, and I am proud of that. The problem, though, is that they are enforcing the law, and the current law has a loophole that allows people to enter Canada through Roxham Road. That has to change.

Can the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship confirm whether he is renegotiating the safe third country agreement to fix this problem?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, my leader and I went to Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle. We saw that there are some very fine facilities that continue to welcome more illegal entrants and a transportation service to take these illegals to the community of their choice. In our view, we have a government that instead of wanting to solve the border crisis is only providing for its long-term management and not putting an end to it.

Does the minister believe that Canada should have two parallel immigration systems? Does he intend to renegotiate the safe third country agreement?

[Security, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the G7 summit having now come to a close, on behalf of myself and the people of Quebec City, I want to congratulate the Integrated Security Unit partners: the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, the Service de police de la Ville de Québec, and especially chief Robert Pigeon.

A deployment of such magnitude requires a huge amount of preparation. When events like these are over, some people feel as though there was too much police presence, but we have to be prepared, because there is no room for error when it comes to protecting the public. We should be proud of keeping our city pristine, and more importantly, of ensuring that our many business owners did not have to worry about submitting claims to be reimbursed for property damage. Mr. Pigeon and the Service de police de la Ville de Québec have all my respect for planning out every detail with such professionalism, and for allowing controlled demonstrations in a healthy and respectful democracy.

We must never forget that upholding democracy means upholding both my freedom and my neighbour's freedom.

[Natural Resources, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my second question, the Minister of Transport said I was spouting nonsense, when the point I was making in my question was based on the facts.

I would like the Minister of Transport to tell me which of my facts are false and which facts he considers nonsense.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 7th, 2018]

More meaningless words, Mr. Speaker.

Now let's talk about the Minister of Immigration, who is right over there. It almost looks like his intention has been to make it easy. He gave three provinces $50 million to stop complaining; he built a costly welcome centre for illegal migrants in Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle; and now, he has set up a transportation system to take illegal migrants wherever they want to go. That is right, wherever they want to go.

The minister says all the right things, but his actions only confirm his hypocrisy and disingenuousness.

Where is the Minister of Immigration's plan?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has proclaimed that Canadians need not worry about 30,000 people entering Canada illegally. He says everything is under control.

However, border services officers have told us that they were instructed to cut interrogation time down from eight hours to two, that between 10% and 15% of illegal crossers do not return for their second interview, and that nobody knows where in the country those people are now.

Why is the Prime Minister refusing to talk about this problem at the G7?

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very good question.

Once again, we are dealing with the complex issue of threat management. In Canada, there are groups like al Qaeda and ISIS that announce their demands; we can intercept communications and prevent attacks. However, there are also people who become radicalized at home in their basement. Bill C-59 includes no mechanisms to prevent this type of situation.

That is why we want to be able to question people suspected of plotting an attack based on information they might have sent or looked up, and make a preventive arrest if necessary. If there is no problem, so much the better, and if there is one, we could save lives.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

My colleague's question is about the main purpose of Bill C-59, which is to keep Canadians safe. When our security agencies are limited in what they can do, that can compromise Canadians' safety. I do not want to be accused of fearmongering and divisiveness, but that is just the reality of the situation.

The Conservatives' 26th amendment to Bill C-59 would have replaced those two little words, “is likely”, with “is necessary”. That changes everything. That is the kind of change that makes a difference because it gives our officers the mandate to intervene and keep people from dying.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague from Kingston should talk to his Prime Minister, who, as the leader of the second opposition party, voted in favour of Bill C-51. We must never forget that intervention is required in some situations.

At the time, the Conservative government had to enact legislation quickly to make tools available to our law enforcement agencies. Let us not forget that when intervention is needed, as it is at the border these days, action must be taken. The problem has been going on for a year and a half, but the government is not doing anything. Put us in power, and we will fix the problem.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We did indeed take several trips together for NATO meetings. During these trips, we learned that the 27 other member countries have the same kinds of concerns and that terrorism is a serious problem.

I spoke about Bill C-51 a bit in my speech. I know there was talk about how Bill C-51 is an attack on privacy rights. During the 2015 campaign, the Liberals and New Democrats made a lot of speeches against Bill C-51.

This is why the Liberals introduced Bill C-59, but at the end of the day, it is not much different from Bill C-51. The parts that were changed, as I mentioned, are the parts essential to obtaining strategic information against terrorism. At the end of the day, my colleague must not be happy with Bill C-59. I think the bill is acceptable, but it also lacks some fundamental elements.