37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 100
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 23, 2001
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for
Returns |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Border
Security |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine
Dalphond-Guiral |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North
Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
|
|
Hon. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
|
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jerry Pickard |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Mr. Jerry Pickard |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Assad |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Adopt a Dog Month |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges,
Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Volunteerism |
|
|
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain
(Guelph—Wellington, Lib.) |
|
|
Meteorological Service of
Canada |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hungarian Revolution |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mark R. Isfeld |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mike Nemesvary |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West--Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Economy |
|
|
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ) |
|
|
Infrastructure Program |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf,
Lib.) |
|
|
Toby Banks-Rosser |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Infrastructure Program |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard,
Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North
Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Quebec-Cree Agreement |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau
(Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Infrastructure Program |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic,
Lib.) |
|
|
Retail Industry |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Small Business Week |
|
|
Mr. Gurbax Malhi
(Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
International
Co-operation |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Air Canada |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Transportation |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Infrastructure Program
|
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the
Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Air Canada |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--Border
Security |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Assad |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Assad |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress
Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince
George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Division 153) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Customs Act |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
(Division 154) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
(Division 155) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 156) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the second time
and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Armenia |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ) |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Citizenship and
Immigration |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Armenia |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
Mr. John Cannis |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis
(Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
[------] |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
Airline
Industry |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst,
NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Airline Safety |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
Mr. André Harvey |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 23, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Questions Passed as Orders for
Returns
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 40 could be made an order
for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 40—
Mr. Charlie
Penson:
With regard to all government department and agency
Internet web sites: (a) do they track visitors; (b) if so, what
data do they compile on each visitor; (c) does each of these sites
disclose that it is tracking and compiling personal information on visitors;
and (d) what measures have been taken to ensure the privacy of visitors?
Return tabled.
(1005)
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Supply]
* * *
[English]
Supply
Allotted Day--Border
Security
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
|
That,
as part of a continental perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and
protect the security of Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our
trading relationships, this House calls on the government to: |
|
(a) provide both Immigration officers and Customs
officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to
detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border; |
|
(b) move Customs border officers out of the tax
collection agency and into a law enforcement agency; |
|
(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing
without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have
cleared proper health and security checks; and |
|
(d) create a list of safe third countries, including the
United States and member states of the European Union, from which Canada will
no longer accept refugee claimants. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the
official opposition's motion on some of the steps necessary to create a
continental security perimeter.
The Canadian Alliance supports the concept of a
security perimeter. We have talked about it at length. It has also been
proposed by others and by the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Mr. Paul Cellucci.
Those of us who have proposed this have done so for several reasons.
First and foremost, we believe the perimeter concept is
the best way to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.
Second, it would help ensure the safety and security of
our friends and neighbours in the United States.
Third, it would help ensure that the vital flow of
trade between Canada and the United States, which is some $1.3 billion per day
every day of the year, continues.
Fourth, by enhancing our ability to protect ourselves
and our economic arrangements we enhance our own sovereignty. We become less
subject to those who would abuse our openness and generosity and we
increasingly become masters of our own destiny, truly maîtres chez
nous.
[Translation]
In recent weeks we have proposed that a
federal-provincial summit be held to study the feasibility of this security
perimeter. The Liberal government in its arrogance has, of course, reminded us
that in its vision of Canada, which is out of touch with reality, the provinces
have no place in decision making on this.
Yet, as far as public safety and security are
concerned, Quebec and Ontario have their own police services. As far as
immigration is concerned, Quebec and Alberta have a say. Rather than always
perceiving provincial involvement as a threat, the Liberal government would be
better off seeing it for what it is: an essential input from which everyone
stands to benefit.
A North American security perimeter would mean
harmonizing our borders and immigration policies with our neighbours, sharing
common standards.
(1010)
[English]
The perimeter involves harmonizing customs and
immigration policies among Canada, the United States and perhaps Mexico to
ensure that there are common and regular standards on our external frontier so
that we do not have to slow down internal trade and we do not have to
excessively infringe upon the rights of our own citizens domestically.
Harmonizing does not mean giving up our controls. As a matter of fact, it would
mean increasing control of our own territory and entering into an arrangement
where we would be certain that our neighbours at the same time would be
monitoring their borders with proper controls also.
This may involve certain things, for example, creating
a common list of countries that we regard as safe countries. I will talk
further about that in a moment. It may involve joint customs inspections at
airports, both in North America and abroad. It may involve border stations
where the United States and Canadian agents work more closely together. At a
very minimum, any effective security perimeter will have to involve measures
like the ones we propose in our motion.
Canada customs officers and immigration officers will
have to be designated as full peace officers with the power to detain and
arrest suspected criminals and terrorists. This will require that they have
enhanced training and enhanced equipment.
Second, customs officers in particular have requested
that they be removed from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. That agency is
at root a tax collection agency. These customs officers should be placed in a
designated law enforcement agency, perhaps an enhanced border control, that
would fall under a law enforcement oriented department, such as the solicitor
general.
Next we will need to have a firmer policy at the border
so that surprise arrivals, who spontaneously claim refugee status at airports
or at border crossings without proper documents such as passports or identity
cards, should be detained, and not as the minister says “for a while” or “while
certain checks are done” but until their identity is established and it can be
determined that they do not present a health or security risk to
Canadians.
Finally, there are a number of countries, including the
United States and the member countries of the European Union, which are in
compliance with article 33 of the Geneva convention on refugees. That means
that these countries, like Canada, which are free and democratic and which are
civilized and have an established history of protecting the human rights and
interests of all people in their countries, are called safe countries according
to that Geneva convention because they do not persecute, threaten or torture
people for religious, political or other reasons. No persons in these countries
deemed safe, such as Canada, could legitimately claim that they would be
tortured or persecuted because of religious, political or other
reasons.
People arriving from countries deemed as safe should
not be accepted as refugee claimants. Persons arriving from these countries,
countries like Canada, Sweden and Holland, who try to claim refugee status
saying that they would be tortured back in the country from which they came
should be put on the next plane or bus and sent back to the safe country from
which they came.
[Translation]
In short, the motion presented by the Canadian Alliance
today particularly addresses providing our customs officers with enhanced
training, ensuring that those who turn up at our airports without identity
papers are detained until they are identified and we are sure that they do not
represent a threat to our security, no longer accepting refugees from the
United States or member states of the European Union, and if such people turn
up at our borders claiming refugee status, deporting them
immediately.
(1015)
[English]
To most members of the general public, these would
sound like basic and common sense proposals.
Our customs and immigration officers should have the
tools and training they need to do their job. Canada should not accept refugees
from first world safe nations or those who are trying to identify themselves as
such.
I am sure in the debate today we will hear members of
the government claim that these are radical policies, Draconian or un-Canadian.
This is the inevitable Liberal reaction to any ideas which originate from the
Canadian Alliance.
It was the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, who
once said that all truth goes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed;
then it is violently opposed; and then if it is truth, it is accepted as
self-evident.
That has been the pattern of so many of the policies
presented by Canadian Alliance members and members before us on this side over
the years. When we talked about reducing and getting rid of deficit and debt,
we were called extreme; it was violently opposed; and then it was accepted by
the Liberals. So many of our policies followed this pattern.
I have no doubt that some speakers on the government
side today will express a mixture of ridicule and violent opposition to our
proposals. However, I have no doubt that in a few months, the Prime Minister
will agree to a very similar list of the proposals that we are presenting
today. He will do that in a press conference, probably with President Bush,
likely claiming that these were obvious ideas which he had supported all along.
Watch for that to happen. This has been the pattern of the federal Liberal
government since the beginning of the response to the terrorist attacks of
September 11.
As early as September 15, I and others spoke to the
House about two great imperatives in the response to these terrorist attacks. I
said that Canada would need, as our British and American allies already had,
comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation. I said that Canada should not
hesitate to fulfill our obligation under article 5 of the NATO treaty to
provide military assistance to our friend and ally, the United
States.
At first, the government response was that these steps
were an unnecessary overreaction and that there was no need to adopt such
extreme measures. However, barely five weeks later, the government has now
tabled anti-terrorism legislation that has many of the very suggestions of the
Canadian Alliance in a motion that the Canadian Alliance tabled and the
government voted against on September 18. Thankfully, the government has
finally committed to military support in the U.S. military intervention in
Afghanistan; it was deemed not to be an overreaction.
I have no doubt that whatever the government talking
points tell members to say today, and however the whip tells Liberal MPs to
vote this evening, in a short period of time, in either the second round of
anti-terrorism legislation or at a Canada-U.S. or Canada-U.S.-Mexico summit, we
will see the government proudly introducing measures along the lines we are
suggesting today.
I would ask the government members who will reply to
the opposition supply day motion today to be very careful in what they say
about our proposals and to remember the words that Prime Minister Trudeau wrote
on his question period briefing book: “May my words today be soft and tender
for I may have to eat them tomorrow.”
The focus of the motion is on providing a safe and
secure border for Canada.
The government has gone to extreme and far reaching
attempts in proposing to reach into the lives of Canadians with criminal
justice legislation. Bill C-36 will provide for new and unprecedented powers,
like the right to make preventive arrests, the ability to shut down websites
for content that it may deem to be hateful and the ability to permanently lock
access to information on national security or diplomatic grounds without even
offering the possibility of review to the information commissioner.
Some of these new powers may well be necessary, and the
government will argue for that. We will listen, we will take part and we will
support where we feel that is necessary. Some may, indeed, be overdue additions
to the new law enforcement arsenal that is required. However, there are some
matters in Bill C-36 which will raise valid concerns about civil
liberties.
The one question that keeps coming back to my mind is:
Why has the government been so hasty to introduce legislation which will
infringe, perhaps justifiably, on the rights of Canadian citizens domestically,
but it has done almost nothing to prevent the arrival of potential terrorists
here from abroad? I do not understand this contradiction.
(1020)
If Canada presented a solid frontier at the border and
terrorists and criminals knew they had little chance of making it in, then
there would be no need for some of the powers the government is bringing in
under Bill C-36. We need wiretap powers because over 50 international terrorist
groups are known to operate in Canada. With very few exceptions, almost every
one of the suspected terrorists originated from another country. If these
groups had been prevented from establishing themselves here in the first place,
we would have no need to provide new sweeping wiretap powers.
Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the RCMP's national
security and intelligence section, the counterterrorism unit, spoke at the
international conference on money laundering in Montreal last week. He pointed
out that terrorist groups operating in Canada follow a common modus operandi. I
am being careful to say that he was talking about terrorist groups and
potential terrorists. That is who we are talking about, not all refugee
claimants. We will be very upset if we get accused of that again today. We are
talking about suspected terrorists.
This is what the distinguished member of the RCMP
said:
Some people are sent here with a
mission and some people come here on their own and are recruited. But once
here, they all have the same MO (modus operandi). |
He said that first they would claim refugee status,
allowing the claimant to remain in Canada while their case worked its way
through the system, which as we all know can take years. Then they would apply
for benefits in Canada, welfare and health cards that provided an income stream
while they got established. Next they would link with other criminals and
terrorists to commit petty theft, economic fraud and other supposedly invisible
crime. Then they would launder the money through legitimate businesses which
then could be used to finance terrorist operations in Canada or
abroad.
The pattern is common and the RCMP have seen it at work
in different cities with different terrorist groups across Canada. Again I
repeat it is not all refugee claimants. It is different terrorist groups across
Canada. If we can break the cycle, we can do much to break the influence of
terrorist groups in Canada. That is why I believe we can win this war if we
fight it properly. The place we have to start is with tougher enforcement at
the Canadian border.
In reference to Bill C-36, the Minister of Justice has
said that its sweeping powers are necessary because we have to stop terrorists
before they get on planes in Canada. She went on to say that when they got on
planes intending to commit hijackings and killings, it was too late. We agree
with that. The best way to ensure that terrorists do not get on our planes on
our soil is not to allow them off the planes arriving in Canada in the first
place.
Let me focus on one area of this debate which I believe
will prove to be contentious. I have said in the House on several occasions
that I believe people who arrive in Canada and spontaneously claim refugee
status without proper identification or under suspicious circumstances, and I
am not talking about all refugees, should be detained until their identities
can be confirmed and until they have passed security clearance to ensure that
they do not pose a danger to Canadians.
The minister of immigration, who is not known for using
words which are soft and tender, said that this proposal of ours, which most
Canadians would call common sense, was in fact “one of the dark moments in
Canadian history”. She also said that it was nothing less than a proposal for
penal colonies in Canada. We have never suggested such a thing and that is a
departure from rational debate for her to even suggest that. Unfortunately,
this reaction is only too typical of this minister who resorts to fearmongering
and name calling in too many situations only to hide the weakness of her own
logic and inaction.
When children are in schoolyards and their schoolmates
call them names, they react with the chant: “Sticks and stones may break my
bones, but names will never hurt me”. Unfortunately, in politics name calling
can hurt. The Canadian Alliance knows only too well that a common and
underhanded strategy of the government is to name call when it is losing the
debate or when its reason is lacking. We also know that name calling can hurt
because unfortunately it is easier to report than the substantive argument that
triggered the irrational insult.
Even though we know that names can hurt us, we also
know that the sticks and stones of an exploding building or a falling
skyscraper can do more than break bones. It can cause death and destruction. We
will run the risk of being politically hurt, through this reported but
irrational name calling, and press on to propose the things that we know will
make our nation a stronger and more peaceful land than it is already
today.
The minister assures us that Canada can and does detain
any people that immigration officers deem to be a security risk. Therefore,
there is no need to detain the thousands per year who show up here without
proper documentation. In saying this she contradicts her own department's
admonitions about the very limited conditions under which they can resort to
detention.
The government's detention policies state clearly that
detention is considered only as a last resort and that even people with
criminal records are not necessarily to be detained unless there is substantial
reason to believe that they will reoffend while in Canada. I am sorry but when
it comes to predicting criminal behaviour or who might reoffend the government
has a hopeless record. It needs to have laws which detain those who might be a
menace to our security.
Imagine a 25 year old man arriving in Canada from a
country in the Middle East or North Africa where there are active terrorist
groups, which have been named by CSIS, the United States and British
governments and which are not declared to be safe under article 33 of the
Geneva convention. The person says he wants to claim refugee status, that he
does not have a passport because he used false documents to get to Canada and
that he destroyed the documents on the plane. If there is no evidence to tie
such a person to specific criminal activities, it would be hard under the
current refugee detention guidelines for this person to be detained. It is
unacceptable. We must have the power in place to detain such
individuals.
Between now and the time in which legislation will
finally come in, how many people with terrorist or criminal intent will walk
away from our border points when they could have and should have been
detained?
I respect the Liberal MPs who in 1998 recommended in a
committee the very same things we talked about today. I ask them to consider
the integrity of their loyalties. I understand the politics of following what a
cabinet minister wants, but this is about more than the aspirations of a future
cabinet minister or the fear of the whip. It is about doing the right thing. It
is about something that could be a matter of life and death. It is about the
only too real possibilities of what shameless and evil terrorists might
do.
In 1998, when Liberals recommended the very things that
we are asking for today, there was not much North American evidence of just how
evil terrorists could be. Today, in a devastated crater in New York City, there
are at least 6,000 reasons to motivate us all. I encourage all MPs to vote
tonight on the side of what is right and just; on the side of peace, protection
and freedom.
(1025)
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, since September 11 two changes have
occurred that really have put an increased demand on our national leadership
and on the political and international business exchange around the
world.
We have responded. Our first declaration was to respond
to the terrorism and the second is to respond to the economic recession. We
have to deal with both. It seems as if the Liberals have left us completely
unprepared for both of them. The Liberals cannot manage at all.
Would the leader of the Canadian Alliance respond to
the deeper ideological reasons as to why Canada now is in a situation where we
are really vulnerable? Who has been minding the store? The Liberals cannot
blame the Conservatives any more, because the Liberals have been in power since
1993. It is not just an administrative foul-up, a miscommunication or the fact
that someone is stupid. There is a deeper issue, an ideological attitude, an
outlook that must be responded to, as to why Canada is now left vulnerable,
both on our security side and our economic side.
(1030)
Mr. Stockwell Day:
Mr. Speaker, there is a deeper root to this problem. It
is, I believe, the federal Liberal notion that all people are basically good
and that there are no mean and nasty people out there. The Liberals believe
that in Canada we have to somehow reinforce this notion by making sure, for
instance, that we do not have customs officers who would have to perhaps wear
sidearms, that we do not put air marshals on airplanes, and that we do not make
an assumption that maybe somebody who is arriving here without documentation
could be a nasty or evil person. That shatters the Liberal philosophical view
of what the world should look like.
In fact, there are evil people in the world. We are now
hearing that there are actually people in Canada who are part of terrorist
organizations that do not mind the thought of slaughtering innocent
people.
The war on terrorism is not like a game of baseball.
When individuals who are possibly on the run arrive in Canada without
documentation they should not be accorded a tie when it comes to making a
decision about them. The umpire should decide, when looking at the one who is
on the run, that if the matter is unsure the tie goes and the umpire rules on
the side of safety and security of our citizens, on the side of protection, not
on the side of assuming that no person would want to do an illegal or an evil
act. Illegal and evil acts are part of the mindset of some people. We must
protect ourselves from that.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to say I agree with the Leader of
the Opposition insofar as I do believe that we on this side of the House do
look at people in general as being good people.
However we are not naive and we have put in place these
kinds of measures with respect to security in Canada, not only with customs and
immigration but also with respect to CSIS and the RCMP.
For example, I just came from the justice committee of
which I am a member. We listened to Commissioner Zaccardelli and Mr. Elcock
talk about the kinds of measures being taken in this all important area. It is
now a different world as a result of what took place on September 11. As a
result we need to take extraordinary measures. That is exactly part of what
Bill C-36 says.
It is important that we as a government, in a balanced
and fair approach, with a measured response and with the kinds of responses
necessary in keeping with the charter of rights and freedoms, maintain the kind
of system that has, I believe, Canadian values at the core.
What I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition,
however, is this: Does he think there is anything to be gained by fearmongering
as he and his party are doing? Does he think there is anything to be gained by
pitting people against people, group against group, province against province,
as he often does? I would be interested in hearing his response, because what
he always does, it seems to me, is try to stir up fear when really what we
should be doing is taking a calming approach and making sure that we approach
this problem with dignity and with the kind of steady response that I believe
the government has given. I would be interested in his response.
Mr. Stockwell Day:
This is as predicted, Mr. Speaker. I said we would get
this pretence of debate, by a form of name calling, that we are trying to stir
up something.
What the member has just suggested is that the United
States, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain are involved in fearmongering
because they take a very common sense approach of detaining somebody who, while
he was flying somewhere, destroyed his documents. This is someone who destroys
his identity and then says “I am an honest person. Take me at face value”. It
is not a matter of fearmongering when we say “Hey, pal, we are going to detain
you until it can be determined that you are not a security risk”.
This is not fearmongering. This is not stirring up fear
at all. It is common sense and it is saying to our Canadian citizens that we
respect them as much as the governments of the United States, Australia, New
Zealand and England respect their citizens.
(1035)
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks the minister has
been telling us how we detain people who could be any type of risk to or
problem for our society. Of course I have been taking the minister at face
value on this.
Last Thursday, with the member for West
Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, I visited the immigration facilities at the
Vancouver International Airport. To my shock and horror I discovered that
never, ever, is a person put back on an airplane and sent back to his or her
destination when he or she arrives and claims refugee status with no documents.
Nobody is ever detained unless it is so obvious that there is an international
warrant for their arrest. Virtually everybody is released into society with no
medical check and without fingerprints being checked, because that takes 10
months and then they are only checked in Canada any way.
I discovered that the minister has obviously never been
on a tour because she does not know what is actually happening at the border.
I would ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he is
aware that this is happening at the borders, that virtually every single person
who enters and claims refugee status is immediately released. Yet when we had
boatloads of Chinese claimants arrive here and detained them and processed them
in detention, more than 90% were rejected. Has the Leader of the Opposition
been aware of what is actually happening at our borders?
Mr. Stockwell Day:
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of what has been happening at
the borders. I am also aware of the good work done by the member who has just
raised the issue and other members who have been aware of this problem for
years. Yet when we bring it forward we are consistently charged with motives
and with things other than our own genuine concern for the safety and security
of our citizens.
I can say in all sincerity that I was shocked when the
other day the minister fired on a policy that simply says if people have
arrived here having torn up their documents, having flushed them down the
toilet on the plane and hidden their identity, we would do as other safe
countries are doing and detain them. We would detain them not just until we get
their fingerprints, as the minister will try to say, not just for a little
while, but until it is established that they are not a security risk. That is
all we would do: detain them. What we get thrown back at us is that we want to
establish penal colonies. If we were to put this policy in place, our
unfortunate reputation of being a magnet for people who want to come here under
questionable circumstances would be set back and people would not be getting on
the planes.
As a matter of fact, there is a tragic irony when
Liberals accuse us of wanting to do things like establish penal colonies. Does
the minister mean the same kind of penal colonies that the Liberal government
established in World War II to intern Japanese people in this country? Is that
the kind of penal colony she is talking about, the kind the Liberals put in
place? Or, in regard to refusing to allow certain people to come in, is she
talking about the Liberal government policies that during the second world war
turned away a boatload of Jewish people who had all their documents in order?
Is that what she is talking about? If she wants to get into certain types of
historical remembrances, to jar her sensitivities we can do that.
What we are asking for is common sense and common
decency for the common people of our country. That is all we are asking
for.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, just a couple of weekends ago I was at one
of our border checkpoints, one just south of Montreal. There I asked a point
blank question of the people who deal with border security. They said they did
not have enough sniffer dogs for eight locations on the Quebec border. They
have one sniffer dog for eight locations. Also, they wanted ion scanners. When
I visited just this last weekend they also told me they need vehicle lifts.
They need to be able to lift up the vehicles so they can check underneath them
and they need closed areas where they can take a vehicle off to the side to
examine it.
I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to comment
with regard to sniffer dogs, ion scanners, vehicle lifts and closed areas at
our border points, things that the Liberal government and the minister across
the way are not addressing.
Mr. Stockwell Day:
Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to the minister that we
will support her requests for increased resources because in her realm of
responsibilities she will need increased personnel for a while. Until we turn
around this reputation we have, she will need an increase in personnel and they
are going to need the increased resources of highly technological equipment to
equip them for the task.
Again, this is for a deterrent purpose. Once the word
gets out that Canada is stepping up to the plate like the United States,
Australia, New Zealand and England, like any common sense nation, we will see a
depletion in the amount of people coming here under questionable
circumstances.
(1040)
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member
for Waterloo--Wellington.
Let me begin by getting right to the point. The
opposition motion is, I believe, a simplistic reaction to a very complex set of
issues and concerns. It looks for a quick fix where a range of efforts and
instruments are both required and in fact already at work. The motion is
uninformed, ill-considered and, in my view, impractical. Therefore, in short,
it should be rejected by the House.
First let me be clear about the facts. The current
Immigration Act already contains some of the toughest provisions to deny
admission or deport terrorists and they are used frequently. Bill C-11, the new
immigration and refugee protection act, would make a series of improvements
that would allow us to intensify our fight against those who would threaten
Canada's security. It clearly spells out a range for grounds for
inadmissibility in a comprehensive code that would replace the current act's 50
different grounds scattered in 4 different lists. The new bill, called Bill
C-11, contains comprehensive measures that would further strengthen national
security, which is of course a priority not only for the government but for my
department.
The new immigration and refugee protection act would
add new grounds of inadmissibility. It would strengthen the authority to arrest
criminals and individuals who present a threat to security. It would eliminate
appeal rights in these cases and streamline the removal process for persons who
are security threats.
Bill C-11 would provide our immigration officers with a
set of up to date tools, the tools they need to bar entry to those who pose a
threat to national security or engage in acts of terrorism or are part of a
terrorist organization. Bill C-11 would bar entry to those who have committed
human rights violations such as war crimes or crimes against humanity. It would
also bar entry to those who have been convicted for serious criminality in or
outside Canada.
Canadians have told us what they want in immigration
and refugee legislation. Let me say that we have listened and we have acted.
The training on these new provisions and their subsequent application is
already taking place. It is underway, as we anticipate the bill will be passed,
hopefully soon, in the Senate.
I want to be clear about Canada's relationship to
immigration. Immigration is an important face of Canada's future, just as it
has been in the past. Immigrants will help us to sustain our standard of living
and replenish our labour market as the baby boomers begin to retire.
Let us consider for a moment some of the demographics.
In just 10 years immigration will be the only source of labour market growth.
In just 20 years Canada's only source of population growth will be from
immigration. Of this there is no doubt. Canada needs immigrants for our future
growth and prosperity if we are to compete in a global economy and continue to
grow and prosper. Yes, have no doubt about this, but we do and will crack down
on criminals and security threats. We will do everything in our power to fight
and defeat the scourge of terrorism, but we cannot and we will not turn Canada
into a fortress. Our economy, our society, and our way of life are too
important to us to sacrifice them in this way.
Part of my mandate as Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, in partnership with the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, the RCMP, CSIS, the customs agency, the Department of
Justice and the solicitor general, is to help maintain the safety of Canadian
society. Canadians are of course naturally disturbed and worried and feeling
insecure and fearful because of last month's activities. They should know, and
I think do know, that their government has acted and was right to have taken
the action it has. They were concerned that criminals might be slipping into
the country. They were concerned that the safety and security of Canada's
borders might be compromised. That is why I announced my department's recent
four-pronged strategy as part of the government's anti-terrorism
plan.
(1045)
My department's share of the emergency fund would
amount to almost $50 million. That is a considerable sum for my department. It
would strengthen the department's ability to move quickly on such key measures
as the new maple leaf card, a permanent resident card for new immigrants that
will be fraud resistant, tamper resistant and secure. The first step has
already been initiated in intensified security screening of all refugee
claimants, enhanced detention and increased deportation activity.
My department and its partners are working together to
protect Canada's borders. We are working with the United States to protect our
common border to ensure security and the important flow of trade between our
two countries.
Canada is only one among the countries which find
themselves facing the new and emerging terrorist threat to freedom and justice.
As clearly illustrated by the terrible attacks on the United States last month,
our terrorist opponents are highly motivated, highly skilled, funded networks
of fanatics with access to intelligence and technology. Its members can change
identity and location to elude authorities. They often use expertly forged
documents.
We must be aware when we act emotionally or out of fear
that above all we must guard against turning our fears against our own best
interests. It is in our interest to continue to welcome immigrants, those who
have helped build this country and who will be needed in the future to help us
continue to grow and prosper. It is in our interest to welcome genuine
refugees. Canada is proud of its humanitarian tradition. We despair about some
of the dark moments of our history and do not want to make those mistakes
again.
While no country is immune to the dangers, perhaps no
two countries work more closely on the common goal of ensuring the safety of
their citizens than Canada and the United States. The Government of Canada
reacted and responded immediately to the horrendous acts of September 11.
Immigration officers have increased their vigilance and tightened border
controls. Our officers have been on high alert and are conducting intensified
security screening of all arrivals on both sides of the border.
We work together more closely than any two countries in
the world. That is why we will not unilaterally declare the United States to
be, in the vernacular terminology of the Geneva convention, a safe third
country. That has special meaning.
The opposition motion assumes we would do so without
the consent of our American partners. It assumes we would begin sending back to
the U.S. large numbers of refugee claimants who come to us through the United
States. That is simplistic. Such arrangements rely on negotiated bilateral
treaties. We are open to such discussions as we are open to discussions about a
range of instruments and procedures to help make our system more compatible and
efficient.
Why is my esteemed colleague determined to cast a pall
over the country's good reputation? I am here today to assure him and all
Canadians that there is every reason to speak confidently about Canada's role
in the battle against terrorism. Canada is a world leader in detection and
deportation. If we take the example of perpetrators of modern day war crimes
and crimes against humanity, Canada has long voiced its strategy in this
regard. My colleagues from around the world come to Canada to ask for our
advice and look at what we do and how we do it. Canadians should be
proud.
I will put the challenge in context. Over 110 million
people enter Canada each year. Despite these numbers our enforcement officers
have produced tremendous results. I am proud of the effort of the people who
have been working in my department on this important initiative.
Our enforcement officers reported 65,000 people, 7,300
of whom were serious criminals, in the year 2000 alone. We have increased
resources for overseas interdiction. We have one of the best immigration
control officers networks anywhere in the world. It is a model. Our officers
are placed at airports around the world and they train airline staff. They are
doing an outstanding job.
(1050)
We will continue to make every effort to stop people
from coming to Canada who do not belong, who have murder in their hearts or
terrorism on their minds or have committed serious crimes. We will do
everything we can to protect Canadian interests. We will continue these efforts
but we will not accept simplistic, quick fix proposals like the one proposed by
the opposition today.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we just heard how well the system works so
I will cite the example of the case of Nabil Al-Marabh.
Mr. Al-Marabh had been ordered deported. He was facing
criminal charges in the United States. He was arrested trying to enter the
United States carrying forged Canadian passports and, unbelievably, was
detained for all of two weeks by the Immigration and Refugee Board of our
country. It now turns out he may have been one of the organizers and
masterminds of the September 11 atrocity.
My question is simple and I am not talking about
immigration policy. Would the new legislation and the minister have the ability
to detain suspicious refugee claimants who arrive here without documents or
with questionable documents until they are cleared and proven not to be
security risks? Simplistic, yes, it is very simplistic. Canadians want to know
they will be safe and secure.
Hon. Elinor Caplan:
Mr. Speaker, existing immigration law gives authority
to immigration officers to detain individuals if they are suspicious, if they
do not know who the individual is, if they are concerned they will not show up
for hearings, or if they have any evidence whatsoever to suggest the person
poses a threat to national security. That is also contained in the new
legislation. It would go a step further by stating clearly that if someone is
undocumented and uncooperative it is grounds for detention.
We detain whenever we have concern and when we have
evidence to sustain the detention. In Canada we must have evidence to be able
to detain someone and take away their liberties. That is one of the important
features of the Immigration Act. It gives my officers the authority to do that
and they do it.
I would caution the Leader of the Opposition not to act
as judge and jury on individual cases and not to do or say anything that might
prejudice the outcome of an important investigation or trial. We want justice
to be served by bringing people who are guilty to justice.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has suggested the opposition
motion was an overreaction, an inappropriate reaction and a quick fix to a
complex problem. She said the government does not take simplistic approaches to
these questions.
If the government does not resort to the quick fix
approach, why did it jump to buy an illegal medication for the anthrax problem
when there was a legal medication available? The government jumped to purchase
an illegal product that had not been tested or approved. It seems to me that is
a quick fix.
The member of parliament for North Vancouver said that
when immigrants with no papers, wrong papers or whatever come into Canada
through an airport they are released into society. Could the minister either
confirm or deny that? Is everybody released into society no matter
what?
(1055)
Hon. Elinor Caplan:
Mr. Speaker, the question of the member opposite is a
good one. A wrong impression is being created. At every border point there are
immigration officers checking the people who arrive, whether they are
immigrants, refugee claimants, visitors or students.
As I said, 110 million people come to Canada each year
and they are checked by our immigration officers and customs officials. If our
customs officers have a concern that someone poses a threat, if they do not
know who they are or if they believe they will not show up for any kind of
hearing, they have the authority to detain and they do detain. To suggest that
is not happening is false and it is fearmongering.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. It is well
worth the consideration of the House in terms of what we as a government have
done in the last while in terms of Bill C-11 and other measures.
For many years the countries of North America have
discussed and worked together on initiatives born of a common desire to make
our continent more prosperous and competitive on a global scale. Sadly the
current initiative to fortify our respective borders is born of terror and
bloodshed.
It is Canada's hope that all nations of the continent
will do what they can individually to respond to the needs of the collective.
Bill C-11, it goes without saying, is a major move forward for Canada in
upholding the enforcement of our borders. It is a good bill and it is worthy of
support.
Today in the House we are considering a motion that
requests that the government work more diligently to secure our borders. The
government has responded to that demand by bringing forward Bill C-11 and
making it an utmost priority, and rightfully so.
The motion before us requests increased powers of
detention for customs and immigration officials. I find it passing strange that
a short five months ago the Canadian Alliance immigration critic tabled a
motion in the House to amend Bill C-11 at report stage. Motion No. 5 would have
watered down the definition of security threat to determine who is admissible
to Canada. The motion was supported by all members of the Alliance.
I find it strange that one thing was said then and
quite another is said now. Our definition of Bill C-11 includes activities
outside Canada and indirect threats. The Canadian Alliance motion included only
direct and active threats. The Alliance went further. It tabled a motion at
committee stage to restore certain appeal rights through the immigration appeal
division for serious criminals and threats to Canadian security. Bill C-11 has
removed these to allow for quicker removals from Canada.
I am not sure what that is called. The word flip-flop
comes to mind. The ability to detain and arrest at the border suspected
terrorists or individuals who do not provide proper paperwork for
identification is already in place. Bill C-11 works to increase the
capabilities of our frontline officers by giving them early access to security
screening processes and enhanced exclusionary mechanisms to remove undesirables
from the process. The people who handle refugee cases now have more tools with
which to work.
The Canadian Immigration Act currently allows customs
and immigration officers and officials to detain anyone they determine to be a
security risk to Canadians. Bill C-11 provides a means to strengthen the
ability of officials to bar entry to Canada of potential terrorists whether
they commit terrorist acts in Canada or in other countries.
On October 12 the minister of immigration announced a
five part security strategy as part of Canada's anti-terrorism plan. As part of
that plan the government is strengthening immigration measures in light of the
terrorist attacks that took place on September 11. The minister has announced
that we are increasing detention capability and hiring up to 100 new staff to
enforce upgraded security at ports of entry. As a further sign that the
government is committed to this initiative, and rightfully so, cabinet approved
funding of $4 million to cover these needs in the coming months.
The issue of detention has been a delicate one indeed.
The government is attempting through Bill C-11 to find the proper and
acceptable balance between protecting the citizens of Canada and maintaining an
even-handed approach with those legitimately attempting to gain entry into
Canada.
Customs and immigration officers are fully trained to
perform their duties effectively. They are aware of their duty to uphold the
values of fairness, openness and protection that Canadians across this great
country of ours hold dear.
Of course of the 100 million people who come to Canada
each year not all are seeking to get in illegally by way of refugee status.
However it must be noted that in the 2000-01 timetable for which data is
available over 8,700 individuals were detained for a total of 136,000
days.
(1100)
This is a tremendous success for the officials
patrolling our borders. On any given average day the number of individuals in
detention under the auspices of the Immigration Act ranges from 400 to 800
people. That is a significant number when looked at over the long term. I am
saying to the House and the Canadian people that the system in place works
efficiently and effectively in most of the cases most of the time.
Immigration officials do not work alone. Canada has
nurtured working relationships with CSIS, the RCMP and foreign immigration and
law enforcement agencies such as those in the United States, Great Britain and
the European Union to prevent criminals and people who are considered to be a
security risk from entering Canada. We have worked closely with our partners
not only within Canada but internationally as well. These networks of
information are crucial to maintaining our level of security and
safety.
The United Nations security council recently passed a
binding resolution regarding elimination of terrorist financing. Two paragraphs
contained therein demanded that the United States tighten its refugee
regulations. Canada will continue to welcome refugees and will adhere to the
resolution passed by the United Nations. Canada has commenced work in this
regard with Bill C-11.
We have implemented a screening process for all
refugees that is stringent yet fair. We have made it clear to all who appear at
our country's doorstep that no individual involved in terrorist acts will be
welcomed here. Furthermore, they will be ineligible to make a refugee claim in
Canada.
As was mentioned on an earlier occasion, the
Immigration Act currently allows for interdictions abroad. Canadian officials
overseas work closely with the transportation industry to examine and evaluate
the paperwork of immigrants and visitors coming to our country. Embarkation is
denied when necessary and when required.
Over the past two years Citizenship and Immigration
Canada increased the number of control officers from 31 to 48. This network of
immigration control officers abroad in the last year alone intercepted 6,000
improperly documented travellers that were attempting to fly into Canada. Over
the last six years approximately 33,000 people attempted to enter Canada
fraudulently and they were detected and stopped before they departed their
country of origin. The interdiction program is successful and the department
can be very proud it.
These are trying times not only in Canada but around
the world in terms of what took place on September 11. However we had foresight
with respect to Bill C-11. The minister in her wisdom brought forward a very
good bill which we as a government supported. It has proceeded through
committee and ultimately through the House. It was fortuitous for us to do that
in keeping with the values of Canada, in keeping with what we needed to do by
way of security measures at our borders and with respect to people coming into
Canada.
We will not allow people who are terrorists, who
harbour terrorists or who want to wreak havoc on Canadian soil to get in.
However, what we will do is be fair and evenhanded to genuine people of refugee
status who want to come to Canada. We will support them in the way that Canada
has always supported them.
At the end of the day we will keep building a country
of significance where values are built on common sharing, caring, compassion
and tolerance. That is our Canada, the Canada that seeks to enhance the very
fundamental core of those Canadian values that are so dear to people across
this great country of ours.
At the same time we will ensure that we are safe and
secure not only in our communities and neighbourhoods but in the country as a
whole. That is what Canadians and parliamentarians want. We as a government
will ensure that while on the one hand we will be fair and evenhanded and
ensure that the charter is respected as it should be, on the other hand we will
also bring forward the security measures required.
Bill C-11 does that. It does it in a way that is in
keeping with those great Canadian values. I am very proud that the government
brought that legislation forward with the foresight that was
required.
(1105)
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, earlier the minister of immigration again
used some very uncomplimentary terms. She accused the official opposition of
fearmongering.
Members will recall that a few years ago 2,200 blank
visa forms were stolen and 788 computer files were altered in our immigration
computer system called CAIPS in our Hong Kong foreign mission. Foreign missions
are the first line of defence for us. Those altered files were naturally the
files of organized criminals attempting to abuse our immigration system and
enter Canada. Those people may have been organized criminals or terrorists. We
do not know.
Would the parliamentary secretary tell the House what
his government has done to curtail corruption in our foreign missions which are
our first line of defence?
It has been shown that some locally hired employees in
those missions are engaged in corruption and fraud. Some time ago I lodged a
complaint with the ministry and the RCMP. A special squad of the RCMP went to
New Delhi and Islamabad, and they fired four locally hired employees in Delhi
and three in Islamabad based on information I had provided. However I have
never heard anything from the government side of the House on what the
government has done to curtail corruption in our foreign embassies.
Could the parliamentary secretary to the minister
comment on this issue and highlight anything in the bill about which he boasted
so enthusiastically?
Mr. Lynn Myers:
Mr. Speaker, what I can say in response to the member
opposite is that the government will take whatever measures are necessary to
correct situations as they exist. When there are problems abroad or within
Canada we move very quickly to ensure that the proper authorities are notified
and that the corrective measures are taken.
Are we perfect all the time? No, we are not. We are
like any other country in this regard. If the Americans had been perfect in
their screening of terrorists the 19 people who landed in Florida and did the
kinds of things that they ultimately did would have been caught very quickly.
That did not happen.
The reason it did not happen is that up to this point
we have been taking the kind of security measures that have been required based
on world effort. What we need to do now is make sure that we have more security
based on the kinds of things that have happened. The Americans have learned
that lesson the hard way. We in Canada are doing the kinds of things that are
required, not only with immigration and with customs but also with CSIS and the
RCMP.
The world has changed and Canada's priorities have also
shifted as a result. I do not understand why the opposition is always pointing
out the negative, always chipping away at the people who do great work on
behalf of Canada.
Why does the opposition not help us and work with us on
this instead of fearmongering all the time and always putting up the most
outrageous and negative cases? Why does it not say that it will help us, that
it will work with us, and that it will stand up for Canada?
(1110)
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for
Waterloo--Wellington. Unfortunately the government seems to know how to do the
talking but there are very little results from the way it walks the
talk.
The minister indicated this morning that the current
legislation allows for removal and deportation. Unfortunately that is rarely
exercised. Over the last months we have heard the immigration minister
repeatedly tell Canadians how important it was that Bill C-11 be
passed.
I was glad to hear that the member for
Waterloo--Wellington gave us some numbers in terms of people entering Canada
who were detained due to fraud or improper identification. In fact in the year
2000--
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt any member at
any time, but there is only a five minute period for question or comment. I ask
the hon. member for Dauphin--Swan River to put his question now.
Mr. Inky Mark:
I will, Mr. Speaker. In the year 2000 the minister
personally okayed 3,989 otherwise inadmissible individuals. This
certainly--
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. Given the importance of this question to
both sides of the House and to give as many members as possible the opportunity
to participate, I ask the hon. member to put his question.
Mr. Inky Mark:
Mr. Speaker, do the 3,989 persons okayed by the
minister pose a security risk to Canada?
Mr. Lynn Myers:
Mr. Speaker, the member who is asking the question said
the following five months ago:
Witnesses stated that they felt the
language of the bill placed undue emphasis on enforcement and criminality, as
opposed to language that highlights the waffly nature of Canada's immigration
and refugee program. |
Then his comment was “That is very true”. That is the
extent of that.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, exactly six weeks ago today, the world was
rocked by a quake whose magnitude exceeded anything on the Richter scale. With
an epicenter located in the New York-Washington area, the terrorist acts of
September 11 have led to especially great concerns in Canada, since they took
place in our backyard, so to speak.
The motion brought forward by the official opposition
today provides us with a good opportunity to debate the need to reconcile
democratic values and security in what can only be described as horrible and
cruel circumstances.
This is the fifth opposition day since the reopening of
parliament. All but one of these days dealt with votable motions, and all dealt
directly with the repercussions of September 11.
I would now like to read verbatim the motion by the
leader of the official opposition, and member for
Okanagan--Coquihalla.
The motion reads as follows:
That, as part of a continental
perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of
Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, this
House calls on the government to: |
|
(a) provide both Immigration officers and Customs
officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to
detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border; |
|
(b) move Customs border officers out of the tax
collection agency and into a law enforcement agency; |
|
(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing
without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have
cleared proper health and security checks; and |
|
(d) create a list of safe third countries, including the
United States and member states of the European Union, from which Canada will
no longer accept refugee claimants. |
Everyone recognizes that because it is generating real
anxiety in all spheres of society, the current international situation is ripe
for extreme reactions. These are never productive and rarely do anxiety, anger
and panic help us think straight.
As parliaments reflect on effective and realistic ways
to fight terrorism, it is important not to lose sight of the values that
underpin our democratic society. I will therefore be studying the opposition
motion with the values of justice, freedom and compassion in mind, taking into
consideration the international conventions that Canada has ratified, including
the UN convention relating to the status of refugees, the torture convention
and the convention on the rights of the child.
I would like first off, if I may, to comment on the
preamble to the motion. It refers to the continental perimeter initiative. The
Bloc Quebecois has expressed its opinion of this perimeter. We believe such a
perimeter should exist only in conjunction with the three primary signatories
to NAFTA, namely, Mexico, the United States and Canada.
We understand that the aim of this motion is primarily
Canadian and American security and the assurance of continued trade relations.
However, I saw no reference in the motion to this last objective. We must
therefore face the fact that the motion is off the mark. While the events of
September 11 raised the issue of security, can we allow the security measures
to apply just to refugees, as if they were the guilty parties?
(1115)
Let us move on to paragraph (a). It reads, and I
quote:
|
provide both Immigration officers and Customs officers enhanced
training— |
The responsibilities of these officials are important
and we support their being given training that will enable them to do their day
to day work properly, upholding the law and treating individuals with respect.
This is a worthy objective.
In April 2000, the Auditor General of Canada made the
following comments “Training is a key element in providing customs staff with
the knowledge and skills to speed the entry of travellers and manage risk”.
He asked customs to “ensure that the training needs of
all employees are assessed on a regular basis, training plans are developed
annually and appropriate training is provided in a timely manner”.
He considered it important as well that “training for
term and student employees take into account their skills, experience and the
job requirements”.
And he recommended that “training records be complete
and be used to assess whether employees have received the training they
need”.
Clearly, we will support the first part of paragraph
(a).
However, we have some concerns about the second part of
the motion which reads, and I quote:
|
(a) provide both Immigration officers and Customs
officers...full peace officer status to allow them to detain and arrest
suspected criminals or terrorists at the border; |
What is the current status of these two groups of
public servants? Subsection 110(1) of the Immigration Act reads as
follows:
110.(1) An immigration officer has
the authority and powers of a peace officer to enforce any provision of this
Act, the regulations or any warrant, order or direction made under this Act or
the regulations respecting the arrest, detention or removal from Canada of any
person. |
Therefore, how do we define full peace officer
status?
As for the Customs Act, it provides the following in
subsection 98(1):
98.(1) An officer may search if the
officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about
his person anything in respect of which this Act has been or might be
contravened, anything that would afford evidence with respect to a
contravention of this Act or any goods the importation or exportation of which
is prohibited, controlled or regulated under this or any other Act of
Parliament. |
|
(a
) any person who has arrived in Canada within a reasonable after his
arrival in Canada, |
|
(b) any person who is about to leave Canada, at any time
prior to his departure, or |
|
(c) any person who has had access to an area designated
for use by persons about to leave Canada and who leaves the area but does not
leave Canada, within a reasonable time after he leaves the area, |
The Customs Act also provides that the customs officer
has the right to seize goods. Moreover, some agents are designated as having
peace officer status for the enforcement of certain provisions of the criminal
code, such as those on arrest without warrant.
Section 2 of the criminal code defines a peace officer
as follows:
|
(d) an officer or a person having the powers of a customs
or excise officer when performing any duty in the administration of the Customs
Act or the Excise Act, |
As we can see, immigration agents are deemed to be
peace officers when they enforce the provisions of the Immigration Act, while
customs officers are also deemed to be peace officers and they have all the
necessary powers to enforce those of the act for which they are
responsible.
(1120)
Since we have just finished debating a bill to amend
the Customs Act, Bill S-23, which was debated at report stage in the House of
Commons last Friday, it is hard to see why the Canadian Alliance did not take
the opportunity then to present the amendments to the bill that it thought were
necessary.
As we can see, both immigration and customs officers
have the necessary powers to enforce the provisions of the legislation,
particularly since the Immigration Act also provides that, in certain specific
circumstances, an immigration officer may detain an individual.
The difficulty probably lies in the word “full” peace
officer status. Perhaps this will become clear later in the debate.
Not only am I uncertain what “full” peace officer
status means, but I am hardly reassured when I read that they should be allowed
“to detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the
border”.
What is a suspicion? Le Petit Robert defines it
as conjecture by which blameful intentions are assigned to someone. It seems to
me that the present situation may cause us to be more suspicious and that the
very broad wording in the motion is hard to square with the 1986 Landry
decision, which defined the notion of “reasonable grounds”. Furthermore, the
1999 edition of the criminal code provides, and I quote:
In order to arrest a person without a
warrant, a police officer must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe
that the person has committed an indictable offence. This subjective belief on
the part of the police officer must also be justifiable from an objective point
of view. |
We can see how far apart the criminal code, the
existing legislation and the Alliance motion are.
Paragraph (b) of the Alliance motion proposes that
customs officers be moved into a law enforcement agency. This in itself is not
without interest, although it raises a number of questions concerning
conditions of work, the administration of customs duties, and
budgets.
At this point, it is probably interesting to quote what
the national president of the Customs and Excise Union said in his recent
appearance before the Standing Committee on Finance regarding Bill
S-23:
I believe this was proposed under the
Conservative government, some six or seven years ago [--] |
It must be a good eight years.
|
—perhaps longer—I forget now. At that time the Customs Excise
Union fully supported that concept for customs officers. We do see customs
officers as being a group of individuals that is becoming more and more
oriented towards enforcement. In fact, the approval of Bill C-18 in 1998 has
made that even clearer— |
As for Denis Desautels, who was auditor general at the
time, he stated that the role of customs offices “has evolved ...to one of
facilitating the entry of travellers and goods, while protecting Canadian
society”.
Now we come to what strike me as the two most worrisome
paragraphs, (c) and (d). Their objectives seem very clear to me.
The first stipulates that any refugee claimant without
proper documentation is potentially dangerous. The second is equally
disconcerting, because it radically limits the reception of refugees, even if
this represents a break with the Canadian tradition of compassion and
openness.
Paragraph (c) reads as follows:
|
(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing
without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have
cleared proper health and security checks. |
We are opposed to automatic detention of refugee
claimants without papers.
(1125)
The reason is a simple one. What reasonable person can
believe that a refugee without documents represents such a risk to Canada's
security that he or she must be imprisoned? I do not think so. Nor am I the
only one, because it would make no sense for anyone who had any ill intentions
toward Canada or any other state not to have official identity documents, or at
least ones that looked authentic. Why not three or four different passports? We
have already seen that. Why would anyone run the risk of an investigation? If I
wanted to do some evil deed, I would come across as innocent as possible. That
is elementary.
We do not think that this measure will in any way
improve Canada's security coefficient. What it will succeed in doing is to
treat the innocent unfairly, and we will thus be failing our duties under the
charter of rights and freedoms, which is a source of Canadian pride.
We feel that our present procedure meets Canada's needs
and requires no changes.
Right now an immigration officer uses the following
procedure. He asks for the claimant's identification and the claimant states
his true identity. The immigration officer then questions the claimant to
determine whether he can provide identity papers. The claimant has to complete
a form in which he provides information as to his identity. Finally, the
immigration officer can detain the individual if he is unable to establish his
identity to the officer's satisfaction.
Should the immigration officer find that the claimant
is not properly answering the questions put to him, appears confused or refuses
to answer certain questions, the officer may detain him for a period of seven
days.
Interestingly the Canadian Council for Refugees notes
that it is exceedingly rare for a person seeking asylum to be detained for not
having identity papers or for having forged ones.
With paragraph (c) of the motion, we move to an extreme
that is unacceptable. We oppose the systematic detention of persons claiming
refugee status, since the practice is contrary to the charter of rights and
freedoms, which applies to every citizen.
I will move on quickly to the last point, the request
to establish a list of third countries. Once this list is drawn up, Canada will
no long accept refugee claimants who have come through a third
country.
Forty per cent of those claiming refugee status arrive
in Canada from the United States. Forty per cent is a lot. What I understand
from this is that we do not want any more refugees. I oppose this, especially
since applications for refugee status in the States are given much more
restrictive treatment than they are here in Canada.
Are we consciously, as a parliament, going to destroy
what has been a port of peace and life for many who have suffered through wars
and undemocratic regimes? We need only think of the millions of Afghans who are
trying desperately to leave their country. Can we say “No, we will allow only
those who arrive via Vancouver or Montreal or St. John's,
Newfoundland”?
We also oppose this fourth paragraph strongly. I call
on all parliamentarians who recognize the importance of compassion, justice and
respect for the fundamental values of our society to oppose the Alliance
motion.
(1130)
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the men and women at immigration
and customs for their hard work and dedication.
A few years ago a couple arrived at the Vancouver
International Airport from Australia and uttered the magic word refugee. Their
refugee processing began and they applied for financial assistance, which they
received. After spending two months vacationing at taxpayers' expense in
Canada, they returned home.
The official opposition has asked for adequate
resources and training to be provided to the employees of these departments.
They should be provided with the appropriate legislation, regulations and tools
of the trade so they can do their jobs effectively. A few minutes ago the
minister and her parliamentary secretary defended the status quo.
Would the hon. member agree that this motion from the
official opposition demanding the appropriate resources and training for
customs and immigration officers to do their jobs effectively is a fair
demand?
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine
Dalphond-Guiral:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question,
particularly since this is one aspect of the official opposition motion with
which we are in agreement. We believe that immigration officers, as well as
customs officers, must be properly trained and competent
professionals.
Borders are, of course, a kind of gate through which
people enter or exit a country. It is an advantage for those at our borders to
be properly trained, abreast of the latest technologies. Far be it for us to
oppose this.
I must, however, also acknowledge that this is
virtually the only thing in the entire motion with which we are pleased to say
we agree.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North
Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the
debate and to put a viewpoint on the record on behalf of the New Democratic
Party.
I am sure it will come as no surprise to the authors of
the motion before us today, the members of the Alliance Party, that New
Democrats will oppose the motion. I am sure that causes no revelations for the
members beside me.
However they may be somewhat surprised when I say that
I and my party welcome the debate. It gives us an opportunity to clear the air,
to deal with some very contentious issues in Canada today and to move toward a
more responsible, effective solution to the very difficult circumstances we are
facing today.
Let us begin by agreeing on one thing: We all deplore,
with every breath we can muster, the heinous events of September 11. There is
no question about that. I want members to keep that in mind as we discuss
options, alternatives and solutions for dealing with this very difficult
situation.
There is no one in the House who is not prepared to
stand and condemn with every ounce of energy the heinous acts of the terrorists
who struck in the United States on September 11. Every one of us here are
grappling with solutions to prevent the spread of terrorism and to bring those
terrorists to justice.
The motion before us today suggests that Canada must
look at its own immigration and refugee policies as part of that solution. That
is not a point of contention for us. We are all prepared to look at Canada's
policies on every front, whether we are talking about immigration policy,
airline security, cross-border crossings or our own ability to respond to
bioterrorism. On each and every aspect of terrorism we have an obligation and a
responsibility to assess the situation, to determine if Canada's policies are
effective in that regard and to make suggestions based on any flaws or
weaknesses in those areas.
We have done that on numerous occasions. We have been
vigilant since September 17 about proposing solutions and making
suggestions.
As members know, we proposed a motion to deal with the
uprising of incidents of racism and intolerance in our society as a result of
the terrorist acts. We made suggestions in the House repeatedly over enhanced
resources and supports for being prepared in the event of a bioterrorist act.
Today I am prepared, on behalf of my colleagues, to
make some suggestions with respect to immigration and refugee policy. I want to
be clear that the most important item for us to deal with today is to avoid
feeding any mythology around Canadian immigration and refugee policy. Our
responsibility today is not to feed this notion that Canada is a safe haven for
terrorists.
I am not suggesting for a minute any malicious intent
on the part of the Alliance but I certainly have serious grievances with its
recommendations. I am here to suggest that since September 11 there have been a
number of commentaries, opinions and statements made that do feed the notion
that Canada somehow is a safe haven for terrorists. The implication touches us
even more given the feelings people have that terrorists are refugees and
refugees are terrorists.
We cannot allow that kind of talk to go on. We must
address the fears and concerns of Canadians without feeding hysteria. We must
be responsible in our response to the events of September 11.
I only have to turn to some of the newspaper articles,
however few and far between they have been with respect to this issue, to make
the case and help ensure that the House puts all this in
perspective.
(1135)
I want to touch on an article written by Haroon
Siddiqui which appeared in the September 16 issue of the Toronto Star.
The headline was “Don't scapegoat Canada for terrorism in America”. He
wrote:
While we grieve with Americans in the
aftermath of their single biggest death toll since the civil war, and pray for
the dead as well as the living, it needs to be said that Canada's border is no
more porous than America's. In fact, Canada has a tighter perimeter than the
United States; far fewer illegal immigrants come here, even proportionately
speaking, than there. |
Canada may also be less of a haven
for terrorists or terrorist groups than America, the centre of monetary and
military sustenance for the Irish Republican Army and the hub of anti-Castro
adventurism, among others. |
I may not agree with everything the author of the
article wrote but I can say he identifies a very serious issue and that is, if
we make generalizations based on the events of September 11 and make wide,
sweeping generalizations about our policies, we will have done no great service
to combat terrorism. We will have done what so many have cautioned against,
which is we will have stooped to the level of the terrorists themselves and
sacrificed our fundamental principles of peace, security and
freedom.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs himself made exactly
that kind of statement. He said on one occasion recently that if a battle
against terrorism must be waged, we must be sure we do not undermine our
principles of an open society founded on democracy. If we do that we will have
given terrorists, and I am paraphrasing, a victory.
That is one commentary that was in the paper. I also
want to read from an article by Hugh Winsor in the Globe and Mail on
October 15. I do not always agree with this commentator but he made a very
important observation:
In the current atmosphere, there will
be a lot of pressure to dilute the broader fundamentals of Canadian justice in
pursuit of the tiny minority of dangerous people trying to get into Canada as
refugees. That would be a mistake. |
We use that kind of wisdom to bring caution to the
debate and urge that we do not destroy the fundamentals and values that hold
the country together, the glue of Canadian unity, in the interests of looking
for easy solutions and quick targets. That is what the motion does
today.
Speaking of the generalization that Canada is a safe
haven for terrorists, I remind members what the RCMP commissioner told the
immigration committee just last Thursday. In response to a question I raised
about these broad, sweeping generalizations, he said that even the word haven
is a terrible word to use because it implies that we somehow support or nurture
terrorists to stay in the country. That certainly is not the case. He went on
to talk about how Canada is no different from other countries that are dealing
with the same kind of threat and is no different in terms of precautions we
take on the security front.
It is very important for the House to remember the
makeup of the country and the traditions we hold so near and dear. We went
through this in great detail during the debate on Bill C-11. The debate on that
bill was very heated. We were struggling to find the balance between respecting
our open door policy and humanitarian traditions with the need to ensure that
proper security measures were taken to prevent people who had malicious intents
and agendas to get into Canada. We struggled very hard to balance those
interests.
From my vantage point I am not completely happy with
Bill C-11. I do not think we achieved that balance, but I can say that the
debate was thoughtful and should enlighten us today in our discussions. One of
the conclusions we on all sides of the House made during that debate was that
Canada's legacy and history is about diversity.
(1140)
We said time and time again that it is not just about
the number of people who have come here from so many places, it is about how we
deal with one another in the context of being a mosaic. Our tradition and our
values have shown the way. Canada is a model for the world in terms of respect
for differences, for not imposing one view or one way of thinking or one way of
life on our immigrants and the people who make up this country. Our way is one
of easy going acceptance, generosity, tolerance and respect for differences. We
do not impose some uniform identity on the immigrants who come to
Canada.
Those sentiments are as important today as they were
when we were debating Bill C-11 last spring. We have new circumstances to deal
with. We have to make adjustments and review policies, but we do not sacrifice
our fundamental understanding of this country and how we have come to grow
together as a multicultural nation.
Since September 11 in many ways we have started to show
suspicion about one another. We have started to question on the basis of racial
makeup. We have started to look behind us and see trouble in the shadows. We
have started to create a climate of fear when we should be doing the opposite.
I urge members to put this all in perspective and to come up with solutions
that actually work.
The motion deals so much with the issue of refugees.
One of the themes of the Alliance Party these days seems to be to point fingers
at Canada's policies on refugees and to suggest that we have bad policies and
bad programs and that we need to put a moratorium on refugees coming into
Canada. That is what part of the motion actually does when it talks about
detaining all refugees who come into Canada. In effect it is quite a major
difference from the practices and traditions we have today and is not
necessarily one that would ensure greater security for Canadians.
In that context I want to put on the record some of the
concerns of the organizations that work on a day to day basis with refugees.
These organizations care deeply about the flight of the millions of refugees
around the world. They know that Canada has a responsibility, an obligation and
an interest in ensuring that we offer a safe haven for people fleeing
persecution on the basis of political, religious or economic
reasons.
On September 14 the Canadian Council for Refugees
issued a statement. This is part of it:
In the wake of the horrific terrorist
attacks this week in the United States, the Canadian Council for Refugees
offers its condolences to the victims and their families. As an organization
committed to the protection of human rights, the Canadian Council for Refugees
condemns these attacks on civilian lives and urges Canadians, as well as
immigrant and refugee communities, to speak out against violence and
intolerance in our society. |
That was a very important statement for all of us to
hear and understand. I hope members in the Alliance Party also heard and
understood the meaning of that statement. All Canadians from whatever walk of
life condemn the terrorist attacks and now look for solutions that work to make
sure that we rid this globe of terrorism so we can live in peace, freedom and
security.
The motion before us today denies the responsibility we
have in terms of refugees. It denies some of the experiences that organizations
such as churches, non-profit organizations and volunteer groups have with
respect to creating a home for refugees and newcomers and integrating them into
our society. It denies the sentiment expressed by the people who run Romero
House in Toronto when they said:
When Canadians meet refugees and hear
their stories, they are usually impressed by their courage, resourcefulness and
enduring capacity for joy. Refugees are brave people who have escaped to Canada
from traumatic and often horrific situations in their homelands. They have
experienced, or been in danger of, torture, arbitrary detention and death.
Although many of them have escaped with little more than the clothes on their
backs, they do not come empty handed. They bring to our country the gifts of
courage, hope and strength. |
Let us not forget that in the debate on this very
important issue.
(1145)
We have concerns with all four aspects of the motion
before us today, beginning with the preamble and the suggestion that we need to
establish a North American fortress, that we need to have perimeter security.
The motion is premised on this notion. All of us need to question the validity
of this so-called continental perimeter initiative. We should question it as a
concept and assess it from the point of view of loss to Canada of our
sovereignty, loss of our ability to make decisions pertaining to our own
foreign affairs policy and our economic policy and hence every aspect of our
day to day lives.
We are very concerned with the parts of the motion that
deal specifically with detention of refugees. I have already touched on that.
The Alliance Party is not taking into account the fact that the American policy
of detention has not necessarily been successful. It has not necessarily
achieved the kind of results which I think the members of the Alliance are
hoping to achieve with this motion. It has not been helpful and it has been
hurtful in many other ways.
The Alliance members have not taken into account that
many refugees come to Canada without proper documentation precisely because of
the kind of country and government they are fleeing. In particular, people from
Somalia and Afghanistan do not have documents because the dictatorial,
repressive regimes they are fleeing from would not allow for those documents to
be processed and to try to obtain those documents would be even more harmful in
terms of their future well-being.
We are very concerned about the suggestion that we need
to change the role and responsibilities of immigration officers and customs
officers in order to make the country more secure and deal with cross-border
issues. As has been noted already in the debate, those two provisions miss the
critical issue at hand here. There is an issue that has to be addressed and I
look to members on the government benches to ensure that this is heeded.
The issue is one of resources. During the hearings on
Bill C-11 and now during the Senate hearings on Bill C-11, during this debate,
and since the events of September 11 time and time again we have heard about
the lack of resources in terms of immigration officials and customs agents.
Going back to the serious cuts of 1993, I think the Alliance probably supported
those kinds of cuts back then in the interests of smaller government. The
number of immigration officers was slashed from 7,000 to 4,000. Similarly the
customs and excise union has reported how at least 1,200 new customs officers
are needed to do the job. Let us assess the situation for what it really is and
deal with the root cause of the problem.
It is very important to acknowledge difficulties with
the fourth part of the motion which calls for a list of safe third countries,
including the United States and member states of the European Union, from which
Canada will no longer accept refugee claimants. For the record, it has to be
said that that is a very serious recommendation that would have all kinds of
ramifications for Canada's role in the United Nations and for ensuring that we
live up to the convention on refugees. I hope to have a chance to deal with
this during questions and comments. It is a very negative suggestion and would
not have any basis in terms of being a good solution. It would take us in the
opposite direction of our responsibilities with respect to the international
convention on refugees.
Finally, as we pursue the debate and look at solutions,
let us look at some other options. Let us look at the immigrant investor
program where people can actually buy their way into the country and not face
the same kind of scrutiny as people seeking to be united with their families or
people coming to work in Canada. That is a serious shortcoming. There are many
solutions and issues that need to be addressed and we can do that here today. I
do not think the answer is found in the Alliance motion. I look forward to
ongoing discussion.
(1150)
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, if the member truly deplores September 11,
why does she then go on to undermine her own sentiments with
qualifiers?
She says that she is prepared to look at what we are
pointing out but then says that she will not even support the modest
suggestions in our motion today. She says that we have to worry about
mythology. The FBI says that it evaluates us as a safe haven.
Her denials and the controls that she puts on us for
political correctness do not change the reality of who is here in our country
already. The essence of what she is saying is that others are weak so it is
okay for us to be weak. She is so concerned about admissions, but the central
issue is that change begins with the recognition that a problem exists, admit
it and then we can appropriately act.
Does the member or her party have one concrete measure
to suggest that will make us safer in this country or is the member basically
saying that everything is okay, just watch out for any hint of being an
alarmist and then just hang on and hope for the best? What is her party's
solution to the direct threat to our society at home while we have soldiers
abroad right now in an effort to defend her capacity to stand in the House and
be sincerely wrong? Why does she not like our motion? What does her party
suggest to respond directly to the threat that our society is facing
today?
(1155)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I tried to
address some of that in my speech and I am glad of the opportunity to
elaborate.
We are opposed to the specific recommendations put
forward by the Alliance today as solutions that do not get to the root of the
problem and can do more harm than good. They may be easy fixes but not
necessarily effective.
I have made some suggestions for things that can be
done and I will elaborate on those. I think we absolutely do need to ensure
that resources and staffing levels are adequate to enforce the existing
legislation. We need to ensure prompt action on any security related orders. I
think that issue has been identified. The need for additional resources in
Canada, at the borders and overseas, has to be addressed by the government. The
resources that were cut out of the system because of the preoccupation with the
deficit and balanced budgets back in 1993, an agenda supported and fueled by
members of the Alliance, have caused some of the problems we are facing today.
I think we need to review the whole immigrant investor
program which has been a controversial element of Canada's immigration program
since 1986 when it was implemented as a way of providing risk capital. This
program has been criticized. I do not know why we are not talking about it
these days. That program has been criticized for having little control over
questionable financial arrangements, money laundering, the involvement of
organized crime and funds from illegitimate business activities. We need to
look at those kinds of programs to see if some tightening up of such programs
can ensure better security in this country.
Given the fact that less than half of 1% of people
coming into this country are refugees, let us be realistic in terms of what we
are dealing with and why people are coming here and not throw the baby out with
the bath water. We know that 99.9% of people coming into this country either as
refugees, to be reunited with families or as independent entrepreneurs, are
good citizens. We do get some bad apples but do we destroy our system? Do we
throw out our values in order to deal with those bad apples? Or, do we get to
the root of the problem and deal with it in terms of the necessary resources,
the co-ordination of security arrangements and programs that allow for people
to buy their way into this country as opposed to getting here on the basis of
their talents, their contributions, their need to be reunited with families or
their need to seek refuge from unsafe environments?
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I am halfway between the questioner and
the speaker here today.
I do not believe that Canada is a safe haven any more
than is the United States. However we do have some serious problems. I just
wonder if the member could address what was raised by the auditor general's
report. The report simply states that of approximately 31,200 claimants who
were denied refugee status between 1993 and 1997 or were not accepted to
Canada, only 22% have confirmed their departure from Canada. That would
indicate that 78% of those refugee claimants who were denied access to Canada
have somehow found their way into Canadian society and are now hidden away
disappearing in our society. That means 78% are successful. If someone comes to
Canada as an unacceptable refugee, they still have a 78% chance of staying in
Canada even though it is illegal.
I wonder if the member could address that concern. Does
she agree that there should be some increased effort placed on that
problem?
(1200)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech and in an
answer to a subsequent question, there is an issue here that needs to be
addressed, not by moving toward a system of detection, detainment and
deportation but to a system of openness and humanitarian principles. If people
are not legitimate refugees we need the resources and procedures in place to
ensure those people are not allowed to stay in the country.
We do have a problem and it is a resource problem.
However I want to put that problem in perspective and clarify what I was trying
to say earlier. Refugees account for about one-tenth of 1% of immigration and
tourist traffic, yet this seems to be the focal point for all suggestions and
recommendations and the centerpiece of any recommendations coming from the
Alliance or any action coming from the Liberal government.
We must look at where we can actually make a
difference. I do not believe that by denying our responsibilities and our
traditions for being a welcoming nation, to encourage immigration that is so
desperately needed in this country, we are doing any great service. I want to
point out that if it were not for refugees and immigrants coming to a province
like Manitoba, our population growth would be at zero percent or in the
negative.
We are grateful for the talents and the contributions
that refugees and immigrants make to that province and to the country. We know
we must do more in that regard but we can do it without causing fear and
hysteria by addressing some of the root causes of those who get into this
country with malicious intentions and who may be terrorists in
disguise.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something the member
brought up earlier about the Canadian Alliance attitude to refugees.
It has been very well established in our policy
position for many years that we support the idea of Canada bringing its
refugees from the established refugee camps which are run by the United Nations
around the world. There are literally millions of people there.
I wonder if the hon. member knows that there are
millions of pre-screened refugee claimants in United Nations' camps waiting for
a safe haven. Why then would we just accept queue jumpers who arrive here with
no documents? If we are going to be tolerant and open our arms to genuine
refugees, we should be taking genuine refugees and rejecting those who want to
jump the queue and just get here by choice.
For example, she mentioned refugees from Somalia and
Afghanistan. Does she know they had to change their planes in either Amsterdam,
Heathrow or Frankfurt? Surely that makes them choose Canada. They are not
looking for a refugee haven. They are looking to come to Canada as
immigrants.
Finally, does the member know that up to 50% of all the
arrests on any night in downtown Vancouver are refugee claimants?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept what the member is saying
about our system as a whole. It would be absolutely unfair and unfounded to
suggest that refugees coming into this country are queue jumpers.
We have a process in place. It is not always perfect
but to suggest that people fleeing from Somalia and Afghanistan are really not
looking for protection as much as they are looking to settle in Canada and have
chosen Canada, does not address the reality of the situation.
People often see Canada as the end of the line in terms
of protection and in being able to settle somewhere. Nothing in the motion
addresses that issue.
I totally agree with the member when he talks about the
world's refugee problem. We know there are about 39 million people looking for
refugee protection somewhere. Canada plays only a small role in creating a home
for those refugees. We should do more and we cannot do it by generalizing and
implying motives that are not true and not based on fact.
(1205)
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be
dividing my time with the member for Dauphin--Swan River.
I am pleased to speak on the motion today. We have
mixed feelings on it one way or another. I would like to go through those mixed
feelings in different directions.
The motion makes an assumption that is not accurate.
The motion says “That, as part of a continental perimeter initiative...”. The
government has not accepted that concept and has not agreed to a continental
perimeter initiative. By making these proposals as part of a continental
perimeter initiative, which has not happened, has not been agreed to and in
fact has been discouraged by the government, it makes the whole debate
pointless.
I will go through the issues and the proposal as raised
by the official opposition and discuss the issues one at a time. I think a
continental perimeter is inevitable. Because of our close association with the
United States and Mexico, it is only a matter of time before a perimeter is
established. Certainly officials in the United States, the ambassador, several
senators, the president and the vice-president, have said that they will have a
security system for the United States and that their preferred system is a
perimeter system.
The president of Mexico has stated very clearly that if
there is a perimeter system for the United States that Mexico wants to be in on
it. If Mexico and the United States are in on a perimeter security system, then
Canada will have no choice. It is the wise choice in any case.
Many provincial premiers have come out strongly in
favour of a perimeter security system for North America as have several state
governors and state governments. It is almost not plausible that there would be
a North American perimeter system that included the United States and Mexico
but not Canada. Eighty percent to eighty-five percent of our trade is with the
United States. For Canada to be locked out of that secure border would be
impractical for our country.
The government's approach seems to be resisting the
philosophy of a security perimeter but that is out of step with reality, with
our trading practices, with our relationship with the other two countries in
North America and it is certainly out of step with Canadians.
I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs at committee
whether he was in favour of the perimeter security and would he support it. His
reaction was that when he hears the words perimeter security he feels it is a
front for some other terminology or some other concept that he was not clear
on. He was uncomfortable with the concept of perimeter security. The minister
did not elaborate on why he was not comfortable or on the details. He only
indicated that he was uncomfortable, which I would think would be an indication
that the government at this moment in time is not in favour of a perimeter
security system.
As the leader of the official opposition said, it is
only a matter of time that the government will probably change its mind and
come around to that. I agree that will happen.
In Canada, where 80% to 85% of our foreign trade is
with the United States, it is absolutely critical that we protect that trading
relationship. It is naive not to expect the United States to impose some
restrictions on trade if we are not in its circle of perimeter security. Since
September 11 much of our trade has been brought to a crawl. The industries in
Canada that need just in time delivery of parts, services and goods have been
penalized and hurt. They have had to layoff people and their businesses have
been damaged because of the substantial delays. This is only a precursor to
what would happen if the United States established a perimeter security system
around its country and we were not on the inside of that.
The United States has focused on the Canadian weakness.
I do not think that is accurate. It has focused on our weakness as a safe haven
for terrorists. I do not accept that position. We all know that most of the
terrorists on September 11 were actually residents of the United States,
trained in the United States or lived in the United States. It appears that its
systems are no more secure than our systems. However that does not change the
fact that we both have to tighten up our security systems, our immigration
regulations and our enforcement.
(1210)
It is quite amazing that the auditor general indicated
in a report in 1997 that of 31,000 claimants that were denied refugee status
between 1993 and 1997 and not accepted into Canada, only 22% were confirmed as
having left. This indicates that 78% of these illegal and denied immigrants to
Canada are still here.
According to the auditor general, if people in
Afghanistan or any other country look at the possibility of coming to Canada,
once they are in, even if they are denied immigrant status and are asked to
leave, chances are only one in four they will ever leave. That is kind of a
scary concept. It is important that we address it in the strongest possible
fashion.
The opposition coalition supports the concept of the
perimeter security proposal for many reasons. It just makes sense from a safety
point of view to ensure the safety of our citizens, our economy and our
culture. This is a broad motion which very extensively affects many aspects of
our society and our regulations. We do not agree with many aspects of it,
although we do agree with the concept of the perimeter security
system.
We do not agree that customs officers should become
armed police officers. We do not believe that they should be armed. We do not
think it is necessary. We do not think it is appropriate that customs officers
should be police officers in the same way as we do not think police officers
should be customs officers. We would oppose that.
We would oppose the proposal to remove customs officers
from the collection of taxes and duties. Who would provide this service? If
customs officers do not collect customs duties, who will? Why would we do this?
How would this be set up? Would every border crossing have a customs officer,
an immigration officer and a police officer as well? It is very confusing and
it seems extremely cumbersome for us in the opposition coalition that every
border entry would have this triple series of officials.
We also do not believe that customs officers should be
law enforcement officers. It does not make sense. We do not see any reason for
it. We think they should have the power to retain people at the border,
question them, certify their documentation and take the appropriate steps at
that time, but we do not agree with making them police officers.
Again I come back to the auditor general's report which
says that Canada's lax approach to immigrants costs the federal government and
the provinces hundreds of millions of dollars a year in enforcement, in trying
to find some of the immigrants that came to Canada, were denied access and then
disappeared into the woodwork and into our society. This is a very expensive
situation which can be rectified if it is dealt with at the border.
If immigrants do not have the proper documentation when
they come to Canada, if they do not have the proper qualifications to come to
Canada, they should be stopped there rather than automatically allowed into
society and impossible to find later.
We agree with the concept of the list of safe
countries. That has been debated for years and there has been no agreement on
how to implement it. All countries have to agree, and there is no agreement on
it. Even though we agree with the concept we do not think it can be done.
We agree with the concept of the perimeter security
system and that Canada is very much a part of it. Although Canada was not the
target on September 11 we were severely impacted. Dozens of Canadians lost
their lives in that terrible act of terrorism. Transportation in Canada
literally came to a standstill. Business and investment were curtailed. They
are still curtailed and are suffering right now because of it.
The security costs must be enormous. There have been
additional security costs on the Hill. We can all see the extra police, the
extra inspections and everything that is going on.
Canada is very much a part of this situation and must
be very much a part of the reaction to it. We must be part of the establishment
of a security system to protect our people. We must be in on the ground floor.
We must be in early.
I would like to hear the government state right now
that we will be a part of the perimeter security system as proposed by the
United States, but we want to be a part of the planning. We want to be in on
the ground floor. We want to protect our sovereignty. We want to protect our
people. We want to make sure that Canadians are as safe as possible and that
our industry is protected.
(1215)
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise as coalition
immigration critic to take part in the debate on the supply day motion put
forth by the Canadian Alliance.
Since September 11 the world certainly has changed and
national security is on everyone's mind. We are all aware of the threats to our
freedom by terrorist organizations of the world. At the same time Canada must
be cognizant that Canada is a land of immigrants.
If we look at our history, Canada was built by
immigrants. At this time we must not be pointing figures at legitimate refugees
and immigrants, including myself who immigrated to this country before the
events of September 11.
The coalition's position is that Canada needs to keep
its door open to genuine immigrants and refugees. Our present and future
standard of living depends on immigration. We attract the best in the world and
we must continue to do so.
Despite the current fear of terrorism we must not
repeat the dark side of Canada's history. Let us take a reality check. Over 99%
of the annual movement of up to 40 million people between the United States and
Canada is by legal people. The vast majority of those who come into Canada use
the legal means. In fact terrorists can enter this country as visitors,
students, refugees or legitimate immigrants. We need to tighten up our front
end screening to detect those who would wish to do us harm.
As coalition critic my job is to point out the holes in
the system. Let me take time to respond to the specifics of the supply day
motion. This motion is much like an omnibus bill. It covers too much. In
principle the coalition supports the motion, but we have concerns about the way
it was put together.
Let me address some of our concerns. In the preamble
the continental perimeter denotes a North American border, not a Canadian one.
While the notion of a secure North American border is a good one, Canada cannot
be expected to look after American borders. Nor can Americans be expected to
look after Canadian borders. Agreements can and should be made on who looks
after what and what jurisdiction we can share and co-operate on.
A continental perimeter does not by default ensure the
safety of Canada's borders. Improved staffing levels, better training and
better enforcement of existing laws will.
Under the Criminal Code of Canada a Canada customs
officer has the authority to be a peace officer already by definition. In fact
the criminal code states:
|
(d) an
officer or a person having the powers of a customs or excise officer when
performing any duty in the administration of the Customs Act or Excise
Act. |
According to the 1992 Immigration Act, section 113
states:
Duties of Peace Officers to execute
orders--Every peace officer and every person in immediate charge or control of
an immigration station shall, when so directed by the Deputy Minister, an
adjudicator, a senior immigration officer or an immigration officer, receive
and execute any written warrant or order issued or made under this Act or the
regulations for the arrest, detention or removal from Canada of any
persons. |
We agree that immigration officers and customs officers
should receive better training in identifying suspicious persons. There seems
to be an attempt to arm immigration and customs officers with sidearms. While
customs officers at borders should have sidearms, immigration officers at ports
of entry should not.
If immigration officers simply use the enforcement
tools at their disposal they have every ability to detain and even refuse entry
to anyone who is thought to be a risk to the country.
I will comment on part (b) of the motion. This is a
clear indication of seeking a sidearm for a border official. We do not disagree
with this. However this would in fact make customs officers at the borders
police officers. This would eliminate a number of positions across Canada in
favour police enforcement.
(1220)
We already have such a situation with park wardens who
have effectively been replaced by RCMP because the wardens wanted
sidearms.
We agree with part (c) of the motion. All asylum
claimants should be held until their identities can be discovered and they are
determined not to be a risk to Canadians. Proper security and health checks
should be done to ensure the safety of citizens welcoming newcomers.
We agree with part (d). The safe third country concept
has been used in immigration legislation since 1992. While the term and
definition have been used to keep refugees and asylum claimants who have
already been recognized as convention refugees from other countries from
applying for refugee status here, there is no such thing as a list of safe
third countries from which we might accept refugees or deport refugees to await
identity discovery.
In 1999 a Sri Lankan national was refused refugee
status as the claimant was found to already have refugee status in Germany. In
1998 a Liberian citizen was refused conventional refugee status since the
person already had such status in Sierra Leone.
It is the broader sense of the legislation that is not
being applied. A list of countries from which asylum seekers could come to
claim such status or be detained while waiting for the outcome of such an
application has never been compiled. It is believed that the reason for this is
largely due to a lack of agreement on who decides which nations are considered
to be safe. The safe third country concept does not guarantee the detection and
apprehension of potential terrorists.
The auditor general made some very enlightening
discoveries in his December 1997 report on the Immigration Refugee Board. Since
1993 over 99% of all claims were judged to be eligible by CIC officials. The
claimants were then given the necessary documentation for filing a claim with
the IRB and allowed to enter Canada.
Today there is still a 30,000 case backlog. With the
passing of Bill C-11 all claims in the system that are not finalized will be
nullified. All other claims will have to be started over again regardless of
the stage of review. That will only create more backlog.
It was noted that over 90% of those denied refugee
status remain in Canada, according to the auditor general. These problems have
not gone away. They pose a real risk to Canada's security. The government has
to account for how the IRB operates, recognizing and acknowledging that the IRB
is a patronage vehicle.
I have tried over the last year to convince the
immigration minister to set up front end screening of refugee claimants. I will
close by making a few more comments on front end screening. I have indicated
that the RCMP, CSIS and CIC need more staff.
No one can board a domestic or international flight
without identification and in some cases travel documents. The fact that people
arrive in Canada without such documentation should be grounds for immediate
detention. The minister alluded to over 8,000 persons who were detained for an
average of 16 days in the year 2000. What she forgot to say was that she
personally okayed 3,989 otherwise inadmissible individuals, most hardened
criminals, entering and remaining in Canada for a period of time.
The 3,989 people were obviously security risks to
Canada since without a permit from the minister they could not have entered
Canada. With no entry or exit data kept on persons coming and leaving Canada,
it is impossible to tell whether those who are ordered out actually
leave.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.
The official opposition has moved:
That, as part of a continental
perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of
Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, the
House calls on the government to: |
|
(a)
provide both immigration and Customs officers enhanced training and full peace
officer status to allow them to detain and arrest suspected criminals or
terrorists at the border; |
|
(b)
move Customs border officers out of the tax collection agency and into a law
enforcement agency; |
|
(c)
detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation
until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and
security checks; and |
|
(d)
create a list of safe third countries, including the United States and member
states of the European Union, from which Canada will no longer accept refugee
claimants. |
These basic requests arise from government employees on
the line and are reasonably modest.
Since September 11, two changes have occurred that have
put increased demand on our national leadership in politics and in business.
First, is our declaration to respond to terrorism. Second, is the economic
recession. The Liberals have left us unprepared for both. The Liberals cannot
manage.
On the economic front, while there is a vital need to
increase spending on national security, federal revenues are starting to
shrink. The opportunity for the wise choice of reducing taxes and debt to
competitive levels, while our economy was being lifted along by a buoyant U.S.
economy, has passed us by. It can be said, in view of today's motion before the
House, that the Canadian Alliance was right and the Liberals were
wrong.
The government is also mean-spirited and dishonest when
it claims that we are anti-immigrant or hard-hearted about genuine refugees,
for we want an orderly and safe immigration and refugee system that operates
with the highest possible level of integrity and reliability.
The government announced up to $250 million, generally
for security matters, some of which might help immigration screening.
However,100 immigration officer positions is only a start, not a solution.
Resources must be utilized in the areas of increased staff deployment and
training, enhanced security and background checks and aggressive deportation of
failed refugee claimants and others. The immigration system likely needs 500
additional employees in its system around the world to meet our national
security needs.
In respect of the citizenship and immigration minister,
staff in her department at the lower levels, who have to carry out the system
on the line, talked to me of their utter frustration and even disdain of the
public relations game played by the minister since the September 11 attack.
There is system-wide snickering from immigration officers when the minister
oversells the improvements from Bill C-11 or the benefits of the maple leaf
card. Although necessary, it is only one of the many holes that must be plugged
if Canada has any hope of exercising basic sovereignty of its borders and
protecting its people.
The majority of persons who attempt to swamp our
protections enter Canada illegally by using passports of countries which do not
require a Canadian visitor visa or they use someone else's passport who has
obtained a visa. The passports are photo substituted and the person freely
boards a plane to Canada.
Capacity creates its own demand and the ability to get
through with low risk invites repeated testing of the system. Smugglers enjoy
their lucrative business without a care of being caught as they receive only an
insignificant punishment if ever prosecuted. The government does not have the
political will to make people smuggling unprofitable.
Then there is the trump card played by thousands of
people who declare themselves refugee claimants upon landing or a few days
later after having disposed of their legitimate looking documents and having
been carefully coached by their handlers as they arrive with a request for
legal aid, welfare and the medical plan. Most refugee claimants are released
into the community without Canada having knowledge about who they really are
and what their backgrounds are.
We need to detain all surprise arrivals for whom we
have any concern. It should be reverse onus and the burden should be on the
claimants to demonstrate that they are indeed refugees and not something else,
if they are using that particular category. The evidence for such a need is the
high percentage who disappear once they are released into the
community.
(1225)
It is likely that most persons who arrive uninvited at
our borders are not true refugees. They are those who do not wish to apply
through the proper channels because they know they will not qualify due to a
past they want to cover up or they are in groups that we as a nation have said
we will not take, which is the policy assumption of the point-merit system of
immigration.
Some may be fleeing prosecution and not persecution.
Some use the refugee claim as a ruse to enter Canada to cross into the U.S.A.
Most true refugees do not even have the means to get to Canada in that
way.
In respect to the societal costs of the consequences,
it is likely more cost efficient and a lot safer to first detain all refugee
claimants. If all questionable people were routinely placed in holding centres
pending necessary investigations and hearings, they would receive housing,
meals, health monitoring and care. Their stories and the international
reputation would be deterrents to the pressures on the system, just like the
deportation of the British Columbia boat people which took the pressure off
that type of activity.
If detained, claimants could not go on to another
province if denied and under another identity begin a second and third refugee
claim, as we have seen. Criminal checks could be completed while the person is
in custody, if the government ever got serious about access to databases from
all available countries rather than just within our own lists.
The voice of one immigration officer says it for many.
He said recently:
I could no longer tolerate the
frustration of seeing the fraud being perpetrated on the naive taxpayers of
this country and which I was impotent to prevent. I have never been more
certain of my decision to leave this department as I have since September 11.
You have absolutely no idea of the extent of fraud within the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration. Immigration officers must be able to do their jobs
with confidence and without political influence or interference. A plastic card
will not eliminate the fraud-- I'm sure someone is already working on
reproducing it. I could easily write a book on this subject. I am certain that
99% of front line immigration officers echo my sentiments, but of course are
not permitted to speak their minds and tell the truth. |
Canada is a nation of immigrants and has always been
enriched by new arrivals to our shores. A Canadian Alliance government would
facilitate the current levels of immigration and make improvements to the
security, fairness and integrity of the system. The system must meet the high
expectations of average Canadians and enhance the welfare of new arrivals. We
must ensure Canadian sovereignty on the borders.
We appreciate that Canada is a society built by
successive waves of immigration from all sectors of the globe. We need to
create a positive immigration policy that is merit based. Administration should
take into account primarily Canada' s economic needs. We must introduce greater
security and reliability into the system, including enforcement of sponsorship
obligations. The federal government must work more co-operatively with the
provinces on national policy and settlement costs. We must also affirm the
independence of immigration administration from multiculturalism.
Non-citizens of Canada who are convicted of an
indictable crime or who are known to engage in serious criminal activity must
be deported quickly. By more careful screening of the criminal element, we can
protect the integrity and security of immigrants and enhance community crime
prevention. Canada should no longer be called a safe haven for international
operatives.
We affirm Canada's international humanitarian
obligation to receive its fair share of genuine refugees. Refugee status must
be determined expeditiously under the rule of law and beyond political
interference. To ensure fairness, we should deport failed refugee claimants and
illegal entrants quickly, and prosecute those who organize and profit from
abuse of the system. To accomplish those reasonable administrative goals, we
must reallocate resources to reduce the thousands within Canada who are without
legal status or who are on the deportation list.
We also need to review the extra ministerial permit
category by seeking to provide transparency and public accountability within
the context of the Privacy Act to eliminate government vote buying, patronage
and cronyism.
To accomplish anything less is to fail our nation and
breaks faith with our young people, for their hope in a bright and prosperous
future.
(1230)
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to
participate in this very important debate. The motion put forward by my party
is of critical importance to our country, our economy and our physical
safety.
The debate over the need for a continental security
perimeter has been taking place from the grain elevators to the boardrooms, but
sadly, it has not been taking place in the House.
I am proud that again today it is the opposition that
is addressing another issue of utmost concern to Canadians. We have heard a lot
about a continental security perimeter, but it has yet to be clearly
defined.
In my remarks today, I would like to take this
opportunity to define our concept of a continental perimeter, address the role
Canada customs plays in it and conclude with my personal perspective on a
Canada we are living in post-September 11.
The government opposite does not like to define things.
It likes to spin and manipulate the policies of others without ever committing
itself. Look at the 1988 debate over free trade. The Prime Minister, along with
his comrade Maude Barlow, travelled the country, striking fear in Canadians
that we would lose our sovereignty over free trade. It has been over 12 years
now and we are not the 51st state of the United States. In fact, we are
stronger than ever. So let us put to rest right now the hyperbole over national
sovereignty.
The free trade agreement and NAFTA involved harmonizing
Canada's tariff and duty regulations with its North American neighbours. Our
nation has prospered as a result of our proximity to trade with the U.S.
Eighty-seven per cent of our trade crosses into the U.S. Untold jobs and
livelihoods are contingent upon strong, uninhibited trade with the U.S. and
Mexico.
The next logical phase in NAFTA is to protect the
trading relationship by harmonizing our security regimes.
A continental security perimeter is a fancy name for
knowing who is in our country. To keep the flow of goods, people and capital
across our internal borders, we must be more vigilant at screening and tracking
those entering North America. A perimeter does not surrender any of Canada's
independence to the United States nor does it remove our decision making
ability. We can have a made in Canada solution to the continental security
perimeter, it just takes initiative and vision. Hopefully the government
opposite will someday demonstrate these virtues.
Today we are at a crossroads of what has been and what
will become. The course of action taken by us in this place will have a
tremendous impact on future generations.
Today the U.S. announced that it may require the
registration of all those entering and exiting its borders. This will have a
disastrous effect on our trade.
Over the last few weeks, the Liberals have finally
responded to terrorism. However, the response thus far has been inadequate.
They have responded like Liberals always do, with money and band-aids. Throw
money at the problem and the symptoms will go away for a while, but the problem
will continue to fester. Money may buy votes, but money alone will not protect
Canada, its citizens or the economy.
The revenue minister has announced more money and the
hiring of customs officers. This is a very small step in addressing the deficit
that existed prior to September 11. The customs union is calling for 1,200 new
officers; it is getting 130. These new officers will be unable to adequately
protect our border because they will lack the legislative tools to do their
job.
Bill S-23, which is passing through the House, was
touted as a new vision for Canada's borders. While the official opposition
agreed with the initiatives for liberalizing trade, we were shocked by its lack
of security measures. The revenue minister bragged that Bill S-23 was a product
of a year and a half of consultation but he did not say with whom. He bragged
about the dual mandate of trade and security, but actions speak louder than
words. His actions have dictated that there is no dual mandate.
There were 18 months of consultations on Canada's
borders and not one security expert or organization was consulted by the
minister. The only groups consulted were related to trade and tourism. Where is
the dual mandate? Where is the balance?
It is evident that CCRA is a department focused on
streamlining accounting systems and collecting revenues. It is not focused on
security. The logical question is: Why are our border guards, Canada's first
line of defence, managed by bean counters?
You seem like a logical person, Mr. Speaker. If you see
a crime in progress, would you call the police or your accountant? You would
call the police. Why? Because they have the training, knowledge and tools to
protect society and enforce laws.
(1235)
Our customs officers do a tremendous job, especially
when one looks at the number of statutes they are charged with enforcing, their
limited resources and their inability to protect themselves from the potential
dangers inherent in border protection. We believe that Canada and our customs
officers would be better served by moving Canada customs out of the tax
collection agency and into a law enforcement department such as the solicitor
general's. Just as customs now enforces the statutes of several departments, it
would continue to enact the national revenue policies of trade
liberalization.
We can have it both ways. We can have strong borders
and strong trade with the U.S. In fact, a continental security perimeter would
facilitate the freer flow of trade for we could be more certain that what is
flowing across the border is legitimate trade. I believe it is worth
protecting. I believe my arguments here today are balanced, logical and
practical. I ask members to look around this room. This is the home of our
democracy. Is it not worth protecting?
Contrary to the views opposite, it is not fearmongering
to audit our ability to protect what we hold most dear. In the interest of
public safety, it is responsible to question our security and equally
responsible to admit inadequacies where they exist.
Under the Liberals we have seen an erosion of the value
of Canadian citizenship. As someone who came to this country as a refugee, I
cherish my Canadian citizenship. To be Canadian and free was not my birthright
and so I do not take it for granted. Members of my family, like the vast
majority of refugees, are thankful every day for what we have here in Canada
and as a result they are hardworking contributors to this country.
We, the refugees in Canada, are calling for a more
stringent refugee determination process. Greater scrutiny is in Canada's best
interests and the best interests of legitimate refugees, for if people have
nothing to hide they have nothing to fear from the system.
Our livelihoods, our citizenship and our freedoms are
worth fighting for and protecting. The refugee determination system is an
insult to Canada and it is an insult to those seeking refuge. As a result of
the inept IRB process, those refugees who are granted asylum continue to have
their motives for being in Canada questioned long after their claims are
settled. Why? Because those political appointees charged with the
responsibility of refugee determination lack qualifications and lack a clear
definition of refugee. The UN has a definition but Canada does not follow
it.
My colleague from New Westminster has already addressed
the immigration component of perimeter security. I feel compelled to speak out
on behalf of refugees to address the Liberal policy that is a disservice to
those who choose to live in Canada.
The immigration minister labels anyone who criticizes
this government's immigration policies as anti-immigrant. It is time for the
Prime Minister to call off the dogs. The system is broken and it desperately
needs fixing. If he does not fix it, Canada's economy will suffer.
I call on the Prime Minister to follow through on the
agreement with President Fox of Mexico and hold a summit on a North American
security perimeter.
(1240)
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague, the
member for Edmonton--Strathcona. He was the industry critic for our party and
knows the concerns that Canadians have in terms of any possible restriction in
access to our U.S. neighbour's market. Considering that some 33% of Canada's
GDP is generated from our exports to the United States, he will also know how
vulnerable we would be if that border were to close or to be restricted. Some
of his comments did address that.
I wonder if he could tell us more about the nature of
Canadian and U.S. business, the integration that has happened in a number of
sectors in the last several years which means essentially that there is $1.5
billion worth of business across that border every day. Every day trucks are
delivering products on a just in time delivery basis. This means that the
product out of a steel mill in Hamilton that is going to a plant 20 miles down
the road is being stamped into fenders that afternoon. That is just in time
delivery. Could he tell us how susceptible we are to losing that market share
in the United States if we do not address this security concern the Americans
have and develop a new border protocol?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague
from Peace River for his question. It is clear that we do have a problem in the
country and that we do have something to fear, especially when it comes to what
the U.S. might do in reaction to what is happening at our borders.
Today in the National Post, I believe, as well
as in the Washington Post, there was an article about the revival of
section 110 in the U.S. This would stop trade from Canada to the U.S. by
implementing a number of provisions that since 1996 have been held off by our
Canadian trade negotiators. We said we would make changes to our border
security to allow the free flow of trade to the U.S. but would increase
security so that the U.S. would not have anything to worry about on our side of
the bargain about keeping security tight at the border. In fact we have failed
on that measure and because of that the U.S. is now entertaining invoking
section 110 which, as my colleague has identified, would especially affect just
in time manufacturing. It is literally true that producers here will make a
product, put it on a truck to the U.S. and later that afternoon it will be
turned into some other viable product. With what the U.S. is planning, those
products will be stopped at the border and held sometimes for hours if not
days.
We could protect our industry, our jobs and everything
in the country that we are so proud of if we were to make the minor changes at
the border that I spoke about in my speech and that many of my colleagues are
speaking about today: improving security measures so that they can have that
dual mandate of expediting trade but still be responsible when it comes to
protecting security. They are minor changes like giving the border agents the
proper tools to do their jobs, whether it is firearms, the ability to detain
potential criminals coming through the border or whatever it might be to have
them do their job, not just on the revenue side but especially on the first
line of defence side. That would give the U.S. the security it wants to see. It
would see that we are taking our responsibility seriously. That would allow our
trade to continue to flow. As I said, the effects on our economy could be
disastrous if that border starts to close.
(1245)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I was interested in my colleague's
comments, but I cannot help but recall the numerous times over the past number
of years that the Canadian Alliance, as the Reform Party, criticized the public
service in Canada. It criticized the government for spending dollars on public
service employees, supported the government cuts and actually pushed for
greater cuts to the public service, which directly affected the numbers of
customs and immigration officers at the border who are doing exactly what he is
talking about. His party really is the root of the problem. That is the root of
the problem: When people call for these cuts they have to accept that the
employees will not be able to provide the service.
I would like to hear his position on whether he thinks
his party made a serious mistake in saying to make deeper cuts to the public
service, the employees are really not doing anything, they are just a bunch of
highly paid public servants and they should not be there. That is what the
Reform Party said for a number of years.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer:
Mr. Speaker, unlike my hon. colleague from the NDP who
calls for spending in every facet of Canadians' lives, in every level of the
bureaucracy, and for outrageous levels of spending, this party has called for
prioritization, especially when it comes to the important areas that we as
Canadians feel government should put money into. We have called for that type
of money to be spent, especially in the area of the solicitor general and in
giving CSIS and the RCMP the tools to do their jobs. We have continuously
called for stronger tools for border guards. The hon. member is completely
mistaken when she makes these accusations that we have not taken the security
of this country responsibly.
Hon. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I too will be sharing my time.
The American public and particularly the politicians
must wonder what is in our water. A senator in the United States stood up at a
press conference and held up a study that she purported proved that the
Canadian border was a sieve and that our country was a haven for terrorists.
When she was asked where she obtained her information and how she could justify
her statements, she said “I got the information from Canadian press reports”.
This is remarkable. They read the newspapers and hear people in this country
making these allegations, so they say that if we in this country are saying it,
it must be true.
I find it incredible that we have an official
opposition that would actually make statements which would undermine the
ability of this country to negotiate a fair and reasonable response to the
tragedies that have befallen our complete world as that relates to trade
between Canada and the United States. We know that 87% of our exports go south
of the border. We also know that 25% of theirs come north. If American
authorities are seeing and hearing Canadian authorities say that the sky is
falling and we are a haven for terrorists and we are this and we are that,
would it not seem reasonable that they would be loath to enter into new
arrangements and new agreements?
Winston Churchill said that the first casualty of war
is the truth. Never before have I seen it be more obvious. Let us take a look
at what the motion calls for. It says that immigration officers and customs
officers should be granted “full peace officer status” with the ability to
arrest and detain criminals and terrorists. Would it come as a shock to the
author of this motion that this is the fact today? Our people have the status
of peace officers. They have the ability to arrest and detain.
It does not matter that this is the current situation.
What matters is that there is an opportunity being seized upon by the official
opposition to somehow fearmonger and, in its members' minds, enhance its
political status within the Canadian system and within the country. I suggest
that it is not going to work.
First, they know full well, or they should know, that
previous critics from the Canadian Alliance and its predecessor, the Reform
Party, refused to attend trips with the minister of immigration to actually
investigate, on the ground at our foreign posts and in our embassies, what goes
on. Their reason for refusing was that they insisted on being given the
opportunity to attend every meeting the minister went to. When we went to
Kenya, we did not have the critic from the official opposition with us because
he wanted to attend a meeting that the minister was having with the president
of that country.
I am a member of parliament in support of the
government. I would not be so presumptuous as to insist that unless I am
allowed to attend a meeting between a member of cabinet and the president of
another country I will not go. It seems to me that is a bit of a cop-out. In
not going, that critic failed to see what was there, and this has happened in
Moscow, the Ukraine, London, Africa, the Middle East and the Far East, all over
the world. They do not want to know because it takes away from the ability to
stand up in the House, as members shamefully have done, and make wild
accusations that the foreign service is subject to bribery.
(1250)
I have heard statements made by members of the official
opposition that visas are given out in return for favours and bribes. To make
those kinds of allegations with no evidence whatsoever, except to have the
opportunity to hear from someone like Diane Francis writing in the National
Post with the most extraordinary accusations based on fantasy, is not
becoming of a member of parliament.
The first point in this resolution is that our people
already have that authority. It goes on to say that we should detain all
spontaneous refugees. I would like to talk about that. A spontaneous refugee as
defined by the official opposition is someone who shows up on our shores
uninvited. Is it not astounding that a refugee would actually arrive somewhere
uninvited? Let us imagine that.
We have millions of refugees in campsites. I have been
there. The critic once again refused to go to the desert in Africa to meet the
refugees and to talk to them about their plight and how they lost their
families, homes and infrastructure.
Do members opposite think the people in the Sudan have
the opportunity to go to a government office and apply for a passport? The
Sudan does not have such an infrastructure.
There is no doubt that we have people who show up here
without ID. In many cases they leave their homes in the middle of the night
with the police coming in the front door. That is not an exaggeration. I have
met and talked with them. I know it happens because I have seen it with my own
eyes. They leave in the middle of the night with their children and the shirts
on their backs. They do not have time to stop and ask where is their driver's
licence, if they have one to begin with.
We have an international tragedy that was in existence
before September 11. It is a tragedy to see refugee camps with hundreds of
thousands of people, insufficient water and no infrastructure, not knowing what
to do and wanting to go home, might I add. That is what they truly want to do.
They want to go home.
What do we hear? The opposition wants us to detain
everybody who comes here uninvited. What happens now if people show up who do
not have proper ID? We interview them at length. We determine whether or not
their story is true. We fingerprint and photograph them. We check them through
international security services and computer links. We attempt to find out who
they are and what they are doing here.
If we do not get satisfaction on those points, they are
detained. It happens now. Does that matter to members of the official
opposition? Would they rather perpetrate a fraud upon the public in this
country that somehow or other we are simply releasing people willy-nilly into
the community, even if it is not true?
The accusations that were in the media about 50 Afghani
and Pakistani refugees arriving here less than 10 days ago and being released
into the community without any security checks whatsoever were absolutely
false. Does it matter, though, that they were false, or does it only matter
that it was in the paper so it must be true? The opposition then has the
ability to propagate that information even further.
I urge Canadians to remain calm and to recognize that
the politics of hatred and fear being propagated by the official opposition is
not the Canadian way. We need to be secure in our borders. We need to keep
trade flowing between Canada and the United States. Telling the international
community that we have all these problems when in fact we do not is the most
irresponsible and reprehensible action that anyone can take, yet alone a member
of this place.
(1255)
That is not to say improvements do not need to be made.
They should be made. There was a breakdown in immigration. Unfortunately it was
in the United States and it led to that tragedy. We need to work with the
Americans to secure our borders, keep our goods and services flowing both north
and south, and keep Canadians safe. My government is committed to
that.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member opposite realizes
that we must have good security in North America. I hope that means he is
supportive of the idea of a continent-wide shield of security.
The NDP is against it. It claims that it would take
away our sovereignty. I do not understand why the NDP cannot see that we have
no sovereignty if we do not have security. We need a definite North
American-wide approach to the sovereignty issue.
The member made the comments that it was astounding a
refugee would arrive at our borders uninvited. Does he not know, and I must
believe he does, that refugees must purchase an airline ticket to get to
Canada? They cannot just walk across a border. If they are coming from Somalia
where the average income per year is maybe less than $60 U.S. and they have to
buy an airline ticket for $600 U.S., the first question we want to ask is:
Where did they get the money? If it was not theirs, who paid for it and
why?
They cannot get into Canada without some sort of
documentation to get on the plane. He talks about not being able to apply for a
passport and that is fine, but they change planes at Heathrow, Amsterdam or
Frankfurt. If they are genuine refugees should they not be claiming refugee
status there? If they get back on the plane with their $600 U.S. ticket they
are choosing Canada as a destination and we need to be suspicious of
that.
(1300)
Mr. Steve Mahoney:
Mr. Speaker, I made note of a statement made by the
previous speaker for the opposition. He said that most of the refugees who
arrive in Canada and claim refugee status are not refugees. He is the
opposition critic in the citizenship and immigration committee. That is so
wrong that it is laughable. The approval rate by the refugee board is 57% of
people who make claims. Members would be surprised to know that the approval
rate in the United States is 54%.
I wish our society was a neat little box like the
member opposite suggests. If people do not meet the standards of our
comfortable little cozy world in Canada then we are automatically
suspicious.
We do the security checks and the interviews. We find
out who the people are, where they are from and what they are doing. If they
pose a security risk or if there is any doubt that they may not show up for a
hearing, they are detained. What more do these people want? Do they want a
penal colony? That is not Canada.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble following the logic of
the member opposite and that is not unusual. Sometimes during a reasonable
debate in the House we have to put up with what is going on across the way as
is the case during this debate.
Canadians are worried about this issue. Our
constituents are in our offices. They call us because they are nervous and
concerned. They want to make sure they are safe and secure in their own
country. The first priority of any government is to make sure its citizens are
safe and secure.
How can the member explain more than 20,000 people who
should not be in Canada living in Canada and doing whatever they do? They have
been refused admission to Canada and they are still here. How does the member
explain that?
Mr. Steve Mahoney:
Mr. Speaker, as MPs we all know what goes on in our
offices regarding immigration. I am sorry if the hon. member wants to insult me
personally about my presentation, but I feel very passionately about the issue.
I am the longest serving member of the citizenship and immigration
committee.
We have people who apply for visitor visas and come to
Canada. When that visa expires they disappear. Am I happy about that? No, I am
not, but they are not criminals. Many of them are working in the housing
industry and in the construction trades. They are also not necessarily
refugees.
We have people in Canada and in the United States who
are living here without the proper status. Yes, we should try to correct that
and Bill C-11 goes a long way toward allowing us to do that. This is a bill
that the hon. member's party spoke against in committee and voted against in
the House.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the issue of a secure border is a very
major issue for all Canadians. It should not only be secure but also perceived
to be secure. We trade mostly manufactured goods with our southern partner in
the United States. The products that cross that border amount to $1.5 billion a
day. We need a seamless border which allows goods to travel back and forth with
no problem at all.
A manufacturing corporation which has a large engine
plant in Windsor made a statement last week to show how important the seamless
flow of goods and merchandise is across the border. It said that when an engine
leaves the engine plant in Windsor it is important that no blockage at the
border occur because in two hours they expect under the delivery system that
they operate on the engine to be in a truck going off the assembly line in
Detroit. That is the kind of just in time delivery system that is required if
our Canadian industry is to be compatible and operating with our American
partners.
It is very clear that our borders are significant to
all trade. We cannot avoid to bottleneck everything at the border. How do we
strike that balance between security and business opportunities to make certain
that everyone survives and survives reasonably well?
It is imperative that we look at our system of
immigration and refugees and state things that are accurate. When I look at
some of the facts pertaining to our border, they are not what I hear every day.
Canada and the United States share some 8,800
kilometres of border. In Canada we employ more inspectors and people at the
border than our U.S. counterparts. Canada has 350 citizenship and immigration
inspectors and 2,400 customs inspectors while the United States at the same
time has approximately 1,500 in total. The number of people who work at
Canada's borders are nearly double those in the United States.
Many statements have been made by politicians in Canada
and in the United States that Canada is a haven for terrorism. That is
absolutely not true. Let us look at terrorism and what happened tragically on
September 11. Canadians did not go into the United States and create that
danger. However we have to look very carefully at border operations between
Canada and the United States. Certainly some changes need to occur.
Senior bureaucrats in the United States have commented
that most of the western border crossings do not operate on a 24 hour basis.
They were talking about North Dakota. Three out of fifteen border crossings
operate on a 24 hour a day system. That means the other 12 only operate from 9
until 5. The only thing that stops anybody from crossing the border is a red
cone in the middle of the road. That is not the protection we expect between
Canada and the United States.
(1305)
Our border has been very open. It has not required
security. The U.S., with 2,000 and some people at the border, did not see
Canada as a problem before September 11. The U.S. has eight times as many
people at the Mexican border than at the Canadian border. That means it saw a
major problem between Mexico and the United States but did not see the same
problem between Canada and the United States.
I find difficulty with some of the irresponsible
comments that have been made at this point in time. There has been a lot of
irresponsible finger pointing and rhetoric that does nothing to enhance our
opportunities in Canada or our business opportunities abroad.
I find difficulty with the suggestion that we do not
make sure that when immigrants or refugees land in Canada they are brought into
an inspection area, fingerprinted, questioned and checked. If for any reason a
person coming into Canada shows evidence, as the former speaker has said, of
being a danger to the country, a terrorist threat or someone who might not
appear at future hearings, the person is detained.
We do not just open the borders and allow anyone to
come in. Health and criminal checks are done on every person who makes an
application. People cannot just fly in, go abroad or do whatever they wish.
That is not the case. However this is the message I hear from various people,
and it is a pretty unfair message.
In my area where crossing the border is so important
car traffic has been down by 60% since September 11. In southwestern Ontario
small restaurants and businesses that depend on cross-border traffic, tool and
dye companies and our whole tourist and manufacturing sectors are finding these
times very difficult. Plants are laying people off and having brief shutdowns.
The backups at the borders are as long as two hours in some cases. At other
times traffic flows through relatively easily.
If an American thinking about coming over to Windsor
for supper knows there will be a potential two hour backup at the border and
another hour backup going home, he will not use the Canadian facilities. Our
business is suffering dramatically as a result.
Canadians must be reassured that the country is safe. I
give the commissioner of the RCMP a tremendous amount of credit. When he met
with the immigration committee last week and with the Senate briefly, his
number one message was that Canada is the safest country in the world.
We make certain that people coming into Canada are
checked carefully. Our sharing of information with officers around the world,
be it Europeans, Americans or anyone else, is extremely good. Through CSIS and
the RCMP we have access to all kinds of records of people from every nation of
the world so that we can check carefully.
We are well known for training people and making sure
the immigration and RCMP officers at our borders are highly trained and
skilled. That does not mean we have a perfect system. However we are putting a
great deal of money into improving it through the terrorist bill.
(1310)
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have heard some of the Liberals today
stand on the other side of the House to give us their talking points as though
there were almost no problems with the immigration system. I served with some
of them on the citizenship and immigration committee. At that time, thankfully,
they were willing to acknowledge there were problems and put out some reports,
but they have not measured up in terms of reporting back mechanisms.
I will propose a scenario and ask my Liberal friend
across the way a question. The government and the minister have the power to
detain people. Liberal members have been talking about fingerprinting and
everything else in some of their speeches, and I am sure it is on all their
talking points. However if people arrive at one of our airports who have burned
or destroyed their documentation, all they are asked for is their name. That is
all that happens. If they give their name that is good enough.
Because the people at our airports do not want to deal
with all the paperwork and problems and whatnot, they pass it on. All they do
is take down the person's name and hope that at some point whoever it is will
show up at an appropriate time before an appropriate body.
I would point out to everyone listening today and to my
Liberal friends across the way that despite the fact the Liberal government has
the power to detain it does not. This makes it easier for our people at
airports who do not have the proper staff, manpower or resources because the
government has not given them what they need. As a result people arriving in
Canada can give a fictitious name and walk free. Is that not true?
(1315)
Mr. Jerry Pickard:
Mr. Speaker, I have a real problem with the question
and the way it was put forward, not because it is not an important issue for
Canadians but because of the insinuations it makes.
My colleague stated that immigration officers do not
want to be bothered. Quite frankly, that is anything but true. I have met with
people on the immigration board. I have met with immigration officers, many of
whom are neighbours and friends of people across the country. They are there to
protect our borders. No one in the House should make a blanket statement that
immigration officers do not do their job. That is ridiculously wrong. They
should be ashamed of themselves for doing that.
Liberals detain people. There is absolutely no
question. The hon. member for Dauphin--Swan River, the critic for the
opposition party, appeared before the committee working on Bill C-11 to talk
about the bill. He tried to weaken the bill the Liberals put on the floor of
the House in June. These were his words:
An officer shall not detain a person
who is not a Canadian citizen for a term of greater than six
months. |
Quite frankly Alliance members cannot stand today and
say that was not the case. They jump on the bandwagon when they should not.
They create fear where it is not and they do not take responsibility for past
actions. That is a shame, but that is the Alliance.
Mr. Charlie Penson:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am waiting
for an answer to the question that was put to the member. I am hoping he will
get to it. It was a straightforward question.
Mr. Jerry Pickard:
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was that anyone could get
off a plane and walk free on the streets with no problem at all. These
gentlemen need to bring forward information with regard to what is happening.
When people get off a plane without documentation they
are fingerprinted and there is a security criminal check. When they get off a
plane without information there is a medical check and they are searched to
make sure they do not have other bits of information. If there is any thought
at all that people will not report back for a hearing they are detained.
That is true in every case. Quite frankly this is a way
of saying the members do not agree that the people in our system do their
jobs.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
member for Surrey North. I am pleased to be the next to speak because I can
clarify something that was said by the member who just spoke.
I visited the Vancouver airport immigration processing
centre last Thursday with the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast. The
hon. member for Chatham--Kent Essex needs to visit an immigration centre to
find out what actually happens.
When the member says the people who get off planes are
fingerprinted he is correct. They are. However does he know that it takes 10
months to get the fingerprint results back? Does he know that it is only for
fingerprint records in Canada and nowhere else in the world? A person can turn
up and give any name such as Joe Smith. CSIS will check only that name in its
records. The fingerprints take 10 months to check and they are only for Canada.
Can the hon. member not see that a criminal can walk into Canada
instantly?
There are no medical checks. The member can verify this
any place where there is an immigration port. The refugee claimant is given a
package of documents, asked to report at a certain time to a certain place, and
given an application for a medical check. However there are no medical checks
at the airport before the person is released.
As for detention, yes, technically it is true that
people can be detained. However last week when we were in Vancouver there were
only five people detained and awaiting deportation. They were all international
criminals with lengthy international warrants for their arrest who had been
identified. For people who are detained because they are uncooperative, the
maximum amount of time is two to three days in the Richmond lock-up and then
they are released. As soon as they give any name at all they are given the
refugee package and dispensed out the door.
I challenge the hon. member or any other person on that
side who has been brainwashed with their talking points to go to any port of
entry in the country and prove me wrong, because that is what
happens.
Everyone in this place knows it is ridiculous to
suggest there could be refugee claimants from Amsterdam in Holland, Heathrow in
the U.K. or Frankfurt in Germany. That would be ridiculous. These countries do
not produce refugees. However for Canada they do. We accept refugees from
Heathrow, Amsterdam and Frankfurt every day of the week. These are people who
get on planes in countries where they need to change planes. They change planes
at Frankfurt, Heathrow or Amsterdam.
The UN charter on refugees allows refugees to claim
safety in the first safe country they get to. I challenge anyone on that side
of the House to tell me how people can be refugees if they change planes at
Heathrow, Amsterdam or Frankfurt and choose to come to Canada. Did they not
forgo their opportunity to claim refugee status in the first safe country they
reached?
When it comes to refugee producing countries I cannot
think of many. The only one from which there is a non-stop flight to Canada is
Cuba. There might be others; I could be corrected on this point. However
everyone else must change planes somewhere, and that somewhere is always a safe
country. When people get on a plane with a $600 U.S. ticket, I want to know
where they purchased it, who gave them the money and if they came from Somalia
or Afghanistan. I want to know how they got the ticket.
The U.S. takes the attitude that if people arrive with
no documents it is a pretty good indication of the type of character they are.
It indicates that they trying to hide something. They do not get admitted. They
get shipped out right away. Anyone who has no documents does not get into the
United States.
In other respects the United States is as weak as us.
It detains people for a short time. It has in the past, as we have, released
these people for medical examinations and so on. It needs to tighten up its
rules as well.
The member who just spoke said it is wrong to say
Canada is a haven for terrorists. However CSIS has told us there are more than
300 people with terrorist links in the country right now. Can Liberal members
deny this? CSIS has identified them for us. In addition, 50 or more
organizations with terrorists links are raising money.
(1320)
If there were no problem why is it the new bill the
government has put on the table includes provisions to take away the charitable
status of these terrorist organizations? I wonder how many Canadian people know
that terrorist organizations at the moment can legally set up a charity in
Canada under the umbrella that they are informing people, that it is an
information service about terrorism, and all the while they are happily raising
money.
The Minister of Finance attended a fundraising dinner
that CSIS warned him could be a fundraising dinner for terrorists, the Tamil
tigers. There is a lot to answer for on that side of the House. They can wax
eloquent on their talking points all day and quote their brainwashed
programming from upstairs but it does not alter what is happening at our border
crossings.
I asked the NDP member who stood up earlier whether she
was aware that on any particular night in downtown Vancouver 50% of the arrests
made by police are refugee claimants. Surely that is an indication there is a
problem. If that is occurring at every major centre across the country, we have
a huge problem on our hands, and that is the amount of resources being consumed
because we were careless at the borders.
When we had several boatloads of Chinese migrants
arrive here last summer, the immigration minister finally showed some courage
and detained those people while we processed their claims, considerably faster
than average I might add. What did we do? We rejected more than 90% of those
people. More than 90% were found to be cheats, queue jumpers or non-refugees.
They were opportunists trying to come in through the back door when they should
have been coming through the normal immigration process.
Last Thursday immigration officials told us that for
every 63 people arriving at the airport claiming refugee status, 200 people
claim refugee status at a downtown immigration office in Vancouver, that is 200
people who have slipped through with forged documents, visitor visas or some
other way with the intention of claiming refugee status, getting on our social
welfare programs, obtaining free dental care, a free apartment to live in and
12 years of appeals before their refugee status is ruled on.
My riding has probably one of the largest refugee
claiming populations in the country. It has been estimated that up to 50% of
the people in the Iranian community are refugee claimants. I have had genuine
Iranian immigrants call my office identifying some of these people by name and
asking me why we let them in. They give me names of certain Iranian individuals
who are criminals and wanted for bank robbery or other crimes in Iran. I always
report the names to immigration Canada but it never has any record of those
names because these criminals do not use their own names when they come to
Canada.
The fact is that anyone coming to our border and making
a refugee claim when they changed planes in Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Heathrow is
a queue jumper because there are millions of genuine refugees in United
Nations' camps around the world waiting for us to help them. We should be
sending a strong message throughout the world that we want to help genuine
refugees and we will take the maximum number we possibly can within our
economic constraints, but they will all come prescreened from United Nations'
refugee camps. If people want to get into Canada they must go there. They
should not bother trying to queue jump into this country because it is not
right and we will not tolerate it. The other side loves to talk about tolerance
and that Canada is a wonderfully tolerant country, but we will not tolerate
queue jumpers, cheats, criminals or anyone else who is taking advantage of our
system.
I would like to actually compliment the government for
stationing immigration officers in places like Heathrow, Amsterdam and
Frankfurt because they do a great job prescreening and assisting the airlines
in tracking false documentation, but they are spread too thin. The airlines
have told me that they have one of these people on hand who can be called if
necessary but it is not for every flight and every passenger. There are still
plenty of people sneaking through.
(1325)
I would put to the other side, who happily quoted that
we prevented 6,000 people from getting on planes last year, that figure might
have been 60,000 if we had been checking every document and every flight
carefully at Frankfurt, Heathrow and Amsterdam.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the frustrations I have heard from
many members of parliament is that we continue to hear in the debate a
co-mingling of refugees and immigrants. As members know, there is a difference
and a different process.
I think the member has probably added again to this
confusion by talking substantively about refugees and then talking about queue
jumping.
I wonder if the member could clarify what he referred
to as queue jumpers so that Canadians will understand how that terminology
relates to refugees and how it relates to immigrants.
(1330)
Mr. Ted White:
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for giving me
the opportunity to expand on this topic.
I am an immigrant. When I applied in 1977 to come to
this country I was turned down the first time. Some may say that was good but
the fact is that I was turned down the first time and I think that was very
wise. The first step is to make sure that the people who decide at a party on a
Saturday night that they want to go to Canada need to be weeded out right away.
I applied again wondering why I did not get in the first time? It took two
years for my family to get approval to come here. It was 1979 before we came
and we felt we had earned our right to come here. We went through the process
and did it properly. We did not try to queue jump.
We should have a similar process for refugees. As I
mentioned and as the member knows, there are many refugees waiting in United
Nations' camps around the world. I believe those refugees have every right to
expect prompt attention to their plight. For every person we accept at our
border and use resources and processing time on, it is one or more people who
we cannot use resources and processing time on from those United Nations' camps
where they have already been proven to be refugees.
I would say that anybody who comes to this country via
Heathrow, Amsterdam or Frankfurt is probably not a refugee and is jumping ahead
of the proper process, which is to be recognized as a refugee first. That is
what is happening at United Nations' camps. We should send the message that
nobody is coming to this country pretending to be a refugee when they more
properly should come through the correct channels and get in the queue along
with all those people who have been waiting patiently for years in refugee
camps.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Vancouver gave an
interesting speech. I know he has a very busy constituency office dealing with
immigration matters. In my constituency office in Grand Prairie, immigration
takes up the biggest part of our workload.
Canada accepts about 250,000 to 300,000 immigrants
yearly. We are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants and we know we need
to have immigration in order to continue to have the level of population we
need for the economy to grow. I do not think that is in question.
My office is sometimes involved in immigration cases
where it takes up to three years for people, who are going through the process
legitimately, to come into Canada. I have met with a lot of people who would
make outstanding citizens. Does my colleague not experience the same kind of
situation where people who are trying to come in through the legitimate process
are waiting longer because we are facing a huge problem with refugees coming
into this country illegally and thereby inflating the numbers which hurts
legitimate applicants?
Mr. Ted White:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up that
point which I should have mentioned when I stood on the intervention
previously.
He is absolutely correct. Our immigration department
has a huge amount of refugee claims which no doubt take resources away from
genuine immigrants. I have had refugee claimants call me up to say that their
files are taking a long time.
Members would be amazed if they saw some of the files
that I see from people asking for assistance. Incidentally, I never act as an
advocate for someone trying to get into the country but my office will
definitely check the file to make sure it is on track. I had a refugee claimant
upset that he was being rejected because he had been back to Iran, the country
from which he was claiming refugee status. I asked him how he could be a
refugee if he went back? He said “how else am I supposed to look after my
business?” There is the problem.
(1335)
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on my
party's supply motion. In light of September 11, each one of the four points
outlined in the motion is of the highest importance to all Canadians and our
allies.
In my submission to the House today, I intend to
address each point in the motion. It is obvious to Canadians and our neighbours
that the time has come to do more than just consider a continental perimeter
initiative. We need to take decisive action to ensure the security of our
country and to protect our vital trading relationships.
Today's motion calls on the government to take four
steps that the Canadian Alliance believes will go a long way toward ensuring
that our country can make a significant contribution to the fight against
terrorism on the home front as well as maintaining the healthy trading
relationship we currently enjoy with the United States.
The first area that today's motion explores is not only
to provide both immigration and customs officers with the training that is
required but to also give them full officer status to allow them to detain and
arrest suspected criminals at all points of entry.
It is obvious to most Canadians and to our American
neighbours that the current safeguards on our front lines are substandard. I
want to be very clear. This is not the fault of the hard working men and women
who staff our borders. It is the government which refuses to give them the
tools and training necessary to do the job properly.
I have been informed that at Pearson International
Airport during peak arrival times in the primary customs inspection area, up to
25% of the staff are university students with little more than two weeks worth
of training. The students are left with minimal supervision to make decisions
as to who can enter the country and who must go on to secondary
inspection.
It is incredible to me that in the wake of the events
of September 11 and the claims of the government to have beefed up security,
the students are still out there as our first line of defence. Even more
shocking, I have learned that at some of our land border crossings there are
students doing secondary customs inspection. This has to stop. If Canada
expects the U.S. to take any of our border security measures seriously, we
require qualified and highly trained people on our front lines and they must be
given the powers they need to do the job. This is the type of initiative that
would go a long way to better securing our borders.
This brings me to the issue of giving our front line
officers the powers and tools to detain and arrest suspected criminals and
terrorists. I will go back to the Pearson airport example. I have learned that
if customs officers wants to detain or arrest a suspected criminal or
terrorist, they may have to wait anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour for
police to respond to the call. A lot can happen in half an hour without the
proper equipment or powers to do the job.
Not only are we putting Canadians at risk with the
current practices, we are seriously jeopardizing the safety of our front line
workers.
The next logical step is to examine our more remote
border crossings. How long is the response time of police at those locations?
It is an unenviable position in which the government places its front line
border staff. More to the point, Canadian security is put to risk.
It is clear by the actions of the government that our
front line customs officers are to be little more than duty and tax collectors.
It would seem that the government, as evidenced by its inaction, is more
interested in collecting the health minister's $10 duty on a carton of
cigarettes than it is in identifying or arresting terrorists or serious
criminals.
This brings me to the second point of today's motion.
If the government is to take seriously the threat of terrorists and criminals
breaching our borders and using Canada as a staging ground for their nefarious
activities, we need to move the customs officers out of the tax collection
agency and into law enforcement agencies.
It goes without saying that as long as the front line
of defence at our borders is under the supervision of Revenue Canada then the
emphasis will always be on tax collection and not security. Certainly I think
the government would find that its customs officers would overwhelmingly
support this type of move.
The next problem the government has failed to address
properly is the practice of releasing spontaneous refugee claimants who appear
without proper documentation before their identities are confirmed and before
they have cleared proper health and security checks. All too often refugee
claimants are released on the same day they arrive in Canada on a promise to
appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
A few hours of questioning is clearly not enough to
determine possible security threats and it certainly does not allow for proper
health examinations. The truth of the matter is that it can takes weeks or
months with the current resource shortfalls to properly determine the true
identities of refugee claimants who arrive on our doorstep without
documentation. Again it is a resource and training problem
Nobody is suggesting that we hold refugee claimants in
detention for extended periods of time. What we are saying is that if the
government were to commit the proper resources and determination methods, we
could accept legitimate refugee claimants faster and protect Canadians and our
U.S. neighbours from the unwanted dangerous elements.
(1340)
We are saying that if the government were to commit the
proper resources and determination methods, we could accept legitimate refugee
claimants faster and protect Canadians and our U.S. neighbours from the
unwanted dangerous elements.
Detention in this context is not inhumane. Detention
upon entering a country, without any proof of identity or in some cases
fabricated identities, should be expected. Most genuine refugee claimants would
see this simply as one minor setback on the way to establishing a new life in
Canada. If the claimant desires to be released from detention, the process does
not have to be complicated, as many people making refugee claims in Canada come
from a safe third country. At any time during their detention, the refugee
claimant would be free to go back to that safe third country and make their
claim from there.
With a real acceptance rate of nearly 60% of all
refugee claims, Canada has become the asylum shoppers destination of choice.
Canada's refugee system would be completely different if the government were to
act on current laws and prescribe certain countries as safe third countries.
This would drastically reduce the number of spontaneous refugee claimants in
Canada and would go a long way toward increasing this country's
security.
The majority of asylum seekers enter Canada through the
United States. If Canada were to enter into an agreement with the United States
alone, we could reduce the burden on our refugee determination system by more
than one half.
Similarly, if we were to enter agreements with the
European Union countries, we would also see a drastic reduction in the number
of spontaneous refugee claims in Canada, thereby sending a message to the world
that asylum shoppers need not put Canada on their list. That in turn would free
up the resources to really help the most needy refugees and to do more work
overseas by easing the pressure in the refugee camps. We could then offer truly
destitute people the chance at a new life.
Many EU countries have already implemented the safe
third country concept. It is long past time that Canada get on board and act on
laws that are already on the books. It is not necessary for Canada to give up
its sovereignty to accomplish the goal of a continental security perimeter. We
simply need to look at what we can do to strengthen our current practices to
ensure the safety and security of Canada and our U.S. neighbours. It is not a
lot of ask.
I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour
of today's motion because I believe that the steps which it encourages the
government to take would make great headway in easing the legitimate fears and
concerns of Canadians and Americans alike.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance has brought a motion
before the House. I note that the minister replied this morning to the speech
by the Canadian Alliance leader. The motion states:
That, as part of a continental
perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of
Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, this
House calls on the government to: |
|
(a) provide both Immigration officers and Customs
officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to
detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border-- |
Obviously immigration officers have long been peace
officers, meaning they have authority to arrest and detain persons who are
inadmissible to Canada. This obviously includes persons they suspect of being
criminals or who already belong to terrorist organizations in other
countries.
Right now the existing legislation, as well as proposed
Bill C-11, contain provisions for protecting our borders. It is completely
wrong to suggest that we do not have such provisions. We do. Our officers have
all the means at their disposal to protect the Canadian public.
The motion raises another point I wish to address. It
states that the government should:
|
(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing
without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have
cleared proper health and security checks-- |
Here again I would mention that our immigration
officers conduct an investigation as soon as an application for refugee status
has been received. I wish to give an idea of the figures. Some 600 to 800
persons are detained every day by immigration officers. It is wrong to say that
they are not doing their job. On the contrary, I think they are doing it rather
well in the circumstances.
I am not saying the system is completely perfect. As we
know, it obviously has its shortcomings but hundreds of thousands of people
have been processed over the years. It is therefore not impossible that errors
may occur or that someone may slip through.
On the whole, however, there are certainly safeguards.
Last year alone over 8,500 persons were detained by the authorities for a full
verification of their origins and their past, as to whether they had ever been
charged with a crime and so on.
On the whole, as the minister already mentioned this
morning, we already have in place a great number of mechanisms to protect our
borders. Contrary to what has been said, I do not think a continental perimeter
is required. I believe the Government of Canada has considerable experience in
the field of immigration. I have visited some of our offices abroad. It may be
true that on occasion there was a lack of resources. I do not doubt it. Our
immigration officers work very hard. On the whole, I was impressed by both the
quantity and quality of the work they accomplish. It is not insignificant. They
work very well. This is a fact that we need to mention more often.
I do not mean to impute motives to the members from the
Canadian Alliance, but it is unfortunate that the words “terrorist” and
“criminal” come up too often when they speak in the House.
If we look at the facts--which is important--we see
that Canadians on the whole very rarely use this kind of language.
(1345)
Since September 11, it is all that people are talking
about. We often forget the contributions that immigrants have made to our
country. I would like to highlight a few facts.
First, if we look at people's files, very few
immigrants have criminal records or have been in trouble with the law. It is
very important to acknowledge this, and it is a fact.
Second, once immigrants settle, on the whole, very few
of them require employment insurance benefits. It is important to note that
these people contribute to our country, they do not abuse the system as some in
this House have implied.
Third, we often hear stories to the effect that
immigrants abuse the system in another way, with welfare. Obviously, when some
immigrants arrive, before settling in the community, they need help. We have a
very sophisticated system. Some may believe that it is being abused on a daily
basis, but this is not the case. There is a social infrastructure in place to
help people get settled. I believe that it is one of the great achievements of
our Christian society, if I may use the term.
Another thing we have seen with immigrants over the
years is that, in their first five years, the average immigrant will earn less
than the Canadian average. After their fifth year of working in Canada, in
excess of 50% of them earn more than the Canadian average. Once again, this
gives some idea of the effort they put into contributing to this country, and
not only for themselves and their families. This gives some idea, when over 50%
of them earn more than the Canadian average.
There is another aspect people are neglecting to
mention here. The educational level of most immigrants to Canada is higher than
the Canadian average. Many are technicians or professionals. In Damascus, I had
the opportunity to sit in on an interview with a man who had been working in
Syria for four or five years and was seeking to immigrate. It took him about a
year and a half. He had a doctorate in biochemistry, a great asset for our
country.
Overall, I find that these facts are being forgotten.
Too often we have been hearing “immigrant”, “terrorist” and “criminal” used in
the same sentence. I do not find this acceptable, when the facts demonstrate
the opposite. This needs some thought. As everyone keeps saying, we in this
country are all the children or grandchildren of immigrants. We need to think
about that.
There is one other point I must mention. We have heard
in the past four or five weeks that some members of the U.S. House of
Representatives have been pointing fingers at Canada, saying that our
immigration policies were not efficient, that many people were getting around
the system. I do not know where they have been getting their information, but
they are completely wrong.
I would like to give a few important statistics: 40% of
people who make refugee claims at the Canadian border are coming from the
United States. They are on American territory and come to the Canadian border
to make a refugee claim. Are we the ones responsible if they have got into the
U.S. and then come to our border to make a refugee claim? How is this a flaw in
our system? It is theirs that is flawed.
(1350)
[English]
I would like to mention some of the comments I have
heard made by Alliance members in the past weeks. I bring to their attention
that quite often in a lot of their speeches they use the word “immigrants” and
in the same sentence they bring out the fact that there are criminals and
terrorists. That is a little exaggerated on their part and they should be very
conscious of it.
What we have achieved in this country has been a
tremendous advantage to most Canadians. In the past weeks many Canadians have
expressed their profound belief that Canada is a peaceful and highly respected
country throughout the world. They know there are problems in other parts of
the world and as Canadians they feel that maybe the root causes should be
attacked. More than ever we have to show restraint in what we do in Canada. It
would be very wise for us to realize that some of the things we do are going to
have profound repercussions not only here but abroad and for those who want to
come to Canada.
I hope we can keep in mind that we have a tremendous
advantage by living in this country. Many people want to come to Canada.
However we cannot start making them feel as if we suspect everyone who wants to
come to this country and that we want to have investigations. We do not want
them to feel that way. We want them to feel welcome here. If in speeches they
hear the word “immigrant” is followed every time by “criminal” or “terrorist”,
that is highly unacceptable.
[Translation]
In closing, when Bill C-11 was examined in committee,
the Canadian Alliance member for
Dauphin--Swan River
worked a lot with us to find ways to improve our immigration system. We sat
over five or six weeks and corrected certain things.
Overall, the Immigration Act will be much more secure,
because parts of it will make the system more effective. We will be able to
make quicker decisions, because we will have the information at
hand.
I just wanted to make these comments and I am prepared
to answer questions from my colleagues.
(1355)
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the hon. member
rather interesting. It seems to me that the hon. member forgot to read the
motion currently being debated.
He waxed long and eloquently upon the benefits of
immigrants coming to the country, which I certainly would endorse. Many people,
I dare say most of us, have ancestors who were immigrants to Canada. We are
very proud and thankful that we are able to live and make a living here. Many
people have contributed many things to the country. The hon. member absolutely
is correct about that, but that is not what we are debating today.
We are debating the possibility, in fact the
desirability, of creating a defence mechanism whereby government officials
would be empowered to arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border.
Spontaneous refugee claimants appearing at the border without documentation
would be detained until we could find out whether they were legitimate
refugees. Finally, there would be a list of safe countries from which we would
not accept refugees. That is what we are debating.
This is not a question of whether we should or should
not have immigrants come to the country. Of course we want immigrants. We want
to be compassionate toward refugees who are suffering and who are in danger of
being persecuted for whatever reasons, whether they be religious or political.
We want to be compassionate and encourage immigrants but the issue is what the
best possible mechanism would be to make sure that people who are suspected of
being terrorists or who are known to be terrorists are kept out.
We all want safe communities. We want to feel free from
having our possessions stolen. We do not want our friends or associates
murdered. We want peace. We want quiet. We want non-violence. The motion is
designed to create a mechanism to take the identified terrorists aside and tell
them they cannot come to Canada, that Canada will not be a place for them to
launch their terrorists activities or for them to go to other
countries.
That is the issue. I wish the hon. member would comment
on that issue rather than on the immigration issue at large.
Mr. Mark Assad:
Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that I mentioned
that we have the necessary provisions already in the law. Our immigration
officers are acting as peace officers. We already have mechanisms at work to
protect our borders.
The fact is that some people slip through. We have
never claimed to have a perfect system. I would say to the hon. member that of
course we all want safe borders but there is no doubt in my mind that the
immigration officers are doing their work. Quite often they are doing it quite
well. There are circumstances, and I have to say in exceptional cases sometimes
there are errors, but all in all they are doing a very good job.
We do not have to debate the motion on this issue. We
know very well what our immigration officers are doing.
The Speaker:
When the House resumes consideration of the motion, the
hon. member will have six minutes and a bit remaining in the time for questions
and comments.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Adopt a Dog Month
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals has declared October Adopt a Dog Month. It is calling upon
all members of the public to do what they can to lessen the demand for puppy
mill dogs and identify puppy mills in their areas.
Thousands of dogs need loving homes. Adopting helps
reduce pet overpopulation. It also reduces the demand for dogs sometimes
filtered through puppy mills.
Life has taken a turn for the better for one of these
dogs. Honey, a two year old pup who lost an eye because of an infection and
became the poster puppy in the fight against puppy mills, has been safely
adopted into her new home.
The OSPCA is headquartered in the northern end of my
riding. Over the summer it took in well over 200 dogs and puppies from puppy
mills. As a charitable organization the society's work is funded entirely by
donations from concerned individuals, associations and corporations. I would
like to thank them for their hard work and dedication in caring for tens of
thousands of animals every year.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the wake of September 11 we have heard
a growing number of voices of moral equivalence in Canada from anti-American
diatribes aired in ridiculously unbalanced CBC forums, to left wing
editorialists like Haroon Siddiqui suggesting that the Americans got what was
coming to them, to some who say that the murder of 6,000 people is no more an
act of terrorism than Israel's self-defence.
Even members of the House have said that this struggle
is not a question of good versus evil. Last week the finance committee heard
from a group called Kairos arguing that deaths from natural diseases are as
much a moral concern as the mass murders in the United States.
Let us be clear that there is no room for this kind of
moral relativism in the face of September 11. The root cause of this terror is
hatred, particularly a virulent strain of anti-semitism. When referring to
terrorists the Leader of the Opposition stated in this place:
The hatred that moves them to
massacre the innocent can never be negotiated with or reasoned with. It is not
a matter of shades of grey...It is set in black and white. This is not a time
for moral ambiguity. It is a moment of moral clarity. |
* * *
Volunteerism
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain
(Guelph—Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I hosted a reception to
recognize 10 volunteers from the Guelph-Wellington chapter of the Canadian Red
Cross. My guests ranged in ages from 17 years of age to 90 years of age. It was
a fitting time to honour these individuals as 2001 is the International Year of
the Volunteer and this is a Women's History Month.
I should like to highlight two programs that these
volunteers participate in. Meals on Wheels delivers hot meals to those unable
to cook for themselves. The Red Cross trace and reunion program brings together
families separated by war and strife. Canadians appreciate both these worthy
programs.
Like so many Canadians I am appreciative of the
invaluable services the Red Cross and its many volunteers provide here and
around the world. I applaud the Red Cross for it truly represents and responds
to those in need.
* * *
Meteorological Service of
Canada
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to recognize the
Meteorological Service of Canada, one of Environment Canada's vital services.
It works every day, even Christmas Day, to bring Canadians essential
information: weather forecasts, warnings of severe storms, smog alerts, and
information on water levels, ice, climate and the ozone layer. Its weather
warnings can save lives and its smog alerts safeguard our health.
Today marks the 130th anniversary of the Meteorological
Service of Canada which was created in 1871 when Canada was still a fledgling
nation. Its purpose then was to safeguard ships from severe storms in the Great
Lakes and on the St. Lawrence River.
At the most basic level it used and still uses
volunteer observers in all parts of Canada with stations near people's homes,
on farms and campuses.
Early weather forecasts used telegraph lines and
hoisted flags to warn of an approaching storm. Since then its work has expanded
across the country. Its tools now include computers and satellite
transmissions. Its scope has broadened to include many types of environmental
information.
I ask members to join me in recognizing the
Meteorological Service of Canada.
* * *
Hungarian Revolution
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, October 23 marks the 45th anniversary of
the Hungarian revolution. The revolution was ignited when a student led
demonstration against the Soviet Communist occupation was met with gunfire. The
revolution was crushed by Soviet tanks. Twenty-five thousand freedom fighters
were killed and a hundred thousand wounded. A reign of terror followed.
Two hundred thousand Hungarians fled Hungary with
nearly forty thousand being granted refuge in Canada. Then minister of
immigration, Jack Pickersgill, went to extraordinary means to expedite the
movement of Hungarian refugees to Canada.
On behalf of my family and nearly 40,000 Hungarian
refugees, I thank the Canadian people, the government and Jack Pickersgill for
the compassion, concern and safe haven they offered us in this wonderful
country.
* * *
(1405)
Mark R. Isfeld
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Courtenay, B.C., history was
made with the opening of the Mark R. Isfeld Secondary School. This is the first
time in Canadian history that a school has been named after one of our fallen
peacekeepers.
On June 21, 1994, Master Corporal Mark Isfeld was
killed while serving with the First Combat Engineer Regiment removing landmines
in Croatia. He was on his third peacekeeping tour in 30 months.
Mark had studied every piece of known ordnance in
Croatia. He could recognize it from 100 paces and could take it apart
blindfolded. He was a perfect example of professionalism in our troops. Of the
dangers he faced daily, Mark wrote:
I know what this stuff can do.
Civilians, small children don't. My skills are to protect them. |
Sadly, despite his skill and knowledge, on that June
day Mark was outside an armoured personnel carrier when it ran over a tripwire
to an anti-personnel mine.
His memory and that of all peacekeepers is honoured in
Courtenay. I cannot think of a finer tribute to a soldier who cared so deeply
about the job he did and the people he did it for.
* * *
Mike Nemesvary
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West--Nepean, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome back to Ottawa and
to Parliament Hill Canada's own superman, Mike Nemesvary. Seven months ago, on
March 20, we wished bon voyage and good luck to Mike as he embarked on the
dream of his lifetime.
Today the round the world challenge is a fait accompli.
After travelling more than 40,000 kilometres through 20 countries Mike has
established a new world record, becoming the first quadriplegic to drive around
the globe.
What a feat for Mike and what an accomplishment for his
entire team. What generosity from people who have donated funds for spinal cord
injury, research and rehabilitation.
On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I invite all members to
join me at your reception at 3.30 p.m. to welcome and congratulate Mike on his
heroic voyage.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Economy
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, like many Quebecers, I am wondering what
the Minister of Finance is waiting for to make his action plan public, when
whole sectors of our economy have been affected by the terrorist attacks that
took place in the United States and by the economic downturn prior to September
11.
On numerous occasions, we asked the Minister of Finance
about his plans to boost the economy. While the problems are real and tangible,
the minister's comments have been sketchy and inconsistent.
It is not as though he lacks the means to restore
economic growth and create jobs, because in a worst case scenario, he has at
his disposal a surplus of $13 billion between now and March 31,
2002.
The Bloc Quebecois is only asking him to use 5 of the
$13 billion that he has to provide oxygen to the economy. It is imperative that
the Liberal government end its silence and reveal to parliamentarians its
strategic plan to put an end to the economic downturn.
* * *
Infrastructure Program
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it has been one year since the
Canada-Quebec Infrastructure Agreement was signed.
Municipalities throughout Quebec anxiously awaited the
start of the program, and they have been eager to respond to it.
For example, in Portneuf alone, there have been 34
projects, 14 of which are a part of the first component: green municipal
infrastructure (drinking water and wastewater). At a time when the economy
needs a boost and drinking water and wastewater problems are critical;
considering that in the riding of Portneuf, the Government of Quebec has not
yet made any applications to have component 1 projects approved by the federal
government; and given that there are some families who do not have access to
drinking water, action is required.
For this reason, I urge all stakeholders to work
together in order to remedy this situation, which need not exist, and which is
depriving Quebecers of the benefits of this program.
We may think of vast expanses of water, but in my
riding, there are families that simply want a glass of water.
* * *
[English]
Toby Banks-Rosser
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today a fellow parliamentarian mourns the
loss of a loved one. As colleagues and friends, Senator Tommy Banks from
Edmonton needs our thoughtful wishes today.
Tommy's daughter, Toby Banks-Rosser, gave her voice in
song on radio, on television and in the theatre. Music and song run deep in the
Banks family tree. When faced with the sadness of another's despair we
naturally turn to our own families for compare.
If any of us were to have one of our daughters slip
away long before their time, the pain would be too great to bear alone. We as
colleagues and friends are limited to words, words of sorrow and words sympathy
but sincere words from friends who want to share the pain.
Tommy and his family are not alone in their grief. They
are in our thoughts and in our prayers today.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Infrastructure Program
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that a year ago
the Government of Canada and the government of Quebec signed an agreement on
infrastructure projects.
Given the economic downturn affecting the country at
the moment and given that one way to stimulate the economy is to undertake
infrastructure projects in traditional areas or in the area of the environment;
and
Given that, in my riding of Pierrefonds--Dollard, no
application has yet received provincial approval, I ask all those involved to
be diligent in the matter.
* * *
[English]
Health
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North
Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in trying to explain this past week's drug
purchasing fiasco, the health minister has referred to the many versions of
events.
Canadians are used to many versions of Liberal drug
patent policy. Before being elected in 1993 they were vehemently opposed to the
Mulroney drug patent extension and vowed to reverse it. The post-election
version, however, saw them extending it.
Then there was the new version in 1997 election and the
promise of a national drug plan. Then there was the version that ended up as
Bill S-17 extending patent protection again.
It is no wonder the health minister got confused last
week. He did not remember which version he was on. The NDP version of what
needs to happen is that instead of having a contest between the Liberals, the
Alliance, the Bloc and the Tories as to who worships property rights more than
public health and who is better friends with the drug industry, the law in
question should be changed.
If September 11 has changed everything, perhaps it is
time to change our drug patent law.
* * *
[Translation]
Quebec-Cree Agreement
Mr. Richard Marceau
(Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is delighted to
highlight today the historic agreement reached between the government of Quebec
and the Cree. This agreement establishes a new relationship, nation to
nation.
The grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, Ted
Moses, said “With this agreement, a new relationship will be established
between Quebec and the Cree. This relationship will be built on trust and
mutual respect. Some may think that this relationship is impossible. We will
prove them wrong”.
Through this agreement, based on dialogue, all legal
proceedings instituted by the Cree against the government of Quebec are
dropped. Those involving the federal government, however, remain in
effect.
This strengthening of the Cree's economic control over
their future, this enhanced dialogue, obvious mutual respect and more modern
partnership between the Cree nation and the Quebec nation point the way to the
future.
* * *
Infrastructure Program
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, improving and creating new infrastructures
helps to improve the quality of life in our communities.
As part of its commitment to maintaining Canada's
economic growth and the quality of life of Canadians, the Government of Canada,
in partnership with the provincial government, has renewed the Canada-Quebec
Infrastructure Works Agreement.
More than 45 applications for funding under this
program have been made in the Frontenac--Mégantic region. We certainly hope the
government of Quebec will forward these applications to the federal government
as soon as possible so that action can be taken this year.
* * *
[English]
Retail Industry
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, this week the chambers of commerce across
Canada are celebrating the success in retail business in Canada.
The retail sector in Canada is big business. There are
1.7 million Canadians working in retail. Retailers sell over one quarter of a
trillion dollars of goods every year. That is more than $9,000 for every man,
woman and child in the country.
The retail sector is the very fabric of our national
economy. At a time when Canadians are feeling less certain about events related
to September 11 we must ensure that we reach out and support this important
sector.
I salute the retailers of every community from the one
store towns to the corporate businesses of our large cities. I would like to
provide a warm welcome to the members of the Retail Council of Canada who are
with us in the House today for its special “Retail Connects with Ottawa
Day”.
* * *
Small Business Week
Mr. Gurbax Malhi
(Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this week is Small Business Week in
Canada. Small Business Week runs from October 21 to October 27 and the theme
this year is “The Power of Innovation Driving Small Business
Growth”.
Small Business Week is organized by the Business
Development Bank of Canada in co-operation with the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce. It is an annual event held in all parts of Canada with the support of
national and local sponsors.
It pays tribute to the talents and achievements of the
owners of small and medium size businesses and gives them an opportunity to
network with those interested in small business and dedicated to its
development.
* * *
(1415)
Agriculture
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture gives the
impression to many Canadians that he is dealing responsibly with the farm
crisis and the drought experienced this summer.
Nothing could be further from the truth. He has stood
in the House and told farmers that there are programs available to them, but he
neglects to mention that they do not work and are not properly
funded.
For example, the minister says that crop insurance
should soften the effects of the drought, but the province of Saskatchewan has
requested $200 million to cover the shortfall for this year. The minister
responds to these desperate needs saying that he is waiting to see how the
programs work.
Farmers cannot wait. There should be the biggest payout
in years, yet these programs are not even covering their input costs. CFIP and
AIDA do not help those farmers who need them most.
The minister talks about his programs but it is all hot
air. They do not work and are not properly funded. We have already had enough
hot air on the prairies with the drought this summer. We need some action
now.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on Sunday the Minister of Health on his
involvement in the illegal drug scandal said “Health Canada officials did, on
my direction. I told them to get these drugs”. Those are the minister's
words.
He directed his officials to break the law. He cannot
even argue that he broke the law to achieve some greater public good because
the drugs were readily available to Canadians without the government breaking
the law.
In a time of war against terrorism the public must have
confidence in the government officials in whom they trust their health and
safety.
Does the Prime Minister believe that the Minister of
Health's law breaking is building the confidence that we need among Canadians?
Does he really believe that?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is talking nonsense. My
direction to Health Canada was to stockpile the drugs we need to protect the
security of Canadians. I did not direct it to make that contract with Apotex or
any other specific firm. This time last week we could not ensure access by
Canadians to the drugs they needed. Today we can.
Last Wednesday, on two occasions, Bayer Canada said it
could not supply us with the drugs we needed. My officials, in good faith, went
elsewhere to get those drugs. They made a mistake by not following the process
but they did it in good faith, and I stand with them.
I will stand with any official who acts to protect the
safety of Canadians.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, anyone can make a mistake, but consider
the cost to the taxpayer of the minister's ongoing carelessness.
The tainted blood scandal; we have no idea what that
has cost. The Mulroney Airbus witch hunt; $10 million. The Pearson airport
breach of contract, under his watch; $600 million. The escalating costs of the
firearm registry fiasco; half a billion dollars and climbing. Now there is his
illegal drug deal. He has individually cost taxpayers over $1
billion.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is not in any position to talk
about costing taxpayers to settle court cases.
The bottom line for us is to make sure that the health
of Canadians health is protected, and that is exactly what we did. If big drug
companies want to play shell games with us, we will not stand for it. We will
do what is required to get the drugs in hand to protect the health of
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the fear of anthrax, the threat of
bioterrorism and the health and safety of the public are much too important to
be left in the hands of this incompetent minister while a war is going
on.
With the public's confidence at an all time low, I have
but one question for the minister: Will he resign, yes or no?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell that member and everyone in
the House that I am going to continue to aggressively protect the health of
Canadians and do what is required to make sure we have what is
needed.
Last Wednesday, Bayer told us it could not respond to
our request for Cipro, which was a drug that in my judgment we needed to have.
Health officials took steps to make sure we got that drug. I stand with my
health officials.
Shell games by drug companies will not be tolerated.
They are not good enough for us on this side of the House. We will do what is
required to protect Canadians.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the awarding of the anti-anthrax drug
Cipro would be understandable to every Canadian if in fact there was an
emergency. However, the minister, by his own words, said that there was no
emergency, that there was no anthrax in Canada and that they had some Cipro on
the shelf for that emergency.
Will the minister accept the principle of ministerial
responsibility and be responsible for his department.? Yes or no.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is to make sure that the
health security of Canadians is protected. I proudly accept responsibility for
Health Canada. My officials worked in good faith, doing the best they could in
their judgment to achieve protection for the health of Canadians.
On the subject of anthrax, it is an unlikely threat in
Canada but, in my judgment, we had to have the drug. When Bayer told us twice
it could not give it to us, Health Canada officials did what was required, in
their judgment, to make sure we had what we needed.
The House can be assured that we will continue to do
what is needed to protect Canadians.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister's actions have cost the
taxpayer millions. I am reminded of the Airbus fiasco. I am reminded of the
hepatitis C fiasco. Now we have the Cipro blunder.
Once again, will the minister accept the principle of
ministerial responsibility and recognize that his mistakes are costly to the
Canadian taxpayer? Yes or no.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is clear: it is for the
health and security of Canadians. That is the responsibility I am concerned
with, not the political games that people on the other side of the House want
to play.
What would that member have said if an anthrax need had
arisen and Health Canada was not in a position to respond with the medications
that were required? We will make absolutely certain that we have what we need
to protect the health of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
Anti-terrorism
Legislation
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of
Justice stated that she would await committee recommendations before taking a
decision on the sunset clauses.
In committee afterward, however, the minister declared
her opposition to such clauses, referring to the impact these would have on
police investigations, a false argument which puts police professionalism in a
bad light.
How can the Minister of Justice show open-mindedness in
the House and then the opposite in committee? Is it because the government is
quite simply opposed to the idea of adding sunset clauses to anti-terrorism
legislation?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have been absolutely clear on the point
that the government has included a three year review. That is our preferred
mechanism.
However, I have also indicated that in the House and
the Senate committees there are hard-working members of those committees who
think that other review mechanisms may be as appropriate or, in some cases,
even more appropriate. I am certainly willing to hear their advice and
recommendations, and the evidence on which they would make such
suggestions.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that the police
could not do their job properly.
Yet the U.S. and France have included such a clause in
their anti-terrorism bills.
Are we to conclude from her statements in committee
that the French and American police will not do their jobs properly because
their governments have included sunset clauses?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is premature to determine how the
United States law enforcement authorities or government authorities deal with
sunset clauses that in essence are being discussed by congress at this time and
are being agreed to.
I come back to the fact that the government believes
that the three year review process is the appropriate process. However, we are
open. The Prime Minister, myself and others are open to the fact that if either
the House committee or the Senate committee can offer advice and
recommendations to assist us in our important work, we are more that willing to
listen.
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, after the privacy commissioner and the
information commissioner, now we have Mr. Claude Bisson, of the Communications
Security Establishment, a former chief justice of the Quebec appeal court,
telling the government that the bill gives it exorbitant powers.
The more the experts analyze this bill, the more they
fear the potential use of these powers.
Does the minister, who also has an obligation to
protect individual rights, not feel she has a duty to state clearly that this
bill must include sunset clauses?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bisson's comments were directed
specifically at that portion of the bill that relates to the communications
security establishment. He quite clearly indicated that his use of the word
exorbitant was in the sense of being out of the ordinary and not excessive. In
fact, I have a written letter from Mr. Bisson who supports the amendment in
Bill C-36 for the communications security establishment.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, let us be serious here.
A simple review of the act is recognition of the
permanent nature of the so-called exorbitant powers, whereas sunset clauses are
a recognition of the temporary nature of certain exceptional measures it
contains.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Does she
recognize the necessity, in order to reassure the population, for certain
clauses in this bill to be temporary in nature, and that sunset clauses are
needed for this?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have made it absolutely plain that we
believe a three year review mechanism is the appropriate protection for all
Canadians. I have also made it equally plain that reasonable people of good
faith could disagree on that point. That is why I will be so interested in
hearing the advice and recommendations that come from both the House and Senate
committees.
* * *
Health
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has paid $1.5
million for pills from Apotex and turned them over to Bayer. Bayer says “they
don't anticipate the Apotex products will ever be used”. In other words,
Canadians pay the price so the Liberals can save face.
Is the problem with the health minister or is the
problem with the Patent Act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have today what they did not
have and could not get a week ago, which is security of access to the drug they
need.
We are not paying twice for the same drugs. The Apotex
drugs will be kept. Bayer has said it will respond within 48 hours if we place
an order for its drug, which we have not yet done. If it cannot respond, the
Apotex drugs will used. Last week it could not respond. If that happens again,
we have the security of the Apotex drugs.
That is protecting the security of the health of
Canadians.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, before these Liberals were elected to
govern, they promised to change the Patent Act. The health minister would not
be in this mess today if the Liberals had kept their promise. The serious flaws
in the Patent Act have been amply illustrated by the Cipro fiasco.
Will the minister now bring in the promised changes to
the Patent Act or will he instead persist in perpetuating the Mulroney
legacy?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we respect the Patent Act. We have to make
sure everything is done in accordance with the Patent Act.
Let me say this. This has less to do with the Patent
Act than it does with what happened last week when we went to a company that
held a patent and asked for access to its drug. We felt we needed the drug. It
said it did not have it. It said that on two occasions.
If Health Canada officials, acting in good faith, took
steps on the basis of that information at a time of need to get access to the
drug, then although they erred in not following the process, I stand behind
them. We will continue to do what is required to protect the health security of
Canadians.
* * *
International
Co-operation
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the campaign manager for the Minister for
International Cooperation in last year's election received untendered contracts
for slightly under $50,000, just a few hundred dollars short of the threshold
for which tenders are required.
Will the minister provide the House with a detailed
accounting of Ted Lojko's work and billings to ensure that taxpayers received
value for this money?
(1430)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is
very clear that the CIDA contracts always respect and, in this case, fully
comply with treasury board rules and regulations.
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, that is hardly an accounting. The minister
has no excuse for such blatant and backdated patronage. She personally asked
that her department, CIDA, award a contract to workers on her election
campaign. Senior officials at CIDA said that they were pressured to award the
contracts. They said “we were told to make this happen”.
The contracts were questionable. The patronage is
obvious. Will the foreign affairs minister provide some explanation on behalf
of his cabinet colleague for this atrocious abuse of taxpayer dollars in
awarding loyal Liberals?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these accusations are simply outrageous.
The CIDA contract in question fully complied with treasury board rules and
regulations, including contract regulations covering retroactive
situations.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the month following the September 11
attack our solicitor general spent most of his time denying the Canadian
connection.
Let us look at the facts. Al-Marabh, the former Toronto
resident, has been identified by the FBI as one of four key suspects in the
attack on America. The RCMP is searching for another 10 to 12 key suspects in
the Toronto area. Three suspects have been arrested in Fort McMurray, one a
refugee claimant with up to 15 different aliases.
Will the solicitor general finally end the denial and
admit there is a huge Canadian connection?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad my hon. colleague continues
to jump to conclusions. I get my information from the commissioner of the RCMP,
the director of CSIS and the attorney general of the United States. These
people and agencies have indicated that there is no evidence of a direct link
between Canada and September 11.
However as I have said many times, we cannot dismiss
that possibility. This is an international investigation that involves
thousands of leads and a number of arrests, some here in Canada.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, no one is jumping to conclusions. The
evidence is pointing to the conclusions.
There is more on the Canadian connection. France has
demanded the extradition of Abdellah Ouzghar, an associate of Ahmed Ressam.
Ouzghar has been identified as a ringleader of a passport forging
operation.
Canada was deliberately chosen because of the ease in
which to pull off such an operation. Does the government admit the terrorists
are using Canada as a venue of opportunity because of its lax laws?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
It is a pity, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. colleague
continues to wish to criticize our police and immigration. The fact of the
matter is, we have one of the safest countries in the world. As I have said a
number of times, and it is obvious my hon. colleague has big trouble accepting
this, there is no direct link between Canada and the September 11
attacks.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, an agreement was reached yesterday between
Bayer and the Department of Health to ensure the supply of drugs to treat
anthrax. Yet, we have learned that the minister also plans on respecting the
contract with Apotex and will pay this company the sum of $1.3
million.
After making taxpayers foot the bill for his mistakes
in the Airbus saga, does the minister realize that, once again, taxpayers will
end up paying for his mistakes, and that this is unacceptable?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have now what we always wanted, a safe
and secure supply of the drugs needed.
One week ago, Bayer stated clearly to Health Canada
officials that it could not provide the drugs. We now have them because we
reached an agreement, and Bayer is committed to providing the drugs when they
are needed. This is a good result for the health of Canadians.
(1435)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister now says that he is not
responsible for the decisions that were taken. He is hiding shamelessly behind
his officials and citing public health reasons to justify his haste.
Since Bayer confirms that it could have met the demand,
will the minister continue to assert that his quick response was for public
health reasons?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, officials from my department acted
immediately after having heard from Bayer that it could not provide the drugs
needed. It is clear that the officials made a mistake, but it was made in good
faith and to protect the health of Canadians.
I support my officials. I share their commitment to the
health of Canadians. We will continue to protect that health
aggressively.
* * *
[English]
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism legislation provides
for the unrestricted right of the Minister of Justice to hide information held
by the government about a Canadian citizen, simply by a stroke of a pen, by
issuing a certificate.
Why will the minister not amend the legislation to
permit the privacy commissioner to review her decisions in confidence so that
Canadians can be assured that the minister is acting in the interests of
national security and not partisan Liberal politics?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have already explained on a number of
occasions in the House that the power provided to me to issue a certificate is
one that would be used in limited circumstances and in relation to highly
confidential information related to international relations or national
security.
I am aware that Mr. Radwanski, the privacy
commissioner, was at committee this morning and in fact has suggested an
amendment. My officials have not had the time to review it, but I will say that
I think the approach of the privacy commissioner speaks to how responsibly
witnesses are taking this important task before committee and I thank Mr.
Radwanski for directing his--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Provencher.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the APEC inquiry pointed out the secret
abuse by the Prime Minister's Office in interfering with police operations. The
privacy commissioner today expressed his concern over the absolute power
granted to the minister.
In view of the abuses by the Prime Minister's Office at
APEC, I am thankful that the minister will look at the issue of the
certificate. Will she also look at correcting the abuses in respect of APEC and
ensure that the Prime Minister's Office no longer interferes with police
operations?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I completely reject the premise of the
hon. member's question. I think what he has asserted is most unfortunate and in
fact verges on the outrageous.
Let me reiterate for the hon. member that the power
given to the attorney general to issue a certificate is a very limited one and
for very limited purposes. However, as with other provisions of this
legislation, I will be very interested in the advice and recommendations of the
committee. In fact if there are ways that we can improve the legislation to
achieve our objectives, we are open to considering them.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said on Friday
that the opposition puts the health of Canadians behind the interests of
certain companies.
It is in fact exactly the opposite and the Minister of
Health got caught in the act.
Will he acknowledge that it was he who put the
interests of a pharmaceutical company ahead of the interests of the public and
of the health of the public?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the sole concern of Health Canada and of
the Minister of Health is to protect the security of Canadians, and we
did.
A week ago, we discovered we could not obtain the drugs
needed. We acted responsibly. We have now resolved our differences with the
companies and have taken the steps necessary to protect the health of the
public.
(1440)
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, all that, after wasting $1.3 million of
taxpayers' money. Some responsibility is called for.
How can the minister, who says he has the health of
Canadians at heart, make such a claim when he was preparing to give them drugs
that had not been approved by Health Canada, while approved and effective drugs
were available?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I simply said we have now done what was
needed in response to the situation.
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the solicitor general
how two suspects arrested in Fort McMurray last week for possession of
fraudulent documents and suspicion of terrorist activities were able to pass an
RCMP criminal background check required for employment when they were not even
allowed to legally seek employment in Canada.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has indicated, these
individuals have been arrested.
It involves an investigation and my hon. colleague is
fully aware that I will not comment on an ongoing investigation.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is an absurd answer.
Given all the assurances that we have heard in the
House this morning about the security of Canada's border entry points, how did
these individuals gain entry into Canada given their long criminal record and
even outstanding warrants for their arrest in Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, members opposite have heard me say on a
number of occasions that we are working very closely with the Americans as well
as with law enforcement agencies in Canada.
Let me explain to the members what this means. When the
RCMP says it cannot comment because there is an investigation and the FBI says
it cannot comment because there is an investigation, surely they would
recognize that there should not be a comment, because we do not want to
jeopardize an investigation. If they were being responsible, they would
understand that.
* * *
Air Canada
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has told the
House that the government supports a private sector solution to the challenges
facing Air Canada. Could the minister please tell the House what he intends to
do to support this idea?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as you know we have been working very
closely with the airlines since September 11.
In particular, to assist Air Canada to secure more
investment from the capital markets the government today agreed to introduce
amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which would see the
elimination of the single shareholder limit. Notice of that bill will be given
this evening.
* * *
Transportation
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, funding for public transit makes good
sense especially in terms of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and
meeting our Kyoto commitments.
Municipalities and now even the provincial government
in Ontario have agreed to put money into this program.
Yesterday the transport minister refused to meet the
commitments he made in the past and he will not come to the table and
contribute. Why will the minister not meet his commitments? When will he
participate in this type of program?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member that in the
red book we talked about forging a partnership with municipalities and the
provinces to assist with municipal transit. Work is ongoing, particularly in
committee, led by my colleague from York West.
Let me be clear here. The Ontario government ended
funding in 1998. It used to pay 75% of capital funding and 50% of operational
funding. It has come back with 33 cent dollars and then expects the federal
government and municipalities to pick up the slack. That is just not good
enough.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the mayor of Ottawa was quoted
as saying that this minister, referring to the Minister of Transport, made
speech after speech across this country, including here in Ottawa. He gave the
commitment that he would be at the table if the province was at the
table.
Now he has reneged on it. I can only hope that the
finance minister will take up the slack and honour the commitment. So I ask the
finance minister, will he?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I never thought that I would see a member
from the NDP being an apologist for the Harris government and its scandalous
treatment of municipalities on housing, on transit and in a number of other
areas.
The government is committed to helping municipalities
with housing and transit and we will do it in this mandate.
* * *
(1445)
Health
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to shield himself from
prosecution by the Minister of Justice over the Ciprogate fiasco, the Minister
of Health has used the excuse that he was only acting to protect the health of
Canadians. If the minister really respected the Patent Act he would not be in
another mess where taxpayers will have to pay twice for medication they could
have obtained legally in the first place.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Are there
any other cabinet ministers who have broken the law in their rush to play catch
up following the events of September 11 or is the health minister the only one
who has broken the law?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question
is totally unfounded. He is wrong in reaching a conclusion that any ministers
have broken the law. When one decides that the law has been broken there has to
be a trial by a court, not the unwarranted assertion by a desperate member of
the fifth and failing party.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health stated
there were different versions of what happened when Health Canada approached
Bayer to supply Cipro. Today the minister is stating that Bayer was approached
twice and could not supply the drug Cipro.
If the minister has sorted out this mess, which
incidentally is costing the taxpayers $1.5 million, will he table in the House
today after question period the correspondence that confirms the request to
Bayer by Health Canada and Bayer's confirmation that it would not be able to
supply this drug?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am telling the member and I am telling
the House today that Health Canada officials have confirmed to me that on two
occasions last Wednesday Bayer told them it could not provide additional
Cipro.
The member is wrong in saying the taxpayers have had to
spend money uselessly. The fact is, we are paying for any drugs we take and
use. If we order more drugs from Bayer we will pay for them and we will use
them.
The drugs that have been purchased from Apotex will be
kept and, if necessary, they are available for use.
* * *
Immigration
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. congress has indicated that it
will be employing up to 7,500 new border police to protect America. From what?
From Canada's lax immigration and refugee process.
The FBI has reported that there are anywhere from
50,000 to 70,000 undesirables in Canada right now who should be
deported.
When will the minister stop hiding behind a plastic
maple leaf card and a press release and start aggressively removing all those
who may be a security risk to Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, we do detain anyone where we
have evidence that they pose a security risk to Canada and we keep them in
detention as long as we have evidence to suggest that they are a risk. We move
through the courts to remove them as quickly as possible.
I am the first one to say that sometimes those
procedures take too long. That is why I brought forward legislation to
streamline those processes.
The premise of the member's question is absolutely
wrong. On the Canadian side of the border we have three times the resources in
personnel than the Americans have at this time. What they are doing is actually
going to--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for New
Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have spoken. There have been
literally hundreds, even thousands, of letters of complaint by Canadians to
their elected representatives. Obviously the workings of the immigration system
do not have broad political support in this country.
Even British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell, a
Liberal, is questioning the validity of the government and the claims of the
immigration minister.
Why has the government not made it a priority to seek
out and remove the thousands of people who should be deported from this
country?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
In fact, Mr. Speaker, removals are a priority. Canada
has a very good record of removal. Last year well over 8,000 people were
removed. The number one priority for removal are those who are inadmissible
because of criminality or security concerns and the second priority are failed
refugee claimants.
Over the last five years there have been 45,000
removals. Of the people who were removed last year, some 1,700 were
inadmissible because of security concerns. They were removed as quickly as we
could do it.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Health.
Was his decision to violate the Patent Act approved by
cabinet, yes or no?
(1450)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, by taking a decision of this importance
without cabinet approval, by taking a decision that is costing the public $1.3
million and by taking a decision to violate an act of this parliament, will the
minister admit that he committed three very serious errors of judgment, one
right after the other?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. I have already
explained the measures taken by officials.
I ask the hon. member to recall the circumstances of
last week, with the crisis situations in the United States and the concern here
in Canada.
Officials reacted immediately, after being told by
Bayer that it could not supply this drug.
* * *
[English]
Immigration
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, too often we have seen bogus refugee
claimants hopping from country to country shopping for a nation that will take
them in. Too often that country has been Canada. Even the United Nations has
called on us to act.
Will the minister of immigration commit to reopening
talks with the United States for a new agreement on determining from which
countries both our nations will agree not to accept refugees?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, both the existing immigration law and the
new immigration and refugee protection act known as Bill C-11 contain the
provision for discussion of safe third country agreements.
In the past my department has initiated those
discussions with the United States. For a number of reasons the United States
at that time was not interested in concluding the agreement.
We have indicated our interest in those discussions. It
is not the be-all and end-all as far as a solution goes but we do consider it
one of the important methods whereby we can ensure that people are given a fair
hearing at the first place where they arrive and--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Blackstrap.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, since September 11 it has become painfully
clear that there is a need to agree as North American partners on what defines
a refugee and how we determine what is a safe third country.
Will the Prime Minister commit to the House that
harmonizing our refugee determination system will be part of his upcoming
summit with the presidents of the United States and Mexico?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the discussions our
Prime Minister will have with his American and Mexican counterparts will cover
a large number of subjects.
Certainly it is possible that this could be on the
agenda, just as we may ask the United States what it is doing to tighten up and
toughen up its system, bearing in mind the three million or four million
illegal immigrants who entered that country from places other than
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
International Aid
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, with bombs raining down on Afghanistan,
U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell has rejected out of hand the idea of a
Marshall plan, saying that a fairly modest contribution could be more than
enough.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs intend to put
forward a reconstruction and development plan that will meet the needs of
Afghanis, or does he feel that, because they are poor, reconstruction efforts
should be modest?
In other words, is he prepared to spend as much on
reconstruction needs as he is on bombs?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have already announced our contribution
toward reconstruction plans for Afghanistan.
We will be working with our international partners
because this is a project that will be very important.
It is clear that the first step is to root out al-Qaeda
and the Taliban movement but there is no doubt that we will make a serious
contribution to the needs of Afghanistan.
* * *
(1455)
[English]
Agriculture
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, bioterrorism against our agricultural
industries is a real threat. A report from the solicitor general on April 18
stated “There is now a growing awareness that the agricultural sector, that is,
crops or livestock, has to be considered a potential target for terrorist
attacks”.
Has the minister of agriculture ordered any new
specific initiatives since September 11 to increase the security of Canada's
agricultural industries?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there has always been an emergency
preparedness plan in case there is agricultural terrorism or a danger to our
food supply, whether it be accidental or intentional. That plan has been
reviewed since September 11. It is in place in case that unfortunate situation
takes place so we can be prepared to act accordingly.
* * *
[Translation]
Infrastructure Program
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister
responsible for infrastructure for Quebec.
A year ago, the Government of Canada signed a
memorandum of agreement with the government of Quebec concerning cost shared
infrastructure projects involving the municipalities.
Given the very low number of projects that have already
been accepted in Quebec, will the minister give us an overview of the status of
applications?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important
question and would like to draw the public's attention to certain
facts.
First of all, we are all aware of the importance of the
infrastructures program, both for the communities and for job creation. We also
know that the applications must be submitted to the province of
Quebec.
At this point in time only 176 such files have been
submitted to the federal government, and of that number we have approved over
100. I am told that there is a backlog of 1,900 on Quebec government
desks.
What is the Quebec government waiting for before it
passes them on to us to help us create employment?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin Cauchon: It is my impression that
this situation smacks of a government wishing to use this matter for political
purposes.
* * *
[English]
Agriculture
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister seems to be
sleepwalking his way through this crisis.
Since September 11 the United States has announced $350
million to keep its food supply safe. Today in the agriculture committee André
Gravel of the CFIA could not name one new initiative the government has put in
place to protect our agriculture industry.
Does the minister not see any need to be more active
and initiate a new initiative to ensure we have a safe agriculture
industry?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know when the hon. member is
going to realize that Canada has the safest food system in the world.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has shown its
vigilance and diligence through the use of its resources and personnel. For
example in cases such as the foot and mouth disease situation this year, those
resources are there. The emergency preparedness plans are there. We do not
always have to spend more money to do a good job.
* * *
The Environment
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in budget 2000 the Minister of Finance
announced $9 million to develop feasible and nationally acceptable sustainable
development indicators. As a result the Minister of the Environment created the
Canadian Information System for the Environment task force.
After consulting with Canadians the task force has
released a report proposing the next steps to develop an integrated
environmental information system. Could the Minister of the Environment tell us
how these task force findings move us toward that goal?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the
Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the task force findings will of course go
before provincial and territorial stakeholders for their views. We will however
move forward as quickly as we can to implement the $9 million made available in
the 2000 budget by the Minister of Finance to maintain and establish a system
which will measure significant progress on the environment. We will have
improved capacity to collect, manage and use that environmental
information.
* * *
Anti-terrorism
Legislation
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, Canada's watchdogs have clearly indicated
that the new anti-terrorism bill goes too far in denying disclosure of
information to Canadians and that it is open to abuse. Both the privacy and
information commissioners were clear and forceful in condemning the attempts at
secrecy by the government.
Proposed amendments to Bill C-36, to the Privacy Act
and the Access to Information Act give the government overreaching powers to,
without explanation or oversight, refuse to disclose. Without sunsetting, this
bank of information will be permanently lost.
Why is the government now using the security threat to
try to justify a clampdown on the free flow of information?
(1500)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the government is
not involved in any clampdown on the free flow of information. We are charged
with protecting Canadians and ensuring national security. The limited power
provided to the attorney general to issue a certificate is in relation to a
very discrete aspect of information involving international relations and
national security. It is my view and the government's view that that provision
is not only defensible but necessary to protect national security.
* * *
Health
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minster of Health.
In the ongoing struggle between corporate intellectual
property rights and the public interest, I wonder if the events of the last few
days have caused the minister any moments for reflection. Could he tell us
whether in his party there is a rekindling of the flame that once burned, now
extinguished, for the protection of Canadian public health interests against
the rights of the multinational drug companies, or do the Liberals insist on
pursuing the course that they have since 1993?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that our
preoccupation is not with the profits of companies but with the health of
Canadians. We act to secure the health of Canadians.
Yesterday we made an agreement to make certain that
Canadians would have access to a drug they may need in the unlikely event of a
biological attack.
Our bottom line is the health and security of Canadians
and it will remain so.
* * *
[Translation]
Air Canada
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Air Canada and the union
representing its non-flight employees reached an agreement to set up a work
sharing program, which will need to be approved by the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Can the minister tell us if she intends to approve this
agreement as soon as possible, and to do the same for the other categories of
employees?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to work sharing, I can assure
the House that my department is working on a daily basis with Air Canada and
its unions. I can tell the House that the information as we receive it we are
reviewing quickly. There are also issues which remain on all sides that must
yet be resolved.
We appreciate the importance of work sharing to the
employees of Air Canada. We will work expeditiously to ensure that our response
is in favour of the employees.
* * *
Health
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has insisted today
that he is stockpiling the necessary drugs to combat the threat of
bioterrorism. This is not the case.
Smallpox, unlike anthrax, is contagious. If the
minister is so committed to stockpiling the necessary drugs, why has he not
started buying the smallpox vaccine?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no more smallpox vaccine to be
purchased in the world. Canada has a stockpile of 380,000 doses. Modern
technology allows us to dilute that to vaccinate more people, but no one else
in the world can buy more vaccine because it does not exist.
There are vaccines being developed now. Many countries
are moving to speed up the development of those vaccines. It may be that as a
matter of prudence in the very unlikely event it may be needed, that countries
should buy more of that when it is available. That is something we are looking
at. The member should know it does not exist at this moment.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Supply]
* * *
(1505)
[English]
Supply
Allotted Day--Border
Security
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the
member which has to do with the stringency with which he would like to pursue
the issue of terrorism in Canada and Canada becoming the venue or the
springboard for these unsavoury people to launch themselves into another
country.
I wonder if the hon. member could talk about that in
some detail. He spent a lot of time talking about other things. In his response
to my earlier question he said that we had all those safeguards now.
Does the hon. member know that some 27,000 of these
people have gotten lost somewhere and we do not know where they are? Does he
also know that people in Fort McMurray were discovered to have not one but a
list of criminal offences against them. Does he know that these people were
able to find refuge in Canada when they should not have had refuge in Canada
and should not have been considered to be refugees? They should not have
qualified but nothing was done.
Does the hon. member know why this is happening? Is it
because the government is not doing what it can do or is it because the
legislation is wrong? If that is the case, why is C-36 not before the House to
do some of the things we are talking about?
Our motion specifically deals with a new way of looking
at protecting our country and making it safe from terrorists coming into this
country in the first place.
Mr. Mark Assad:
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asked this whole
question previously, I mentioned that the officials of the department were
looking into a lot of these aspects.
To get specifically to his question, there is no doubt
that over many years there have been some claimants who did not show up for
their hearings or whatever. Some may have left the country but we are not
sure.
However Bill C-11 was designed to deal with some of
these issues. As members know, when we had our parliamentary commission on Bill
C-11, it was going to prevent many of these things. In other words, a lot of
people who managed to get in by the back door did not take the front door. We
are going to speed up the process in the future with Bill C-11, which will
prevent a lot of people from exploiting the system by coming in through the
back door.
A lot of the measures proposed by the member are
already in existence. They will be even better under Bill C-11. It is just a
question of time before we get all the aspects together and then we will be
able to do a better job.
(1510)
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member appeared to acknowledge the
fact that the majority of refugee claimants coming into Canada are from the
United States. Does he think it is appropriate for Canada to give refugee
consideration to people coming from the United States when they are already in
a country known to be a safe haven?
Mr. Mark Assad:
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent suggestion by the
hon. member regarding the statistic I gave that 40% of refugee claimants in
Canada came from the United States. Maybe we should look into that. Maybe some
kind of arrangement could be made whereby if someone is coming from the United
States they can claim their status there and not here.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my
colleague, the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands.
The heightened anxiety and concern that Canadians have
been feeling at the threat of terrorism is natural at this time, especially
since we know what has been happening in the United States can virtually happen
anywhere.
Our citizens need to know their government is taking
the necessary legislative steps to combat international terrorism. With the
introduction of the comprehensive anti-terrorism bill last week some of these
concerns have been addressed. However much work remains to be done,
particularly in the area of immigration and border control.
So far the government has attempted to brush off
suggestions that we have a terrorist problem by pointing to the fact that none
of the September 11 hijackers appear to have significant Canadian connections.
However this argument ignores the fact that we have known for years that Canada
has a major problem with terrorists using our country as a base for their
activities abroad. This is a fact stated in the June 2000 CSIS report, in
reports from national defence and by officials representing American
intelligence agencies, the FBI and the CIA.
One can only ask why these terrorists would want to
attack Canadian locations when they can safely use Canada as a staging point
for their international criminal operations.
As friends and allies, we also owe our American
neighbours some measure of protection from security risks beginning in Canada.
There is no question that the Americans are very concerned about who is
entering from their northern border, and justifiably so. They have already
tripled the number of agents patrolling the Canadian-American border, a move
that indicates they are extremely concerned about what measures we have or
rather do not have in place on our side of the border.
The B.C. premier, Gordon Campbell, in a move supported
by all other premiers but two, has called for a serious discussion with the
United States about a continental perimeter that would protect the security
interests of both countries and allow for the free movement of people and trade
between them. The idea of harmonizing our laws and anti-terrorism operations is
necessary if we are to continue a positive relationship with our most important
trading partner.
The Liberal government's response so far on this issue
has been to hide behind arguments that harmonizing immigration and refugee laws
would be an infringement on our sovereignty and the core values of Canadians.
Unfortunately, the Liberal government is trying to define Canadian by what is
not American. However we have to think beyond this narrow scope and define our
nation on our own terms. We must work together with all western leaders,
linking our arms with a common strategy and with a common goal of defeating
terrorism, not by simplistically defining our terrain with a line drawn in the
sand.
For years it has been obvious to Canadians, it
certainly has been obvious to members of the Canadian Alliance caucus, that the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has had no serious thoughts of
addressing the issue of terrorists entering and remaining in Canada via the
refugee determination system.
A January 1999 report of a special senate committee on
security and intelligence stated what most Canadian already know, that there
are several indications that serious problems with our refugee determination
system exist. Among the serious problems reported were the number of claimants
who disappear, the perception that our system is leaky and our enforcement
system is overwhelmed and the perception that it is in the claimant's interest
not to comply with our immigration rules, terms and conditions. Indeed, what
the report states is that it is in the interests of claimant's to use criminal
procedures to get into our country.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has done
nothing to enhance training for customs officers. She has done nothing to give
the appropriate resources to law enforcement officials. She has done nothing to
detain refugee claimants who cannot prove their identities. She has failed to
promptly deport refugee claimants who break the law in Canada.
(1515)
The one thing the minister has done is she has
attempted to deflect criticism from Canada's ridiculously open system by
calling those who have constructive suggestions on how the system can be
improved, anti-immigrant. It is statements like these that desperately
demonstrate the minister's failure to carry out her
responsibilities.
After years of inaction, last week she finally
announced new, allegedly fraud proof identity cards for landed immigrants to be
implemented next year. Unfortunately, terrorism and immigration experts already
consider these new cards obsolete as they are not likely to pose any problem
for terrorists intending to forge or reproduce them. The cards issued will not
contain the security features, such as imbedded fingerprints already found on
the U.S. green card, or iris identification.
Publicly available polling indicates Canadians
recognize that these tracking features are necessary even if the minister and
her department do not.
Beyond tracking capabilities, we must also have the
means to detain those who wish to criminally abuse our refugee and immigration
systems, those who arrive at our shores without proper documentation every
year. Most, if not all, of the terrorists who have entered the country have
done so by criminally using our generous refugee system. This was confirmed
officially when the RCMP told a conference on October 17 that the modus
operandi of all international terrorists entering Canada was, first, to claim
refugee status and then, to move on to obtain welfare and medical benefits
before turning to crime to boost their income.
How the minister can continue to deny this fact in
light of such evidence remains a great mystery to me. Certainly she has the
evidence of her own security agencies, including the RCMP, to tell her very
clearly that she has a problem and that the steps she is taking are not
adequate?
In conclusion, I would call on all members of the House
today to recognize that significant improvements must immediately be made in
terms of our border laws by voting in favour of the motion.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress
Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity this
afternoon to discuss customs and immigration issues. Canada has an obligation
to encourage immigration. Having been given what we have in Canada it is only
right to welcome refugees and immigrants to our country.
Most Canadians are descended from immigrants. My
grandparents on my father's side came from Scandinavia. They looked for a
country where they could have new opportunities. They looked at Canada and
decided to come here. My mother decided in the 1950s that she would like to
come to Canada. She emigrated from Scotland. She came here as a midwife and
became a nurse. We all have immigration in our history.
If we are to have immigration we have an obligation to
do a good job. I will ask a couple of questions this afternoon about whether we
are doing a good job with our immigration policies. First, if we think we are
doing a good job, could we not ask people in the general public what they think
of our immigration policies? If we went to the public I am sure people would
say our immigration policies are complicated and difficult to understand and
that no one knows what the rules are.
People do come here. Last year 225,000 people tried to
immigrate to Canada, 35,000 of whom claimed refugee status. People come here to
stay because it is a good place to live and a safe place to live. We would like
to keep it that way. I will take a few minutes to look at the present
legislation to see if it would make Canada a safe place to live.
Bill C-11 has been introduced and is going through the
process of becoming legislation. It seems well intentioned. My mother has a
Scottish saying that members may be familiar with. She says the road to hell is
paved with good intentions. This could be the government's statement of purpose
on immigration legislation.
Bill C-11 tries to make the system workable but the
government refuses to provide enough staff to make it workable. Bill C-11 tries
to speed up refugee processing, or at least as the public sees it. The
government's target includes referring refugees to the Immigration and Refugee
Board within three days. However its processing time continues to be 90 days,
the same as it has always been.
The bill does not address issues like out of date
health standards or accountability of appointments, those of citizenship judges
in particular. However the real problem with the immigration legislation is the
problem at the heart of the Liberal government: it has no accountability.
Canadians are more concerned about the application of
the present law than about having new laws. If people can come here, do damage
and try to destroy the country, it justifiably causes fear among Canadians
about what they may be doing. Montreal detective Claude Paquette said our
porous immigration laws have turned Canada into “a Club Med for terrorists”.
CSIS head Ward Elcock has said that with perhaps the singular exception of the
United States there are more international terrorist groups active in Canada
than in any other country. This is a poor place to be second.
Yesterday I rode in a taxi from the airport with a
young gentleman who was concerned about the things going on around the world.
He was from the Middle East. He said he came to Canada to have peace, not to
have the dangers of that world come here. Canadians want to be safe.
Canadians are concerned that the system has been
corrupted. We need to look at some of the major concerns Canadians have about
failed political candidates being given appointments and jobs in the
immigration system, a system in which immigration lawyers stand to make large
amounts of money from people who cannot afford it, a system in which corrupt
immigration advisers often try to take people's money away before they get to
Canada.
To deal with these problems the Canadian Alliance has
some suggestions. First, we need to take a serious look at a common perimeter
security system with the United States. This is a simple and real opportunity
to improve security for both Canadians and Americans. Simply put, it would
increase security at our entry points. People cannot swim to this country. They
come in through airports and the ports where our ships dock. We need a common
perimeter security system.
(1520)
Why do we need a perimeter security system? We need it
for a couple of reasons. First, we need it for our own security and safety.
This is the first duty of the federal government. Second, the United States has
announced it will be requiring everyone leaving and entering that country to
register when they do so. This will be done for several reasons. It will be
done partly as a trade restriction, something we do not particularly
need.
A couple of weeks ago one of the senators from North
Dakota began using the security issue to try again to restrict agricultural
products coming into the United States. Some of their bureaucrats and
politicians are trying to use the issue to restrict things like softwood lumber
and the ability of Canadians to work in the United States. We need to be aware
that the United States is concerned about its own security. If we do not have a
secure perimeter and cannot be trusted at our borders we will not be able to
get through the U.S. border easily.
We have a second suggestion for the government. It
should detain refugee claimants until it has properly identified them. That is
common sense. We cannot simply let people go and collect their baggage when
they arrive at and leave our airports. The Canadian people do not realize how
the system is operating right now or they would be rising up and criticizing
it.
Arrivals need to have verifiable documentation so the
proper checks can be done. It is easy to do security and background checks on
people who have the correct documentation. However those without verifiable
documentation or who are questionable should be detained until we know whether
they are safe. If they prove not to be safe they should be deported. Canadians
do not find that unreasonable.
Here are some examples where stricter standards should
have been applied. A convicted PLO terrorist lied to get into Canada. He
currently lives in Brantford, Ontario, and has lived there since 1987. He is a
failed refugee claimant but continues to avoid deportation through court
appeals. If the government cannot deport a terrorist, whom can it
deport?
A Toronto man who works at a grocery store has been
positively linked to Osama bin Laden. He has been identified as a high ranking
member of the Islamic terrorist group al-Jihad.
Ahmed Ressam, a failed refugee claimant, assembled bomb
material in Burnaby, B.C., and tried to get into the United States. While he
was fighting the Canadian refugee process it was discovered he was allowed to
travel abroad for more terrorist training before returning to
Canada.
A former terrorist wanted for questioning by the FBI
for assisting in the bombing of an Egyptian embassy in the late 1980s is living
in Canada.
How many other terrorists are hiding in Canada? One of
the biggest concerns of Canadians is that the present inadequate screening
system cannot tell them that.
One of the more bizarre examples of this occurred on
October 7 when a plane arrived at Toronto's Pearson airport with an estimated
30 to 40 refugees from Pakistan and Afghanistan who had come through Germany, a
safe third country. These people, I would suggest, were not refugees but rather
immigrants. They were processed and released into the general public and
immigration officials lost them. Where are they? More important, who are they?
People cannot just disappear.
Immigration Canada has been left with insufficient
resources to track these people down. Does the government have the will to
protect Canadians, either at the beginning of the immigration process or when
things go wrong?
John Thompson of the Mackenzie Institute, a Toronto
based strategic think tank, says CSIS, our security agencies, immigration
officers and police officers cannot act because they do not have the resources
or the will behind them.
We have a couple of suggestions regarding customs.
First, one of the ways to deal with the problems is to make customs officials
full law enforcement officers. The government cannot decide what they are right
now. They are expected to protect our borders but are only given the tools to
be tax collectors. If our first line of defence is to be our customs officials
let us give them sidearms and the equipment they need. If they are only to be
tax collectors let us give them calculators.
We have a huge concern that customs officials are left
without the proper training. In larger centres they are getting some training
but in smaller ones they have less access to the RCMP and little access to
police support. They do not have access to quick response training and are
often left out of the training schedule, especially lately regarding pepper
spray and the use of batons. The people who most need protection and training
are the last to get it.
(1525)
The national vice-president of the Customs Excise
Union, Gary Filek, said:
Canada Customs has been under a
systematic process of deterioration and dismantling for approximately the last
decade. |
The Canadian Alliance is suggesting to the government
that it restore Canadian confidence by setting up a common perimeter security
network, that it detain new arrivals until it knows for sure who they are, that
it limit refugee acceptance to real refugees, and that it make customs
officials peace officers and give them the proper training and necessary tools
to do their jobs.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my
colleague from Vancouver Kingsway.
(1530)
[Translation]
I am happy to be here today to speak about the role of
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and about the fact that our customs
officers must be well trained to carry out their duties.
[English]
It is important to clarify for my hon. colleagues and
members opposite that the customs component of CCRA is not a police force but
rather a border agency that administers the Customs Act and 70 other acts and
regulations on behalf of other government departments and agencies.
[Translation]
Since Confederation, the Department of National
Revenue, now the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, has been responsible for
collecting revenues for the Canadian government. Initially, it collected
customs and excise duties. Later on, it began to collect individual and
corporate income taxes.
Over the years, however, the mandate and activities of
the department, which is now an agency, evolved significantly, largely in
response to the new requirements of its clients.
At the present time, the agency collects 95% of federal
revenues. Customs officers continue to collect customs and excise duties, to
gather important import and export data, and to check the shipments and
manifests of travellers and commodities. The agency also has a mandate to
ensure a level international playing field for Canadian companies.
Each year, 111 million Canadians and 11 million
commercial shipments from over 160,000 importers cross our border. The majority
of these travellers and clients are honest and law-abiding. Accordingly, they
must be processed quickly and efficiently.
It is true, however, that a--
Mr. Ghislain Lebel:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to know whether we still have a quorum to
validly debate in this House.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker:
I see a quorum and debate shall continue. The Minister
of National Revenue.
Hon. Martin Cauchon:
Mr. Speaker, it is, however, true that a few of these
travellers and trade missions represent threats to the health, security and
economic well-being of Canadians. We must be vigilant in order to detect and
counter these threats. This was our reality before September 11 and it remains
so today.
The mandate of customs within the agency is clear. It
continues to be to protect the health and security of Canadians and to
facilitate the flow of eligible travellers and trade missions.
Commerce and trade form the cornerstone of Canada's
economy, and customs is the key to their vitality and continuity.
To ensure Canada's continued prosperity and security, I
released the customs action plan in April 2000.
In proposing innovative solutions to today's problems,
the plan ensures that our customs' processes will not stand in the way of
Canadians' prosperity.
The action plan, which Bill S-23 will implement,
provides for a complete risk management system integrating the principles of
pre-arrival data input and a system of prior approval, all thanks to
technology.
As the result of the events of September 11, it is all
the more important to put this plan into action. It is vital to meeting the
challenges facing us, including that of maintaining heightened security and
ensuring economic stability at the same time.
[English]
The risk based processes contained in the plan are even
more crucial to the security of Canada. With a few adjustments, I am proceeding
rapidly to implement these changes so that our country remains safe while we
keep its economy in good shape. The adjustments we plan to make involve the
acceleration of several security related initiatives which will provide for $21
million for new technologies and increased staff at our airports and seaports.
Our focus on airports and seaports is necessary given the increased risk that
exists at our external borders from threats such as terrorism and
drugs.
In order to proceed with the implementation we have
secured all party support for Bill S-23, which is the foundation for this plan.
It includes, for example, new authorities for strengthening security at our
airports by allowing us to receive advance information on passengers. With the
legislation in place we would be able to proceed rapidly with the
implementation of new services that Canadians need and deserve.
This is an investment we have made in a smarter border;
however, this alone is not enough. Not only do we have to accelerate the
protection initiatives, we must also expand our activities with the U.S. to
merge best practices and develop common programs. Canada and the U.S. need to
have joint risk based programs at the land border and co-ordinated approaches
at the external border. This would lead to dramatic efficiencies for commercial
trade and strengthened defences against terrorism at our international airports
and seaports.
Senior officials have already met to look at what we
can do together to meet the challenges of our dual mandate of protection and
facilitation of trade and travel. As I mentioned before in the House, trade and
tourism are the lifeblood of our economy and customs is a key component in
ensuring their vitality and continuity. While our dual mandate of protection
and competitiveness may seem distinct and unconnected, they are in fact very
much related.
The customs process is a continuum of linked activities
that extend from admissibility decisions and examinations performed by customs
officers at the border to post-release verification activities. This continuum
is critical to the effective functioning of the customs program. The joint
effort of all customs personnel is required to effectively assess and respond
to risks posed by goods and people entering and exiting Canada.
Through the customs program, the agency is responsible
for identifying inadmissible people, prohibited goods and controlled strategic
goods. In addition to detecting and interdicting contraband and inadmissible
people, customs inspectors are also instrumental in ensuring the administration
of a wide area of trade related legislation governing the transborder movement
of goods.
For example, in order to protect the health and safety
of Canadians, inspectors: refer agricultural products and other commercial
goods for inspection; sample denatured alcohol, other chemicals and gasoline;
control the entry of dangerous goods such as hazardous waste; and refer goods
for inspection that must meet Canadian standards.
(1535)
[Translation]
In addition, we have recently established what we have
called the increased powers of customs officers, which increase our response
capability.
As I have said on a number of occasions in the House,
customs officers, and customs in Canada are not a police force. In the present
context, with the recent changes and the volume of work we must deal with
daily, I think Bill S-23 provides us with all the information and tools we need
to do an even better job for all Canadians.
[English]
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate
regarding Canada Customs.
The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is a border
agency that manages the Customs Act and customs duties and regulations on
behalf of the Canadian government. However, Canada Customs is not a police
force. It has the important mandate of protecting the health, safety and
security of Canadians and at the same ensuring that trade and travel flow
freely at the border.
For one and a half years the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency has worked on the new customs action plan. It will modernize our customs
system by introducing pre-approval programs for businesses and travellers. It
has a dual mandate for trade and passengers so we can expedite low risk
travellers and goods and focus on high risk shipments and
passengers.
The CCRA is responsible for identifying inadmissible
people and prohibiting illegal material such as drugs, firearms, obscene
material and hate literature. We all know that the customs officers work on the
front lines at the border. They have to specialize in the work and be specially
trained. They are always peace officers with the power to detain and arrest
individuals who commit illegal acts under the Customs Act.
Recently the Minister of National Revenue and I, with a
team, visited the Douglas border crossing in B.C. It is a very busy area. One
of the officers in a booth at the crossing demonstrated the computer technology
used to pre-screen low risk car passengers to facilitate faster movement at the
border.
With the passage of Bill S-23 in the House we would be
able to apply specialized technologies to improve our security measures at the
seaports, airports and land border crossings.
CCRA will introduce a new customs action plan with
public support. Recently customs received additional funding of $12 million for
the application of new technologies and $9 million for an additional 130
customs officers with special training.
Customs has an excellent state of the art training
program which enables our officers to carry out their duties professionally and
safely. CCRA has many dedicated and hard working officers to serve Canadians at
the border, airports and seaports.
The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will continue to
serve Canadians as an innovative leader and a valuable partner. It is an
organization that is essential to the government. I do hope my colleagues in
the House will support Bill S-23.
(1540)
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for
her interest in this area. There is a very important issue considering the
amount of business we do every day with the United States and how important the
open border is to Canadians in terms of standard of living. I would like to ask
the parliamentary secretary, because she is from Vancouver, if she has had
discussions with the port authority in Vancouver to talk about issues such as
the container business, which is of vital importance to the city of
Vancouver.
It is the container business that makes Vancouver the
first port of call for a lot of container traffic, traffic that has tripled in
volume over the last seven years. How does the government intend to deal with
security issues that the United States has with Canada in order to make sure
that we can maintain the flow of container business into the United States in
terms of having it pre-inspected by U.S. authorities so that it does not need
to have an inspection again? How will we meet the security concerns the
Americans have in order to facilitate that and maintain the amount of product
shipped to the United States out of the port of Vancouver?
(1545)
Ms. Sophia Leung:
Mr. Speaker, yes, customs has been very actively in
discussion with the port authority over the last three years. Actually the
Minister of National Revenue and I have visited there. They have demonstrated
to us how a ship receives goods and how they use specially trained detective
dogs so that any undesirable shipment of goods will be captured.
I thank the member for his attention to that. Certainly
we are quite active and we are regularly in touch with the
authority.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I know that in the riding of the member
from the Liberal side there is a high percentage of immigrants from Hong Kong,
from China and from Taiwan. I have certainly heard the broadcasts on Fairchild
radio and have been for interviews myself in the Vancouver area.
I would like her to confirm that immigrants from Hong
Kong and Taiwan, that is, genuine immigrants, are just as concerned as the rest
of the Vancouver population with abuse of the immigration system and that there
are just as many people pushing from the genuine immigrant community of Chinese
for changes to the law as there are in the rest of the community in
Vancouver.
Ms. Sophia Leung:
Mr. Speaker, yes, we know that in B.C. there is a large
Chinese immigrant population. They are from Hong Kong, Taiwan and China. The
community is very interested in any possible abuse, but at this moment I think
we all know that there are no guarantees with any group of people. There are
people who will be questioned and detained while we go through due process in
the meantime.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince
George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
member for Peace River. I rise on behalf of the people of Prince
George--Bulkley Valley and indeed all Canadians who are concerned about their
safety and security subsequent to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and
some of the attacks that have taken place since that date.
We in the official opposition have been imploring the
government to come up with a plan which will assure Canadians that their
communities, streets and buildings will be safe wherever they go in Canada. We
have been asking the government to make the official opposition and all other
opposition parties in the House part of that plan.
The government to date has refused to do that. As a
matter of fact, for a great many days following the September 11 attacks the
government was in virtual denial that Canada was at threat or could be at
threat. It has only been recently that the government has actually recognized
the fact that as an ally to the U.S. and other western countries and as a
member of NATO we are at threat.
When it comes to the safety and security of our
families and our communities, the government needs something to give Canadians
which will make them feel the government has a handle on the very present
threat. It has not done that.
I want to draw an analogy for a moment. We know from
the evidence presented that people associated with terrorist organizations are
living or have lived in Canada. There is ample evidence. I have some quotes
that I will read from CSIS and from police departments. We know they are here.
Through its departments and its authorities the
government has a responsibility to search these people out and hold them
accountable for whatever activity in which they have been involved. If that
means illegal activities in Canada, they would be tried under Canadian laws. If
it means they have come from another country where they have been involved in
terrorist activity and are subject to extradition, the government should be
co-operating to the fullest extent with the countries seeking their
extradition.
It is like cleaning up the nest. We should be doing
that aggressively as a government because of the very real threat. If at the
same time we are not taking measures to protect the perimeters of our country
from more people coming into Canada, which in this case is the borders between
Canada and the U.S. as well as the complete North American perimeter, the clean
up job within will go on forever. The government has not put forward anything
substantive to protect the perimeters of the country. That is what this supply
day motion is all about. It starts out as follows:
That, as part of a continental
perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of
Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, this
House calls on the government to: |
|
(a) provide both immigration officers and customs
officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to
detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border; |
They cannot do that now.
(1550)
We have heard in the House over the last couple of
weeks that border guards cannot detain people whom they suspect of being either
terrorists or involved in terrorist activity. They need to phone a police
department somewhere to come and arrest them. That is very
inefficient.
We have called on the government to move customs border
officers out of tax collection. We know the Liberals love to collect taxes and
this really goes against their grain. I am sure the former minister of national
revenue cringes when I talk about taking people out of tax
collection.
In a time of crisis like this one when we have a
terrorist threat, would it not be logical to move these customs border officers
out of tax collection and put them into a law enforcement department so that
they would have expanded powers to deal with real threats?
I am sure people trying to sneak across $200 worth of
cigarettes that they are not allowed to bring across the border must be low in
priority as compared to trying to detain and arrest someone who is maybe a
terrorist threat to our country or to the U.S.
We also call on the government to take steps to detain
all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation. This
is not rocket science. It happens in many other countries. They should be
detained until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper
health and security checks. What is wrong with that?
These are logical steps that a government which
recognizes there is a threat in the country would take, but it has not taken
them.
Let me turn to safe third countries including the
United States and members states of the European Union from which Canada will
no longer accept refugee claimants. If people are fleeing from a country where
they feel they are being persecuted or they are in danger to a safe country,
why are they not seeking asylum or refugee status in countries that are members
of the United Nations protocol on refugee claimants? Many people who come from
another country into a safe country and use it as a stepping stone to Canada
have ulterior motives. We have seen that.
I have a couple of quotes that will not be a
surprise:
Canada is almost a welcome wagon for
crime. Here it is much lower risk of detention and prosecution than in the
United States and Europe. |
That is not a surprise. It was stated by an expert on
organized crime. Here is another statement referring to Canada:
With perhaps the singular exception
of the United States there are more international terrorist groups active here
than in any other country of the world |
Is this written by someone who does not know? This is a
statement by CSIS head Ward Elcock on March 3, 2000. It goes on and on and
on:
Many of the world's terrorist groups
have a presence in Canada where they are engaged in a variety of activities in
support of terrorism including logistical support. |
That is from another CSIS report. That is the agency
which is supposed to advise the government if there is a threat from things
like terrorism.
Mountains of evidence indicates that Canada has been a
haven for criminals from other countries who have come here to commit criminal
acts, including people who are associated with terrorist cells. They come to
Canada because it is a wonderful place to work from. Despite all the evidence
that has been presented to the government, it has been in denial. It has been
acting in the most Pollyanna way possible: everything is all right; we will
just hope that it goes away and for sure it will.
We have asked the government to allow us to be part of
dealing with this real threat to the country. We are taking this initiative
among many others to be part of it. Will the government let us be and will it
adopt our supply day motion?
(1555)
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, while the member was giving his
presentation it reminded me of an editorial that appeared in the Vancouver
Sun recently, from which I will quote directly:
The Liberal party, which vigorously
courts the ethnic vote, has also been in favour of affording potential refugees
the same rights as Canadians. But we're in a new war against terror, and this
is no longer tenable...Ottawa should invoke the notwithstanding clause to stop
foolish court decisions from jeopardizing our safety. |
I wonder if it struck the member as it certainly struck
me. He mentioned the Pollyanna attitude, the constant denial from the Liberal
side of the House that there is any problem. The Minister of Finance went to a
fundraising deal. CSIS warned him it was a problem but he still went. Now we
have denial. They will not even mention CSIS warnings about the number of
terrorists in our country. They are in a state of denial.
Has the member noticed the constant state of denial on
the opposite side?
Mr. Richard Harris:
Mr. Speaker, there are statistics and reports about
terrorist activity and operations in Canada and illegitimate refugee claimants.
People have come to this country, have committed crimes and have been deported.
In one case I heard the other day it happened 27 times. When we talk to average
Canadians about this they roll their eyes in disbelief at how a government
could be so incompetent and disregarding of what is right and wrong. They
wonder how a government could allow this to go on.
The only answer I can give them, because there is no
common sense in any answer the government could give, is that they have a
Liberal government in Ottawa. They should look at the history of what has been
going on for years. It simply does not know how to react because its political
activity runs headlong into the laws that govern this country.
If something happens when the Liberals are in power,
the political philosophy always seems to win out at the detriment of Canadians
and the country.
(1600)
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my colleague a
question. He talked about ignoring the problem, but I think it may be more than
that. It seems to me that it is actually a policy of neglect. The government
has been in power for eight years and resources have been drained away from
many of our security institutions.
The minister of fisheries is in the House this
afternoon. He has given authority to his fisheries officers to be able to have
flak jackets and sidearms to come to meetings with forestry officials in
Alberta. They come to such community meetings with a show of force, and yet the
government will not give our border security people the same support in terms
of the ability to have sidearms.
Would my colleague care to comment on that aspect of
security laxness?
Mr. Richard Harris:
Mr. Speaker, the member from Peace River raises a
couple of important points. Yes, the RCMP, CSIS and the port police have all
had their budgets cut. Port police have pretty much been eliminated.
The government seems to think it is more important to
put the RCMP in the national parks to protect the bears from people feeding
them and things such as that. It says that only RCMP officers are competent to
wear sidearms, certainly not forest rangers who wore them for years and looked
after our national parks. It would rather take the RCMP away from fighting real
criminals and put them in our national parks.
The description my colleague used of utter neglect is
certainly true. The government just does not get it. The reason government
members do not rise to ask me questions is that they do not have a response to
realistic and true criticism. They do not know what to say.
I thank my party colleagues for allowing me to talk
further about some of the neglect and mismanagement of the government
particularly on security issues.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have already commented on a
number of the areas of neglect in security concerns. My colleague for Prince
George--Peace River expanded on them.
I will go in a different direction this afternoon and
talk about the motion and how it affects the business community in Canada and,
therefore, our standard of living as Canadians.
The motion before the House today is one of common
sense. These proposals should have been enacted a long time ago. The
Canada-U.S. border is of vital importance to the Canadian economy.
It is an understatement to say that the events of
September 11 changed everything. We must accept that things are radically
different and that business as usual is not what it used to be. We must move
quickly to develop appropriate strategies to move forward.
One of the key challenges facing governments in Canada
and the U.S. today is how to best balance the need for increased security with
the need to keep the economy moving. The new security concerns must be
addressed, while allowing commerce, goods and people access to the North
American market.
What is at risk if we do not adequately address the
perimeter security issue and come up with a new border protocol?
Canadians understand that a new border protocol must be
established to safeguard our standard of living. Fully one-third of the
country's GDP is dependent upon trade with the U.S. Trade between the U.S. and
Canada represents more than $1.9 billion a day in business across that border.
According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, a freight truck crosses the
Canada-U.S. border every three seconds.
When the border was suddenly closed in the wake of
September 11, Canadians and Americans became painfully aware of our reliance on
the easy border transit. In a matter of hours, trucks were lined up for
kilometres at border crossings across the country and the industrial and
commercial interests of both of our countries felt the pinch. That is what is
called an integrated society in business, which we have in so many areas
between Canada and the United States.
Many industries, the auto industry in particular,
operate on a just in time delivery system. Goods arrive by truck timed so they
can enter the production process hours after being received. It is only hours,
not days and months. Otherwise, whole assembly operations can be shut down and
people sent home, something we witnessed after September 11. For businesses
operating on a just in time delivery system, the border runs right through the
middle of their auto assembly lines. The fear is that Americans will buy U.S.
made components instead of waiting for Canadian parts that are stuck at the
border.
Some foreign buyers have even demanded consignment
inventories which will be financed by the selling company right up to the point
where the buyer uses the goods, a direct increase in costs. In some cases, they
are demanding that there be a big build up of inventory to offset for any
slowdown at the border.
Business groups and provincial governments have made it
clear that the preservation and efficient and secure trade across the border
must be the number one business issue for the government. They have other
concerns, like high taxes and low productivity, but they have said this is the
number one issue that needs to be addressed.
Eight provincial premiers and two territorial
governments have signed B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell`s letter to the Prime
Minister, which called for a continental security perimeter around North
America by sharing information and collaborating to address all the aspects of
the border, including security, immigration, trade and the movement of people
and infrastructure.
A group of nearly 50 Canadian business associations and
companies have joined forces behind the perimeter concept and are calling
themselves the Coalition for a Secure and Trade Efficient Border. They are
talking to their U.S. counterparts and demanding an indepth discussion on the
border between the two countries.
In addition to the current difficulties at the border,
the coalition is concerned that the failure to ensure an open trading climate
will result in significant future investments bypassing Canada and locating in
the United States. Why would a business establish in Canada when 80% of their
production is going into the United States, if the border will be a problem for
them in terms of delays?
They have good reason to be nervous. The president of
Honda Motor Company has said the Japanese company may have to revise its North
American strategy, which has industry analysts warning that Honda's statement
could foreshadow a move to direct future investment into the United States at
the expense of Canada.
(1605)
We talked about the port of Vancouver. It is concerned
that tighter controls at the U.S. border pose a threat to the port's viability
as a North American gateway, which by the way, was a hard won victory for the
port of Vancouver not too long ago. It was chosen as the first port of call for
container ships coming in from China, containers that make their way to Chicago
and other U.S. destinations by CN and CP Rail on another just in time delivery
basis. It is concerned that if there are delays at the border, Vancouver may
not be the port of call in the future. It may shift to Seattle because of the
tight timing that is needed to deliver product.
Those fast, reliable rail connections to the U.S.
mid-west are in jeopardy. Canadian National Railways has similar concerns to
CP, because 52% of CN's business goes across the border into the United
States.
Even more ominous, the commissioner of the U.S.
immigration and naturalization services told the American senate just the other
day that he plans to impose an entry-exit regime as part of the U.S. plan to
beef up its borders. Under this system visitors will be required to be
interviewed by U.S. customs agents and have their names recorded and confirmed
when they enter or leave the United States. Canada fought off a similar measure
two years ago, but after September 11 this will be much more difficult to
avoid.
Obviously an entry-exit system would create enormous
backlogs at the Canadian border. This is precisely what Canadian businesses
have been worried about and why they are urging the government to start
immediately on bilateral negotiations to discuss the security
issues.
I welcome the plans for the Prime Minister to meet with
the American and Mexican presidents to discuss a common security arrangement in
North America. However, I wish he would meet with the business groups in Canada
and his provincial counterparts before the meeting so that he can understand
fully the gravity of this situation. What is at stake is the Canadian standard
of living.
It is clear that in the current context it will not be
possible to begin negotiations on strategies to eliminate border disruptions
unless the Government of Canada takes immediate steps to address U.S. security
concerns. That is the way the U.S. can send a strong message to Canada that it
will not allow terrorists to come into the U.S. via Canada.
Recent steps, such as the creation of a cabinet
committee to oversee domestic security issues, are steps in the right
direction. However, this is not the time for foot dragging. The Liberal
government does not seem to like the word perimeter. It raises the spectre of a
bogeyman in some parts of the cabinet and caucus across the way. The normally
sensible Minister of Foreign Affairs has branded the concept simplistic without
bothering to flesh it out or even hear it. The Americans are talking about it
and if we do not start to listen, the border will be closed down or delayed for
Canada.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council
on National Issues, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Trucking Association, the Rail
Association of Canada, as well as American business groups and the U.S.
ambassador call on the government to listen carefully to these voices.
Canadians recognize that our naive border and refugee determination process is
part of the problem.
Canada has long enjoyed many benefits due to our
geographic, political and economic proximity to the United States. Now it is
time to take our responsibilities seriously to ensure that continues to be the
case.
We have had a 30% difference in lower productivity than
the United States over the last 30 years. Our Canadian dollar has been sliding
over that same period. We are already behind in terms of competitiveness. We
cannot allow this border issue to put us any further behind or deny Canadian
businesses access to the United States market. A huge population, 275 million
people, need Canadian product, but they do not need it so bad that they will
sacrifice security concerns to get it. They will start to source elsewhere if
we do not react.
The ball is completely in the government's court. It
has to make sure that our standard of living is maintained by addressing the
security concerns that the United States have, as well as the very big concerns
that Canadians have that their safety is not being jeopardized.
(1610)
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member for
Peace River. It is obvious from his comments that he has not been following
what Canada has been doing in terms of our border.
In fact , the hon. member probably is not aware of the
blueprint on customs which was done some two and a half or three years ago when
I was Minister of National Revenue. We wanted to use technologies at our
borders, use our resources in the high risk areas and make sure that we worked
with the Americans. Of course to do that we need to work with partnerships. We
need to make sure the Americans also are on board so we can talk about
protocols.
The business community has worked on this and has said
that 40% of all the trade across our border is done with 100 companies. We were
working on a protocol so that those companies, after their drivers had gone
through security clearance, could drive across our borders, thereby improving
the movement of goods and services across the border.
The hon. member also knows we had the Canpass which put
people through a security check. Once their security was approved and once they
were considered very low risk, they could move back and forth across our
border. The problem was the Canpass only worked one way. One of the things in
which I was very much involved was to have a common pass. The Americans had
Instapass and we had Canpass. I wanted to have a common criteria so we could
work together with the Americans.
A lot of work was done on that. I visited my colleagues
in the states to work together in partnership. Our border system was made
pre-free trade and we had to move to post-free trade so that we could have
protocols, use technologies and improve the movement of goods and services
across the border. Unfortunately at that time the Americans were not as
motivated as we were to adopt some of these new technologies, to move forward,
to sign agreements and to sign protocols so that we truly could have movement
of goods and services.
It is obvious that members on that side of the House
and the hon. member have not been following this. He has not watched what has
been going on. If he wanted go back we could give him the material that was
completed. We would be happy to give him more documents.
Has the member looked at the blueprint for customs that
was done some two and a half years ago? That is exactly what it talks about;
the movement of goods and services across the border.
(1615)
Mr. Charlie Penson:
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address that issue. There
was substantial work done. We do not deny that, but we are very concerned. The
member does not seem to realize that all the work that was done is now in
jeopardy because the government has neglected the security issues that have
concerned Americans for the full eight years it has been in office.
It was not just that the Liberals were misinformed.
Their priorities were in different areas. They chose to neglect the security
issues. They chose to ignore, underfund and cut back the budget of CSIS. They
chose to cut back the budget of the RCMP.
We have one person in the country who has been here
since 1984. He came here illegally. He was involved in a hijacking in the
Middle East in 1971. He has never been able to be removed because of the appeal
process at immigration and the immigration industry that has been built up.
Those are the kinds of concerns that the Americans have.
All the good work that was done to develop border
protocol is now in jeopardy because the United States has said that if we do
not start to address the its security concerns, with 6,000 people killed by an
act of terrorism, it will stop us by shutting down or restricting our border.
So we better start to listen.
That is the message I have for the minister across the
way. All the work that has been done is in jeopardy because of the neglect of
the government.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the hon.
member for Halifax West.
I want to take part in this debate. This is important
not only for the House but also for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It
involves every individual and every family across the country in one way or
another.
We should not take very lightly the fact that over 87%
of our trade is done with our partner to the south, the United States, to the
tune of about $1.4 billion on a daily basis. The vast majority of that trade
crosses the border by truck or train. On the other side of the equation,
approximately 25% of American trade around the world is done with Canada. To a
large extent we need each other as trading partners as well as neighbours and
allies. We are countries that share common paths and interests, and a common
future.
The terrorist attacks on September 11 changed the way
we live and the way we conduct our business. Since September 11 I have asked
myself as a Canadian what I want my government to do.
First and foremost I want my government to have the
safety of Canadians as an objective. Second, I want to see what the government
plans to do about ensuring the safety of Canadians. Third, I want to see the
actual implementation of its plan.
In terms of objectives, planning and implementation,
the government moved swiftly immediately after the September 11 tragedy. Within
minutes the Prime Minister was on the phone to the American authorities through
the embassy in order to communicate our concerns, our support and our strong
condemnation of what took place. As well, every single government department
was mobilized. A cabinet committee was established. The hon. member for Ottawa
South, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is chair of that committee. He is doing
a magnificent job. The government established that committee to map out a
strategy and to plan a way to make Canadians feel safe and good about
themselves and feel secure when they go to their place of work.
Planning has taken place. Recently legislation was
introduced in the House. It is my hope that in the next week or so
implementation will take place.
Let us not fool ourselves. The best and the strongest
laws in the world will not save us from the terrorists from within unless we
are vigilant in our own society. Unless we have a secure society from within,
we will not be able to deal with this issue effectively.
(1620)
The government has established a broad range of
initiatives that will deal with the security issue on the internal side of
things. We also have other responsibilities which deal with the issues that
confront us from the outside and that is the issue of the border. That is why
the motion by the Leader of the Opposition is before the House.
I have some major problems with the motion. If in
talking about the perimeter the member is talking about a cedar hedge around
Canada, the United States and Mexico, the answer is no. If he is talking about
a common strategy to deal with the issues that confront Canadians, Americans,
Mexicans and every member of the free world, yes.
The whole issue is how we should deal with the threat
to our safety and security, and our sovereignty. The government has been
exceptionally open and co-operative with our friends and allies the Americans
in trying to deal with every aspect of the security issue that we have been
faced with since September 11.
Let us not fool ourselves by putting a motion such as
this one before the House. In paragraph (a) of the motion the opposition
wants the government to “provide both immigration officers and customs officers
enhanced training and full peace officer status”. Immigration officers and
customs officers already have peace officer status. This part of the motion not
only is out of order, it is irrelevant because we already have that. It is not
relevant at all. It is redundant because we already do that.
In paragraph (b) the opposition wants to “move
customs border officers out of the tax collection agency and into a law
enforcement agency”. I want to share with my colleagues the fact that our
customs officers enforce the Customs Act in addition to in excess of 70 other
acts from other departments of the Government of Canada. They have other
responsibilities as well. They ensure precisely the flow of goods and services
and the mobility of legitimate people across the border between the two
countries. That is specifically what they are there for. To move them away from
what they are already doing, in order to put them in another section with other
authorities frankly does not further the debate.
They already have authority under the act to identify
people who are inadmissible and to detain them. As well, under the act they
have the authority to stop the flow of prohibited goods, in particular chemical
precursors, drugs and other items. This part of the motion is redundant
too.
In paragraph (c) the opposition wants to “detain
all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation until
their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and security
checks”. That is already done under the act. In fact in 2000-01 in excess of
8,000 refugees were detained at the border an average of 16 days until such
time as we were assured they did not pose a security threat to Canada.
Furthermore in 2000 in excess of 20,000 potential criminals coming from the
United States into Canada were stopped at the border as opposed to 14,000
criminals who were trying to cross the border from Canada into the United
States.
One would wonder about the relevancy of the motion
before the House today. I close with paragraph (d) in which the
opposition wants to “create a list of safe third countries”. Under the act we
could do that now.
Based on these comments I cannot support the motion. I
will be voting against it.
(1625)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. Before moving to questions and comments
on the speech by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, it is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Acadie--Bathurst, Airline Industry; the hon. member for Sackville--Musquodoboit
Valley--Eastern Shore, Airline Safety.
The hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have before me, and I have read for many
years now, long before I was elected to the House, a total condemnation of our
immigration policy. We have received a lot of criticism this way. We are not
hearing it now.
Would the member not agree that the very fact the
government panicked and brought in a new immigration policy is an open
testament that the previous policy was sorely lacking?
Mr. Mac Harb:
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the member's attention
that Canada is a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants and we
have one of the finest immigration policies anywhere in the world. Our policy
is continuously evolving to respond to the needs of Canadians and to fulfill
our commitment on the international scene in conformity with the United
Nations.
If the hon. member is asking, now that we have seen the
crisis of September 11, that we shut the door and say that we will no longer
accept immigrants, he is mistaken. Simply put, for every immigrant who comes to
this country, on average three jobs are created. Immigrants by and large are
hardworking people like the hon. member. People come here to raise their
families and contribute to society. If we were to stop immigration, we would be
doing a great disservice to Canada and its future.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to comment on
the motion before the House. The issue of how we receive and treat refugee
claimants at our borders is one that has taken on a different sense of urgency
in the wake of the tragic events of September 11.
Throughout the world the terrorist attacks in the U.S.
forced a wrenching re-examination of many aspects of life and society long
taken for granted. In Canada, as elsewhere, we have been compelled to rethink
the ways in which our society functions. We are forced to carefully review and
question such fundamental issues as how we protect our society.
Part of the questioning and re-examination has
inevitably focused on how we deal with those who come to Canada as refugees.
There is no question that the attacks of September 11
were virtually beyond our capacity to comprehend. How can we make sense of such
violence and callous disregard for innocent human life? Yes, we are shocked and
horrified by these events but we must not let the terrorists drive us to take
actions that result in a turning away from the very values that define us as
Canadians.
One of those values is our longstanding commitment to
welcome genuine refugees. Who we are as a people and as a nation has been
substantially defined by the contributions of those who have come to our shores
either as immigrants or as people fleeing injustice and persecution.
Our strength as Canadians is directly tied to the
diversity of our society, a society that we have built together. Our world may
have become more threatened since September 11 but we must not allow the
current situation to lead us toward actions that we will later
regret.
How then do we find a balance between ensuring that
Canada continues to welcome legitimate refugees while also ensuring the safety
and security of our society? That clearly is the challenge before us and the
challenge all Canadians want us to grapple with. This balance is reflected in
the government's new immigration and refugee protection act, Bill
C-11.
Under the new legislation, the refugee determination
process would be streamlined and it would enable departmental officials to
suspend and terminate the processing of refugee claims where persons are
determined to be a security threat. That is a very important change considering
what happened last month.
The current Immigration Act authorized detention of a
person considered a danger to the public or one who was unlikely to appear for
immigration proceedings. Existing authorities also permit the targeted use of
detention at a port of entry in cases where an individual's identity is in
question or where there are security concerns.
Figures for 2000-01 show that some 8,790, almost 9,000,
persons last year were detained under the Immigration Act. These numbers attest
to the fact that our officials are being vigilant. We all, nevertheless,
recognize the imperative to make our processes work even better.
Bill C-11 would also strengthen authority to arrest
criminals and those who pose security threats. In addition, it would eliminate
appeal rights in such cases and provide for a streamlined certificate process
to remove security threats.
As the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
outlined in her statement of October 12, the government is investing $49
million to strengthen the capacity of her department to do its job. This
includes $9 million for additional staff for key enforcement activities like
the examination and security screening at ports of entry.
These additional employees will also be carrying out
detailed screening of refugee claimants who are already in Canada, along with
increasing detention and deportation.
(1630)
This investment in the safety and security of Canadians
is part of an ongoing process. These new resources are in addition to ones
identified in the 2000 budget for the citizenship and immigration department,
funds targeted specifically for the enforcement program that is so important in
this climate and in light of what happened last month.
I draw the attention of hon. members opposite to the
$1.8 billion that have been invested by the government in key departments and
agencies, such as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency, CSIS and the RCMP, since budget 2000. This investment took
place long before September 11, reflecting the government's commitment to
provide federal departments and agencies with the tools they need to fight
terrorism. This is a fight we must and will win.
The next important step we can take toward that victory
is to pass the legislation when it is before the House.
Understandably, Canadians are concerned in these
difficult times. We have entered into an era of world events without precedent
but we must avoid the temptation to allow our fears to overwhelm us.
As we heard from our leaders, it is important to go out
and shop and to go on with our normal lives. I read somewhere, and I think it
is true, that the return to normalcy is the greatest affront to terrorism. That
is the key. If we want to say no to terrorism, we have to live our normal
lives. We have to carry on and be courageous, maybe hug our kids more often. We
need to recognize the value and the preciousness of our lives more readily and
more completely but we also need to go on with our lives.
Canadians are rising to the current challenge, as they
have done in other periods of difficulty and threat, as we have seen too often
in the past.
We are firm in our determination to work with the
United States and our other allies to overcome the threat of terrorism. We are
likewise determined to take the necessary steps that will increase the security
of our borders and the safety of our citizens.
The Government of Canada has acted and will act to
protect Canadians. Bill C-11 is a major step in honouring this commitment.
I could provide other examples of how this new
legislation can and will address the very issues that the opposition has raised
in its motion. However how we treat refugees and how we balance refugee claims
with the largest security concerns of our society, are matters of fundamental
importance. Let us not give the terrorists an additional triumph because we
choose to act out of fear. Let us not give in to the temptation to diminish our
commitment to welcome legitimate refugees.
The motion before us is neither necessary nor deserving
of support. Let us instead stay true to our commitment to compassion and the
values that define us as Canadians. Let us show the world that we have become
stronger because of the challenge we face.
(1635)
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague noted the issue of terrorism,
how it has affected our country and the importance of getting on with business
as usual. I have to admit even I, who enjoys shopping to great lengths, found
it a bit much when the answer to fighting terrorism was that we should get out
and shop and it will make everything better.
Apart from that, I do want to comment on the return to
normality which, quite frankly, is important, and so is the fight against
terrorism. My New Democrat colleagues and I strongly support the fight against
terrorism but we do have concerns over the anti-terrorism bill. We feel it
would very severely affect the civil rights of all Canadians.
In that wish to return to normality, we want to see a
sunset clause put into the anti-terrorism bill. After hearing my colleague's
comments I had hope the member would also be willing to support such a clause
so that, in Canada, we can return to normality in civil liberties for all
Canadians.
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Mr. Speaker, when my hon. colleague mentioned getting
out and shopping, it reminded me of a cartoon in one of the newspapers showing
a gentleman at home reading the paper and when his wife arrives with a bunch of
boxes he says “So how goes the war on terrorism?” My wife cut out the cartoon
and put it on our fridge at home because we both enjoyed it.
I think my hon. colleague is right, in spite of the
levity of what happened it is very important for us to return to normalcy. We
must get on with our lives and get out and do our shopping. The greatest damage
terrorism could cause is if we as Canadians were so terrorized that we stayed
in our homes, that we did not go out, that we did not carry on with our lives
and that we did not do the things that keep our economy going. We must continue
purchasing, working, living our lives and going on vacations.
The vast majority of members of parliament travel on
airplanes all the time and I do not think we feel threatened by travelling on
airplanes. I think we have very safe airplanes and airports and a very good
system that has been improved in the last couple of months. That is very
important.
I want to address the concerns my colleague mentioned
about the anti-terrorism bill, which of course is not part of today's
opposition day motion but I am cognizant that this is an issue we have been
hearing about. I know you are aware, Mr. Speaker, as is the hon. member, that
the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister have indicated their openness to
hearing the views of the committee and members on this bill. It is important we
take the time to go through the bill. Obviously there is some sense of urgency
but at the same time we do not want too much urgency.
It is important to hear the concerns of members, to
debate the bill and to discuss in full the options or perhaps some alternatives
to the provisions proposed. The Prime Minister clearly indicated the other day
that this government bill was being presented and that it was supported.
However it is important to understand that an openness has been declared to
hear from the House and members about the kind of things the hon. member has
suggested she feels should be included in the bill.
I am certainly looking forward to seeing how this
develops as the bill goes forward through committee, through report stage and
in the third reading debate before the House.
(1640)
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon.
member for Souris--Moose Mountain.
I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of
the people of Surrey Central on the opposition supply day motion regarding
border security. Surrey Central, the constituency I represent, is one of the
largest constituencies in Canada in population. It has a high population of
immigrants. Also it is in close proximity to the U.S. border, so I will be
making my remarks from the point of view of some practical experience and what
my constituents who come to my office tell me. Therefore it will be a more
practical point of view.
The motion asks the government to take action on a
number of policy fronts. Victory in this war against terrorism depends as much
on our immigration and border policies as it does on our defence, intelligence
and other policies. Specifically, the motion asks the government to protect our
borders and our trading relationships with the United States by providing
immigration and customs officers with full peace officer status in order to
allow them to detain and arrest suspected terrorists. It also asks the
government to move customs officers out of the CCRA into a law enforcement
agency.
Canadian customs officers not only process travellers
and commercial goods but also monitor and control the importation of firearms,
drugs and other goods. If they are to do their job of law enforcement they must
be given the resources, training and powers of law enforcement
officers.
If the mandate of the customs officers is to be tax
collectors then they should be given calculators. If their mandate is to
protect Canadians at our borders then they should be given guns. At this time
they have neither calculators nor guns.
In the auditor general's April 2000 report, he noted
that the students as well as the long time customs officers are deficient in
training in immigration law, drug enforcement and vehicle examination. We know
that rather than taking this issue seriously the government has hired part time
students to monitor our border, without proper training and without proper
tools and resources. The Liberal government, instead of giving them tools to do
their job, have cut 488 customs and trade employees since 1994 even though
their work has increased.
Next the motion calls for all spontaneous refugees
without any documents or those who are hiding their identity to be detained
until their identity can be established and verified and also their health
checked so that they do not pose any health risks. If it is determined that
they do not pose a threat to the safety and security of citizens of our country
and that of our neighbours, only then should they be allowed to mix with the
general population of the country.
The weak and arrogant Liberal government rejected a
1998 House of Commons standing committee report recommending increased use of
detention to deal with undocumented or improperly documented refugee claimants.
I am not talking about genuine refugees. I am talking about those who are
posing as refugees but are bogus.
The motion asks Canada to create a list of safe third
countries. We know that the United Kingdom does not allow refugees from safe
third countries, like Canada, the United States and other safe countries in the
economic union and others. A safe third country provision has been in law since
1989, but the government has failed to designate any countries. We do not have
a list of safe third countries.
The government insists on increasing police presence
and powers inside Canada rather than at the border.
(1645)
I want to make it clear that the Canadian Alliance
supports immigration. Our policy declaration clearly states:
|
--we
see Canada as a land built by immigrants, and will continue to welcome new
immigrants...We affirm Canada's humanitarian obligation to welcome genuine
refugees-- |
The motion is designed to put an end to the practice of
people destroying their documents in transit so that they cannot be deported.
According to the auditor general, 60% of the refugee claimants who come to
Canada and apply for refugee status come without any documents.
By asking for the tightening our immigration laws, we
are calling on the government to get up to speed with international
developments. Other countries are tightening their immigration laws,
particularly after the incidents of September 11. If Canada does not do
likewise it will continue to be a safe haven for people who want to break the
law. We certainly risk being shut out of trade relationships with our largest
trading partner, the United States of America. We do well over $1.5 billion a
day in trade with the Americans. The United States accounts for approximately
82% of Canada's exports in goods and services. We learned today that the
Americans are planning to implement section 110 of their immigration act, which
would impose entrance and exit restrictions on people moving into and out of
the United States. Section 110 would cause some serious problems.
How did we reach this position? Because of the weakness
and arrogance of the weak Liberal government. With a recession looming, such a
restriction imposed by the Americans could have a devastating effect on
Canada's economy. When the Alliance proposed a motion on September 18, I stood
in the House and said that the U.S. congress would move with or without us. I
am sorry to say that once again I have been proven right.
The motion also continues the Alliance's long term
commitment to national security, robust law enforcement and a strong Canadian
armed forces. With its cuts to each of these areas, the Liberal government has
left us vulnerable. The motion seeks to correct this oversight.
Another area is our frontline offices and our foreign
missions. I commend our officers in foreign services for their dedication and
hard work. They have their own problems, which I will talk about some other
day, but I want to mention corruption in our foreign missions.
We have read in the newspapers, and there are
documented reports, that about 2,200 blank visa forms were stolen in Hong Kong
and 788 taped computer files were altered. Who did it? Why did they do it?
Because they will sell them to organized criminals. Unwanted people who are a
threat to Canadian security will abuse our system.
We also know that money has been stolen from many
Canadian embassies. Bribes have been taken by our officials who issue visas. I
reported a case in which action was taken. The authorities found out that
corruption was taking place and bribes were being taken in New Delhi and
Islamabad, so they fired some locally hired employees. Many investigations are
continuing. The government should also pay attention to that issue. Foreign
officials who are monitoring our immigration policies abroad are our front line
of defence.
In conclusion I would like to say that organized crime
and terrorism are two different things but are interlinked. Now, because of the
incidents of September 11, there is a knee-jerk reaction and we are focusing on
terrorism, but I remind the government that it should integrate its resources
and policies. We should not leave organized crime out of it. Organized crime is
latent, invisible and hidden, whereas terrorism is explicit and its effects are
evident. I would remind the government that there should be a synergy and an
implementation of resources to combat these two areas.
(1650)
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in listening to the speech given by my
colleague, when he was talking about crime it made me think about B.C.'s
Liberal premier Gordon Campbell who is not very popular with members on the
government side. I wonder if the member has noticed that they never use his
name. They never talk about the Liberal premier from B.C. because of course
Gordon's positions are completely in common with the Canadian Alliance policies
and in fact could even be called reform policies.
One of the things that Gordon Campbell has been talking
about in the last few days in connection with crime is the outrageous release
on bail of a suspected terrorist in Vancouver. The U.S. law that has been
introduced on terrorism restricts the bail that can be granted to people who
are suspected of terrorism. The judge in Vancouver took the position that
because the person had not run away before September 11 he therefore would not
skip the country now. That is totally ludicrous. Anyone knows the whole
situation has changed now. Gordon Campbell criticized the judge and then the
judge criticized Gordon, and Gordon said he was sticking by his guns, that it
was a bad, stupid decision.
I wonder if the member could comment on the need to
restrict bail, perhaps in the bill that is being run through the House
now.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his keen
observation. He is a very keen observer in many areas and has been highlighting
some of the weaknesses of the government. He has done a perfect job as critic
many times.
He made a valid point. The hon. member mentioned bail.
I will not comment on the particular bail because the issue may still be in
front of the courts. However, in general and from a broader perspective, the
government is very lenient and our policies are very lenient. The amazing thing
is that our overall policies, which we derive from the Liberal government, are
policies of reverse onus. That is very wrong.
When prospective refugees come here we want them to
prove that they are genuine refugees. Why does the government not do its job?
Similarly when terrorists and criminals are arrested, why would we believe only
reverse onus? I think that there is a fundamental flaw in the vision, or I
would say lack of vision, of the Liberal government, and I do not know how to
correct its vision. We cannot do that. The government has been so weak and
arrogant that I do not know where we stand.
(1655)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss the topic tonight and
the motion as it relates to the people of my constituency, which is in
southeastern Saskatchewan. We share miles of border with the United States. We
touch two states, Montana and North Dakota. My constituency probably has more
points of entry, nine of them, than any other constituency in
Canada.
The events of September 11 have touched rural
Saskatchewan. They have even touched my constituency. Last week we had our
first anthrax scare.
If the government were doing the right thing with
radio, TV and newspapers, ads should be going out explaining to people how to
react if they open their mail and white powder falls out. It has not done that.
Not only has it not done that, but it has not warned people. It has not warned
the hoaxers and the pranksters of the penalty for becoming involved in such an
act.
Great Britain and the United States have enacted
legislation to deal with hoaxers. In both cases it is automatic jail time. We
are one week away from celebrating Halloween and no doubt there will be hoaxers
scaring people. The government should show people what it is doing to curb the
epidemic which has already killed people in the United States.
People are concerned about our military, which has gone
overseas. In the U.S. and the U.K. this is a time of war. War has not been
officially declared, as Canada did in 1914 and 1939, but the question that is
being asked is simply this. During this war on terrorism will our service
personnel, if they are harmed, hurt or even killed, have the same benefits as
they would have if the nation declared war? The government has left this
question completely wide open.
For the last eight years Canadians have read almost
weekly in every paper across Canada about the problems in our immigration
system. We have heard a lot today about them. I would like to cite some figures
so that people watching get an idea of what this party has been talking about
since 1993. Between 1993 and 1997 over 99% of refugee claimant applications
were deemed eligible to go through the refugee determination process.
In other words they would come to the border, apply for
refugee status, and 99% came in. Once these applicants appeared before the
refugee board it took an average of 2.5 years to go through the appeals process
to reach a final determination. During that period of time only 22% of rejected
applicants were confirmed to have left the country. The story is all
there.
(1700)
This country became blinded to what was going on. The
government would not listen to experts from around the world or from those
within our own country. It allowed this to go on and now Canada has established
a reputation which will take a long time to cure.
There are many things we can do to co-operate with our
neighbours, not just in forming the shield of protection around North America
but we could take a look at border crossings.
Last week I visited two of the nine border crossings in
my riding. Officials were busy preparing and changing for the onslaught that
may be coming. We were on the Canadian side. The U.S. announced that it will be
asking people to report not only upon entry into the U.S. but also as they
leave the U.S. This is something entirely new and I wonder why the U.S. is
doing it.
For example, if people come from the U.S. into Canada
they traditionally do not stop at U.S. customs. They stop at Canadian customs.
If they want to make a run for it, and that has happened, the only choice the
poor Canadian customs officer has is to phone the closest detachment of the
RCMP.
I have border crossings in my constituency where it
would take an RCMP officer an hour to get there because the detachments have
all been halved by the government. If it was a three man detachment, it will
now have one officer or maybe two. If it was a four man detachment, it will
only have two officers.
Canada is ill prepared. All the border crossings or
ports of entry, as we call them, in the United States are manned 24 hours a
day. One of the reasons the U.S. is pleading to have individuals stopping in
both directions is that it cannot trust the Canadian immigration system any
more. We should be ashamed that we have sunk to a low level.
The U.S. did not withdraw, as one of the members
indicated, the Canpass card. Many people in my constituency have Canpass cards.
It is a simple card for a select group of people that can pass back and forth
with no problem.
The Canadian government panicked and cancelled the
cards but the United States did not. Many of my constituents go to school in
the United States and some of them work there. Many were born in the U.S.
simply because they were closer to a hospital there. The Canadian government
panicked and put a wall up against the very people it trusted to have the
Canpass card in the first place.
Canada and the United States need to work together on
the trucking industry. We have horrendous long lineups. There is a tremendous
extra cost and time wasted by drivers. Canada to date has made no attempt to
meet with its counterparts to discuss these border stoppages. Trucks line up
and wait for an hour or sometimes three. All of that is costing us dearly. It
is costing truckers a lot of money and it will cost Canadians a lot of
money.
Yes, we can co-operate with the United States in many
areas and we should. It wants to co-operate with us. We need to recognize that
we are a continental country. We need to recognize that we have not done our
share with regard to immigration and the terrorists who lived in our country.
(1705)
I saw some T-shirts the other day. I wanted to buy one
but they were all sold out. It said “God Bless North America”. It is time for
Canadians to be a bit humble and say, no, we have not lived up to where we
should have been going and we will co-operate fully with the motion so that we
can have a safe North America in which to live in.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I must say that the member who just
spoke asked one of the most pointed questions of the entire debate today. He
asked why the Americans were set to impose this new rule at the Canadian
border. That is one of the most telling questions asked today.
I heard members on the government side say that if the
U.S.A.'s rules were that great it should have prevented the terrorists from
getting in. Has the member thought of this?
If I were a terrorist coming from another country and I
wanted to go to the United States I would come to Canada first. I would receive
free welfare, medical and dental benefits as well as a free apartment in which
to live while going through all the appeal processes with my legal aid
counsellor. I would be able to get good forgeries of Canadian documents from
the print shop in Toronto so that I could get across the border into the United
States and no one would even know that I was there illegally. Has the member
thought that through as well?
Mr. Roy Bailey:
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be a Canadian. I also
recognize what has been going on in this country for the last nine or ten
years: forgery, corruption and illegal immigrants. We stood here and took a lot
of flak because we kept reporting this. I am glad nobody yells across the way
that I am anti-immigrant. Nobody in my constituency would ever believe
that.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I visited Fort Erie recently. It is a
very busy border crossing. I was pleased to see the workers there doing the
very best they could with what capabilities they have. It could be much
better.
I am a firm believer that if we want to find out how
the job is going and what we can do to make it better, we need to talk to the
frontline people that are doing the work. I would like to inform the House and
the member that I was denied the privilege of meeting with any of the frontline
workers. It was not allowed.
My colleague from British Columbia who was with me was
also denied the privilege of meeting with the employees. We were not allowed to
meet with them either in a coffee room during their break or during a smoke
break.
I saw a directive from Canada customs and there is a
warning that states that employees should refrain from making any direct, or
through a third party, public pronouncements critical of federal policies,
programs and officers or on matters of current controversy.
In the final part of the directive it states that in
the event they do not abide by this directive, they will be subject to
disciplinary action up to and including termination.
These people are not very anxious to speak to us
because their jobs would be on the line. They send me e-mails. I get hundreds
of e-mails asking me not to use their names because they will probably lose
their jobs.
This is Canada. This is supposed to be a democracy. I
have never seen such nonsense in all my life. The government ought to be
ashamed of itself for having brought itself to the point where it is warning
its employees, such as prison guards, border guards and police forces, that
they cannot speak out about their jobs or they will lose them. That is not a
democracy. That is the worst kind of dictatorship I have ever run across in my
life. Would the hon. member like to comment on that?
Mr. Roy Bailey:
Madam Speaker, over the years when I have gone to my
ports of entry I have always been received very cordially by both sides. That
was the case last week. Perhaps they had not received this directive as
yet.
I do know of the letter my colleague has spoken about.
When a customs officer with many years of training and service opens a file and
shows the people he has tried to apprehend without any protection, I can
understand what my colleague is saying. If individuals are employees of Canada
customs it does not mean they have to zipper their lips.
(1710)
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, in the few minutes remaining in the
debate, I would like to make a few comments with regard to this important
issue.
There was a suggestion made by the member for
Okanagan--Coquihalla that somehow we on this side of the House would call the
measures outlined in the motion draconian.
Personally, I would suggest that individual initiatives
that have been presented have some merit and that is what the government is
acting on. The Canadian government does not want North America to be anything
but a secure place but the decisions must be made by Canadians for Canadians.
We must ensure that our policies and procedures are complementary, that we are
not working at cross purposes with the United States, and that we do not
sacrifice our sovereignty.
In recent testimony at the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration the commissioner of the RCMP claimed he was
strongly in favour of the perimeter initiative put forth by the Canadian
government. He believes that our border officials already are setting the
standard.
All Canadians can be proud of the security measures
enforced by our immigration and customs officers at the Canada-U.S. border.
Indeed the United States ambassador, Mr. Cellucci, recently commented that his
government is very impressed with the co-operation between our two
administrations and the work being done in Canada to increase security in its
immigration procedures.
Canada deploys immigration and customs officials at the
border in numbers that are comparable to those of the United States. Both
countries have increased these numbers and are on an enhanced security level
since September 11. Last year alone, Canadian officials stopped 21,000
criminals from entering Canada from the United States while the American agents
stopped 14,000 criminals from entering the U.S. from Canada.
The commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service recently praised Canada's security efforts. He noted
that Canadian officials helped arrest half of the 8,000 criminal aliens caught
in the first six months of this year. This is despite the fact that the U.S.
has eight times more agents on its Mexican border. He credited the success to
Canada's “excellent system” of information sharing with the American
authorities.
Under Bill C-18 passed in 1999, customs officers were
given officer powers to arrest and detain individuals suspected of having
committed offences under the criminal code, such as impaired driving, child
abduction, or those with outstanding arrest warrants. Officers will complement
the work of police forces by bridging the gap between the time an officer
detects a criminal code violation and the time when police can arrive and
intervene.
When proposing the bill, the minister at that time
stated on May 13, 1998:
By expanding the scope of their
powers to include violations under the criminal code, we will enhance the
overall safety and security of Canadians. |
Given that Canada customs officers already have the
powers necessary to enhance the overall safety and security of Canadians, there
is no reason to move Canada customs officers out of the tax collection agency
and into a law enforcement agency.
With regard to the issue of detention of refugee
claimants, as part of the $280 million anti-terrorism plan, the government
recently invested $49 million to accelerate the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration's ability to complete an increased security strategy.
Of this new money, $17 million is going to the security
screening of refugee claimants. Because of the new security concerns, all
refugee claimants must go through interviews and examinations upon their
arrival. These include indepth questioning, checking the claimant's information
against various databases, taking the claimant's photograph and fingerprints,
and keeping all travel documents on file. If the claimant is considered to be a
security risk, he or she is detained.
In 2000-01, 8,790 individuals were detained on the
average of 16 days. Due to the increased state of alert and more intense
security screenings, CIC officials expect there will be more detentions in the
future.
It is important to note that when we are making
decisions, we are making them in Canada's interest. I am always concerned that
our friends across the way would like us simply to be absorbed by the Americans
in their approaches.
(1715)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question
is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my
opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having
risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the
members.
* * *
(1745)
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 153)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Anders
Anderson (Cypress
Hills--Grasslands)
Bailey
Benoit
Breitkreuz
Burton
Cadman
Casey
Casson
Chatters
Cummins
Day
Duncan
Elley
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Gallant
Goldring
Gouk
Grewal
Hanger
Harris
Hill (Macleod)
Hilstrom
Jaffer
Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough)
Manning
Mark
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Moore
Penson
Peschisolido
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark--Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
Stinson
Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Toews
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Yelich
Total: 53
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Augustine
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bagnell
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bigras
Binet
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Bourgeois
Brien
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Cardin
Carignan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Charbonneau
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Copps
Cotler
Cuzner
Dalphond-Guiral
Desjarlais
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Drouin
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Fournier
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laframboise
Laliberte
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lastewka
Lebel
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Longfield
Loubier
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marceau
Marleau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Matthews
McCallum
McCormick
McDonough
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Ménard
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Owen
Paquette
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Chatham--Kent
Essex)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pratt
Price
Proctor
Proulx
Provenzano
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Roy
Sauvageau
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Speller
St-Hilaire
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Stoffer
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tobin
Tonks
Torsney
Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Wasylycia-Leis
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Total: 179
|
PAIRED
Members
Assadourian
Asselin
Barnes
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Crête
Cullen
Desrochers
Kilgour (Edmonton
Southeast)
Minna
Perron
Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis)
Total: 12
|
|
The Speaker:
I declare the motion lost.
[English]
Mr. Maurice Vellacott:
Mr. Speaker, I slipped in late but I wanted to be on
the record that I support the motion before us today.
The Speaker:
Is it agreed to include the hon. member's vote in
favour of the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is no agreement but the hon.
member has made his point.
* * *
Customs Act
The House resumed from October 19 consideration of Bill
S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments
to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee,
and of the motions in Group No. 1.
The Speaker:
The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill S-23.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion
will also apply to Motion No. 2.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent in the
House that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the
motion now before the House, with Liberals voting no.
[Translation]
The Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds:
Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Alliance will be
voting yes on the motion. We would like you to include the member for
Saskatoon--Wanuskewin.
(1750)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien:
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois present
at the last division vote in favour of this motion, with the addition of the
hon. member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert.
Mr. Yvon Godin:
Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party
present will be voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, all members of the opposition coalition
present will vote yes to the motion.
* * *
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 154)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Anders
Anderson (Cypress
Hills--Grasslands)
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bailey
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bigras
Blaikie
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Brien
Burton
Cadman
Cardin
Casey
Casson
Chatters
Comartin
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Day
Desjarlais
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Elley
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Fournier
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gallant
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Godin
Goldring
Gouk
Grewal
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harris
Hill (Macleod)
Hilstrom
Jaffer
Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lebel
Loubier
MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough)
Manning
Marceau
Mark
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
McDonough
Ménard
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Moore
Paquette
Penson
Peschisolido
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Proctor
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark--Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
St-Hilaire
Stinson
Stoffer
Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Toews
Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay)
Vellacott
Venne
Wasylycia-Leis
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Yelich
Total: 95
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Augustine
Bagnell
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Charbonneau
Coderre
Comuzzi
Copps
Cotler
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Drouin
Duhamel
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gallaway
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laliberte
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Longfield
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Matthews
McCallum
McCormick
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Owen
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Chatham--Kent
Essex)
Pillitteri
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Provenzano
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Rock
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Speller
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tobin
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Total: 139
|
PAIRED
Members
Assadourian
Asselin
Barnes
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Crête
Cullen
Desrochers
Kilgour (Edmonton
Southeast)
Minna
Perron
Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis)
Total: 12
|
|
The Speaker:
I declare Motion No. 1 lost. Consequently, Motion No. 2
is also lost.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in at report
stage.
The Speaker:
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
* * *
Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act
The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-35, an act to amend the
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; and of the previous
question.
The Speaker:
The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage
of Bill C-35.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent in the
House that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on this
motion, with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds:
Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Alliance and the
member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin will be voting nay to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien:
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be
voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin:
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP are voting no to the
motion.
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition coalition vote
no to the motion.
* * *
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 155)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Augustine
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bagnell
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bigras
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Bourgeois
Brien
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Cardin
Carignan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Charbonneau
Coderre
Comuzzi
Copps
Cotler
Cuzner
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Drouin
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Fournier
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laframboise
Laliberte
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lastewka
Lebel
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Longfield
Loubier
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marceau
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Matthews
McCallum
McCormick
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Ménard
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Owen
Paquette
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Chatham--Kent
Essex)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Provenzano
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Roy
Sauvageau
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Speller
St-Hilaire
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tobin
Tonks
Torsney
Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Wappel
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Total: 171
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Anders
Anderson (Cypress
Hills--Grasslands)
Bailey
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz
Burton
Cadman
Casey
Casson
Chatters
Comartin
Cummins
Day
Desjarlais
Duncan
Elley
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Gallant
Godin
Goldring
Gouk
Grewal
Hanger
Harris
Hill (Macleod)
Hilstrom
Jaffer
Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough)
Manning
Mark
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
McDonough
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Moore
Penson
Peschisolido
Proctor
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark--Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
Stinson
Stoffer
Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Toews
Vellacott
Wasylycia-Leis
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Yelich
Total: 63
|
PAIRED
Members
Assadourian
Asselin
Barnes
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Crête
Cullen
Desrochers
Kilgour (Edmonton
Southeast)
Minna
Perron
Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis)
Total: 12
|
|
The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker:
All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker:
All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker:
In my opinion the yeas have it.
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent in the
House that the vote on the previous motion be applied to the vote now before
the House.
The Speaker:
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to
on the following division:)
(Division No. 156)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Augustine
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bagnell
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bigras
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Bourgeois
Brien
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Cardin
Carignan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Charbonneau
Coderre
Comuzzi
Copps
Cotler
Cuzner
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Drouin
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Fournier
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laframboise
Laliberte
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lastewka
Lebel
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Longfield
Loubier
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marceau
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Matthews
McCallum
McCormick
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Ménard
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Owen
Paquette
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Chatham--Kent
Essex)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Provenzano
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Roy
Sauvageau
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Speller
St-Hilaire
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tobin
Tonks
Torsney
Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Wappel
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Total: 171
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Anders
Anderson (Cypress
Hills--Grasslands)
Bailey
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz
Burton
Cadman
Casey
Casson
Chatters
Comartin
Cummins
Day
Desjarlais
Duncan
Elley
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Gallant
Godin
Goldring
Gouk
Grewal
Hanger
Harris
Hill (Macleod)
Hilstrom
Jaffer
Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough)
Manning
Mark
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
McDonough
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Moore
Penson
Peschisolido
Proctor
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark--Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
Stinson
Stoffer
Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Toews
Vellacott
Wasylycia-Leis
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Yelich
Total: 63
|
PAIRED
Members
Assadourian
Asselin
Barnes
Bergeron
Bevilacqua
Crête
Cullen
Desrochers
Kilgour (Edmonton
Southeast)
Minna
Perron
Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis)
Total: 12
|
|
The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill
stands referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade.
(Bill read the second time
and referred to a committee)
The Speaker:
It being 5.55 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order
paper.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1755)
[Translation]
Armenia
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ)
moved:
That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of
1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity.
She said: Madam Speaker, it is with some emotion that I
rise this evening to begin this first and only hour of debate on Motion No.
328, which reads as follows: “That this House recognize the Armenian genocide
of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity”.
It is on the strength of the support of the
parliamentary arm of the Bloc Quebecois and with the support of many colleagues
of all political allegiances that I speak to members in the hope of drawing
their attention in this House so that all together we finally, may act
responsibly, with compassion and justice.
The term “genocide” at the heart of this motion was
used for the first time by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who said, in
1943:
By “genocide” we mean the destruction
of a nation or an ethnic group...In general, genocide does not necessarily mean
the immediate destruction of a nation. It means, rather, a co-ordinated plan of
different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the
life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups
themselves. |
Two years later, in 1945, the term “genocide” was
included in the indictment by the Nuremburg tribunal at the trial of Nazi war
criminals. It provided that the accused “...conducted deliberate and systematic
genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the
civilian populations of certain occupied territories...national, racial or
religious groups”.
A few years later, in 1948, the term “genocide” was
given a legal definition by the convention on the prevention and punishment of
the crime of genocide, which was ratified by Turkey just 50 years ago this
year. Its use by governments in the recognition of the tragedy suffered by the
Armenian people is not without significance, as is the refusal to apply
it.
Did the Armenian genocide occur? Some people deny it.
However, internationally renowned historians, whose reputations are beyond
doubt, confirm that the events of 1915 and 1916 were indeed
genocide.
Indeed the operation planned by the prefect of the
Constantinople police, Bedri Bey, for the night of April 24-25 was intended to
eliminate the Armenian elite. On that night and during the days that followed,
some 600 persons, intellectuals, writers, poets, journalists, physicians,
priests and lawyers were imprisoned, gagged and unable to alert international
opinion to the massacre being prepared.
Arnold Toynbee, a world renowned British historian,
estimated that two out of three Armenians living in the Ottoman empire were
killed or died while being deported. The final death toll was 1.2 million. Yves
Ternon, author of Les Arméniens: histoire d'un génocide, also estimated
that two-thirds of the Armenian community was killed, although he based his
figures on the official Ottoman census, which listed the number of Armenians
living in the Ottoman Republic in 1914 at 1,295,000.
In 1919, Turkey's minister of the interior placed the
number of dead at 800,000. Nowadays, the figure given by Toynbee is
used.
The Armenian genocide did indeed take place. It was
deliberately and knowingly orchestrated by a government which, in an enactment
dated May 27, 1915, authorized the deportation of the Armenians, thus giving
the insidious go ahead for the massacre of over one million people. The
deportation was a legal cover and orders to execute were given in
secret.
I would like to read a few lines from a letter
addressed to U.S. President Wilson by a German Red Cross officer named Armin
Wagner:
After depriving them of leaders and
spokespersons, the executioners drove the populations out of the cities at all
hours of the day and night. Groups which had numbered in the thousands when
they set out from their homeland in Upper Armenia were down to a few hundred
upon arriving in the outskirts of Aleppo, but the fields were littered with
corpses. |
The deportees were forced onto the
highways until thousands were reduced to hundreds, and hundreds to a small
band, which was still hunted down until it no longer existed. And then, they
had reached their final destination. |
When one knows that the ultimate destination of the
deportees' long journey was the Deir Ez Zor desert in Syria and not the lush
banks of the Euphrates, how can one not see that the purpose of this
deportation was none other than the final solution, death?
How can survivors of this massacre be expected to
forget? Seeing the calm tenacity with which they seek to have the Armenian
genocide recognized, Hitler's cynicism just a few days before the invasion of
Poland by troops of the Third Reich, can only horrify us.
(1800)
In fact, in front of his staff on April 22, 1939,
Hitler did not hesitate to ask if anyone still remembered the extermination of
the Armenians.
Foreshadowing the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide is
the first genocide of the 20th century. There is no excuse for refusing to use
the term “genocide” to describe the terrible catastrophe that the Armenian
people experienced in 1915-1916. Many parliaments have recognized this
genocide, including the parliaments of Russia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece,
Lebanon, Belgium, Argentina, Uruguay and Australia.
The European parliament and the UN Commission on Human
Rights have also recognized it. More recently, on January 18, 2001, it was
France's turn. Legislation was passed unanimously by the national assembly and
the Senate.
In North America, the states of California, Delaware,
Massachusetts and New York have also recognized the genocide. The Quebec
national assembly and the legislature of Ontario have done the same. Given that
the populations of Quebec and Ontario combined account for 60% of the
population of Canada, it is hard to understand why Canada still refuses to
describe the Armenian genocide as such, and refers to it instead as a tragic
event.
Why is the Canadian government so cautious? One can
only speculate. Perhaps the Armenian diaspora living in Canada does not have
enough demographic clout. There are more than 100,000 Armenians living in
Canada; 60,000 of them are in Montreal and Laval and the rest live in the
Toronto area.
Being lucky enough to live in close proximity to the
Armenian community in Laval, I can say, to their credit, that they have done a
wonderful job of integrating into their host community. They have every reason
to be proud of their social and economic contributions.
The reputation of the Armenian community in the arts is
well established. Take the example of Maryvonne Kendergie, a well-known
musicologist who, through her teaching and boundless energy, has made a major
contribution to the field of contemporary music.
Filmmaker Atom Egoyan, whose talent is celebrated,
joins other renowned artists such as conductor Rafi Armenian, soprano Isabel
Bayrakdarian, violinist Catherine Manoukian and Yousef Karsh, the extraordinary
photographer who took the famous picture of Winston Churchill.
I believe we owe it to Canadians and Quebecers of
Armenian origin to officially recognize the genocide of 1915. Is it completely
farfetched to think that some diplomatic reservations based on economic
considerations might weigh in the balance? If so, how can we explain the
numerous European countries in relative proximity to Turkey having had the
courage to do so? And what about the European parliament, which after
recognizing the Armenian genocide on June 18, 1987, reaffirmed in connection
with the discussions around Turkey's membership in the European Union the
necessity for the latter to recognize the Armenian genocide.
Moreover, paragraph 10 of the resolution passed
November 15, 2000, contains the following:
Calls, therefore, on the Turkish
Government and the Turkish Grand National Assembly to give fresh support to the
Armenian minority, as an important part of Turkish society, in particular by
public recognition of the genocide which that minority suffered before the
establishment of the modern state of Turkey |
.
Is Canada going to wait until Turkey recognizes this
reality before adding its voice to those of the other parliaments?
Since 1993, the question of genocide has been debated a
number of times before this House. The Bloc Quebecois position has always been
clear. It has made us the target of objections from the Turkish embassy. It is
was easy to imagine what comments were directed to the party in power. I have
trouble, however, believing that a country like Canada, whose commitment to
human rights is well known, would bow to diplomatic representations on
something of such gravity.
It is noteworthy that, following the adoption of its
legislation by the French national assembly, the government of France stated
that it made a clear distinction between the Ottoman empire and contemporary
Turkey.
After the political recognition by the various states
and international organizations, I would like to touch on another recognition
before I close. This was the position of Pope John Paul II. On November 27,
2000, the Pontiff signed a final declaration on the occasion of the visit to
the Vatican of His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All
Armenians, whose apostolic church comprises seven million faithful. The text
could not be any clearer. The following are just a few excepts from it:
The extermination of a million and a
half Armenians, generally considered genocide, and the annihilation of
thousands more under a totalitarian regime are tragedies which must still live
on in the memories of the present generation. |
(1805)
In these troubled times, the recent visit to Armenia by
Pope John Paul II, which coincides with the 1700th anniversary of the adoption
of Christianity by Armenians, has a very special significance.
Some were disappointed that the Pope did not use the
term “genocide” in his sermon at the mausoleum. He preferred to use the
expression “Metz Yeghern”, the great catastrophe. For 86 years, these words
have described, among Armenian families, the 1915 genocide.
The international press reported on the intense emotion
that could be felt when Pope John Paul II read the names of the 29 martyr
cities of the genocide, including Ani, Marach, Var and Mouch.
It goes without saying that this visit by John Paul II
was criticized by the Turkish diplomacy, which expressed to the Vatican
ambassador in Ankara its “consternation following the condemnation by John Paul
II of the Armenian genocide”.
It is certainly no coincidence that, on October 7, John
Paul II beatified Archbishop Ignazio Maloyan, the Armenian Archbishop of
Mardin, Turkey, who was killed with 400 faithful during the 1915
genocide.
The pope said “Faced with the dangers of persecution,
the blessed Ignazio did not make any compromise. Let his example inspire those
who, today, want to be true witnesses of the Gospel”.
Six weeks to the day, America and the whole world found
themselves in the eye of the storm. Through very well orchestrated actions,
terrorism fully showed its anger and hate with total disregard for innocent
victims and their grieving families.
The purpose of these actions was to destabilize our
capitalist society. Since then, our outlook on things has changed, because
beyond the actions, we have a duty to understand, so as to fully assume our
responsibility to the poor on this planet.
In 1915, a deliberate action effectively destroyed a
community to destabilize the Armenian society.
I call upon the will of my colleagues so that we
finally recognize the Armenian genocide.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the
House
Citizenship and
Immigration
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, prior to speaking this evening, I would
seek unanimous consent of the House for a motion. I move:
|
That
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel
to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Windsor, St. John, New Brunswick and Montreal from
October 29 to November 1 in relation to its study on security at ports of entry
in Canada and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. |
(Motion agreed
to)
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1810)
[English]
Armenia
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing her
views concerning the events of 1914 to 1925, during the closing years of the
Ottoman empire, which claimed so many victims and had such a devastating impact
on the Armenian people and other peoples in the region.
It was a period of history when so many atrocities were
committed. Our previous debates and the moving addresses made in the House by a
number of members have given many of us a better grasp of the magnitude of
those events and of the suffering endured by Armenians and other groups who
were displaced by the millions.
Members may recall that on the occasion of the 80th
anniversary of the Armenian tragedy of 1915, the Prime Minister spoke to
Canada's Armenian communities in these terms:
Canada recognizes and deplores the
fact that a great number of Armenians were killed during the wars which marked
the end of the Ottoman empire and extends its sympathy to the Armenian
Community. Following the war, numerous displaced Armenians came to Canada and
their contribution, as well as that of their descendants, has greatly enriched
Canadian society. It is my hope that the memories of the past will serve to
remind us of the importance of tolerance and respect for the diversity of our
people. |
Members may also recall that on June 10, 1999,
following comprehensive consultations, the position of the Government of Canada
with regard to these events was set out in a statement made in the House by the
hon. member for Halton speaking on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The hon. member stated:
|
--we
remember the calamity inflicted on the Armenian people in 1915. This tragedy
was committed with the intent to destroy a national group in which hundreds of
thousands of Armenians were subjected to atrocities which included massive
deportations and massacres. |
May the memory of this period
contribute to healing wounds as well as to reconciliation of present day
nations and communities and remind us all of our collective duty to work
together toward world peace-- |
Both of the above statements demonstrate that we share
the memory of the suffering during this painful period. We have not forgotten.
It is indelibly etched in our minds. During the debate on the Armenian tragedy
in 1996, the House adopted a motion recognizing the week of April 20 to April
27 each year as a week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one
another.
The government has shown in previous debates and
continues to show today that it attaches a great deal of importance to ensuring
that the memory of this human tragedy is never allowed to fade from our
collective conscience. It is important that knowledge of this event and of
other calamities throughout the 20th century be kept alive and passed on to
future generations. Remembering these events should also prompt us to further
develop international mechanisms for preventing them from recurring and
promoting reconciliation, which is crucial to achieving everlasting peace and a
new start for all.
From this perspective, our country is a symbol of hope
for humanity. In Canada, people from all over the world suffering from
oppression, displacement and damaged dignity have found and continue to find
refuge and comfort, an oasis of tolerance, sharing and understanding. These
people who have been displaced, including people of Armenian descent, have
succeeded here in rebuilding their lives in a safe place where individual
freedoms are protected in Canada.
Canada is a land of hope, of renewal and of
reconciliation and we are all working very hard, especially in these times, to
ensure that Canadian ideals and values, such as tolerance, democracy and
supremacy of law, are reflected in the work of international organizations and
in the tools developed to prevent any recurrence of the horrors of the
past.
(1815)
We are not alone in defending these ideals, of course,
but it is something we do naturally because we live in a tolerant society, a
society where the diversity and differences of people from around the world is
not only allowed but protected, promoted and, I might say,
celebrated.
Our regular participation in peacekeeping missions
around the globe is clear testimony to our desire and determination to make a
concrete contribution to shaping a world where reconciliation and tolerance can
replace hate and intolerance.
It is essential, indeed I would say it is our duty, to
work tirelessly to promote multiculturalism throughout those parts of the world
where its acceptance is precarious because we can use Canada as a shining
example.
Today more than ever we must strive to promote
tolerance and reconciliation among peoples so that the horrors of the past,
like the tragedy suffered by the Armenian people, are never
repeated.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the
debate on private member's Motion No. 328 which states:
That this House recognize the
Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against
humanity. |
I appreciate the sentiments, the emotion, the
remembrance and the sense that is at the heart of the motion.
Earlier I had the opportunity to speak on the same
issue through a motion moved by the hon. member for Brampton Centre who did a
great deal of work on this issue. He even caused the matter to go before the
Canadian heritage committee and forced the committee to issue a report.
A delegation from Canada's Armenian community visited
me in my House of Commons office. I also received information from the
Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations. I highly appreciate the interest
expressed by both communities--
Mr. Jim Karygiannis:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask
for the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is there unanimous consent to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal:
Madam Speaker, I was saying that I highly appreciate
the interest expressed by both communities in the work we do as
parliamentarians.This is a very emotional and controversial matter. I have had
the opportunity to visit both Armenia and Turkey. My heart goes out to the
families and the survivors of this dark era in human history.
There has been more loss of life on this planet due to
man made wars than to natural calamities. We all sadly remember the genocide in
Rwanda and Burundi. We know of genocide and ethnic cleansing in the name of
civil and ethnic wars. Humankind should learn from the horrible experiences of
the past and make sure they are not repeated.
I also took part in a private members' debate on a
motion asking the Liberal government to cause the British crown to present an
official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name
between 1755 and 1763. That debate went nowhere.
Today I rise with misgivings about what the Liberal
government will do in this debate. I regret that I cannot be more positive in
my outlook, but I do not want to try to fool anyone and I do not want either
the Turkish or the Armenian communities to be hoodwinked by this Liberal
government with its weak backbone.
I want to be very clear from the outset that the
government will not recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 or apologize to
anyone for anything done wrong in Canada or abroad. There are many examples in
Canada which I would like to refer to the House. Let me remind the House of the
1914 incident involving 376 ship passengers who were British subjects and
arrived on the ship named Komagata Maru. They were not allowed to land
on Canadian soil because of an exclusionist immigration policy based on race
and country of origin.
The policy had its origin in the 1880s when the
Canadian government first imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants. The
government erected a variety of barriers until 1962.
The passengers of the Komagata Maru thought they
had the right to enter Canada because they were British subjects. Ninety per
cent of the passengers on the ship were Sikhs and the rest were Hindus and
Muslims, all from Punjab state in northern India.
Sikh soldiers had served throughout the British Empire.
They thought that they should be able to work wherever the British flag was
flying. After two months of detention in Vancouver harbour, the government
brought in the cruiser HMCS Rainbow which aimed its guns at the
Komagata Maru. The ship was escorted away, with 352 passengers still on
board. It was a bitter and disappointing moment for the friends watching the
ship disappear. A voyage that began on April 4 did not end until September 29
in Calcutta, India, where the police opened fire and killed 19 of those
passengers. Those remaining were arrested.
In a more tolerant Canada, the Komagata Maru
remains a powerful symbol for Sikhs and one that other Canadians should
understand. As a consequence we are beginning to reassess our past. Giving
attention to the Komagata Maru is part of the process. Do we think that
this government will offer an apology to community members for the Komagata
Maru incident? I do not think so.
(1820)
How about the Chinese internees who are demanding an
apology, along with 10 or so other groups? Promises for apologies and
recognition have been used to buy political votes. Both the current Prime
Minister and Prime Minister Mulroney also promised to offer redress to the
Ukrainians and both have failed to do so.
Let me also mention an exchange that took place in the
House of Commons about an apology in regard to the Canadian government and the
internment of Japanese Canadians during the second world war. Prime Minister
Trudeau said on June 29, 1984:
There is no way in which we can
relive the history of that period. In that sense, we cannot redress what was
done. We can express regret collectively, as we have done. I do not see how I
can apologize for some historic event to which we or these people in this House
were not a party. We can regret that it happened. But why mount to great
heights of rhetoric in order to say that an apology is much better than an
expression of regret? This I cannot too well understand. |
Why does Mulroney not apologize for
what happened during the Second World War to mothers and fathers of people
sitting in this House who went to concentration camps? I know some of them, Mr.
Speaker. |
Mr. John Cannis:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I stayed in
the House with great interest to hear the issue that we are supposed to be
discussing, that being the motion on the Armenian genocide. I am greatly
saddened, but I am not hearing any of that. If the hon. member can put the
motion back on track I will stay. Otherwise I am wasting my time.
(1825)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I am sure the hon. member for Surrey Central is getting
back to the main motion before the House.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal:
You are right, Madam Speaker. I am coming back to the
point, but I am giving some examples of what happened and how the issue was
addressed.
To continue, Prime Minister Trudeau at that time
said:
They were not Japanese Canadians.
They were Canadians of Italian or German origin, or some old French Canadians
who went to jail-- |
|
--I do
not think it is the purpose of a Government to right the past. It cannot
re-write history. It is our purpose to be just in our time, and that is what we
have done by bringing in the Charter of Rights. |
Also in 1994 a conversation took place in the House in
which the minister for multiculturalism at the time summarized the government's
position. She said:
Seeking to halt the wounds caused by
the actions of previous governments...We share the desire to heal those
wounds. |
The issue is whether the best way to
do this is to attempt to address the past or to invest in the
future. |
Since my time has almost expired I will say that the
hon. member is facing unfavourable odds in terms of having the motion passed by
the House. The behaviour of the prime ministers past and present does not bode
well for the fate of the motion.
Moreover, if it is decided that we need to consider the
wider implications of this issue, what happens if we decide in the debate today
that recognition ought to be given to the Armenian genocide? Does it mean that
the other long ago wrongs perpetrated against other groups are also to be
regarded as the collective responsibility of the Canadian people?
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure this evening to
have an opportunity to address Motion No. 328 that is before
parliament.
[Translation]
I wish to thank the member for Laval Centre for
bringing forward this motion.
[English]
I am very pleased on behalf of my caucus and of my
party to speak solidly in support of this motion, which reads:
That this House recognize the
Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against
humanity. |
[Translation]
This motion is jointly supported by the member for
Burnaby--Douglas, the
NDP foreign affairs critic.
[English]
Canada has an obligation to recognize the Armenian
genocide not just as a calamity or a tragedy but as a genocide. I was stunned
to hear the Liberal member who spoke to the motion this evening repeatedly
referring to the Armenian genocide as an event. It is past time we recognized
the Armenian genocide for what it was: a genocide. Let us not hear any more
euphemisms.
Over 1.5 million Armenians were murdered in the
genocide which took place between 1915 and 1923. Barbaric acts took place
during this period. Mass murders were committed in Constantinople or, as we
know it today, Istanbul. There were unwarranted arrests and wrongful
imprisonments. There were massive deportations of the civilian population,
rapes, abductions and forced religious conversions.
The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the
20th century and sadly not the last. Since then we have witnessed genocide in
other parts of the world: the Nazi Holocaust of World War II, the genocides in
East Timor, Rwanda, Cambodia and elsewhere. It is only by acknowledging the
wrongs of the past and understanding our history that we will avoid such
horrors in the future.
Sadly Canada has yet to officially recognize the
Armenian genocide even though the United Nations did so 53 years ago as far
back as 1948.
New Democrats have been pleased to work side by side
with the Armenian community to seek this recognition. We are proud to continue
to do so but it is heartbreaking. It is unacceptable that Armenian Canadians
continue to have to plead with the Liberal government for recognition of the
genocide yet only by doing so will people be able to get on with the healing.
I have met with representatives of the Armenian
genocide community. I did so when they were here again this year on April 24,
the day we have set aside to commemorate the Armenian genocide. They told
stories. Several among them were orphaned and raised by people not known to
them who took them into their care because they had lost their parents and
grandparents.
I was pleased to be interviewed on the Horizons
television program in Toronto about the continuing struggle to gain official
recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Government of Canada. It is wrong
for that community to have to continue putting its case to the government. It
is time we corrected that wrong.
I was pleased earlier today to hear that the Minister
of Veterans Affairs has finally announced compensation for the 15 surviving
Buchenwald vets. This was long overdue. These gentlemen are aging rapidly.
Thank goodness the government has finally seen fit to acknowledge the
horrifying situation the Buchenwald vets faced. It is time to do the same and
recognize the Armenian genocide for what it was.
Earlier this year the member for Burnaby--Douglas asked
the Minister of Foreign Affairs a straightforward question. He asked if the
Liberal government would finally stand and officially recognize the massacre of
1.5 million Armenians in 1915 as genocide. What answer did the Minister of
Foreign Affairs give? He gave an insulting non-answer. He insulted the entire
Canadian Armenian community.
I am currently circulating a petition on the issue
which I intend to table in the near future, a petition that calls upon
parliament to, first, officially acknowledge the Armenian genocide; second,
condemn all attempts to negate the genocide in accordance with the United
Nations convention for the prevention and repression of genocide; third, to
designate April 24 as the day of annual commemoration of the Armenian genocide;
fourth, to press the government of Turkey to acknowledge and recognize the
genocide; and, fifth, to help develop understanding, heal wounds and move
forward the process of reconciliation among all Canadians about this tragedy in
accordance with the Canadian tradition of promoting human rights, peace and the
rule of law in international affairs.
(1830)
This year commemorates the 1,700th anniversary of the
Armenian church. We celebrate the Armenian people's rich cultural and religious
history. It would be entirely appropriate in this anniversary year to finally
recognize this genocide.
I was recently given a book of essays and poems
entitled The Armenian Genocide: Resisting the Inertia of Indifference. I
think what we see from the government is exactly that, the inertia of
indifference. This book was written by Lorne Shirinian and Alan Whitehorn. Let
me quote briefly from a poem contained in the book, “Remembering Genocide”:
We must remember.
Remember and learn.
Remember and tell.
But also remember and live.
And some day, remember and forgive.
Tonight I call on the House to heed those words.
In closing, I seek the unanimous consent of the House
to make this motion votable, so that it is clear that as a House we remember
the Armenian people, and we acknowledge this genocide and will not forget
it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The House has heard the member's request. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter into the debate
on private members’ Motion No. 328. I commend the member for Laval Centre for
bringing the motion forward. We had a discussion earlier about the issue. It is
very clear how strongly she feels and how committed she is to the
cause.
We recently had another debate similar to this on a
motion brought forward by the member for Brampton Centre. We had the same
debate with him as well. There are certainly a lot of strong feelings about
this issue.
The whole debate surrounds the terrible massacre of
human lives between 1915 and 1923, with estimates in excess of a million and a
half men, women and children who died.There was violence, deportations,
internments, mass murders and all kinds of atrocities we in the House can
hardly imagine.
To put it into perspective for me, we were all so moved
and concerned about the September 11 tragedies in the United States. For every
person killed in the United States in that horrible terrorist act, 250 people
died in the period from 1915 to 1923. The Armenians were the victims. To put
that into perspective, the disaster was 250 times worse than what we
experienced in North America. We cannot imagine what these atrocities were like
and what families and people lived through. We cannot imagine parents and
grandparents seeing their families wiped out through mass murders, atrocities
and deportations.
Obviously the events between 1915 and 1923 were
terrifying and horrifying. They resulted in the terrible deaths of hundreds of
thousands of people. The Armenian people were the victims and suffered greatly,
more than anyone else.
The opposition coalition abhors any mass slaughter or
killings, whether they occur in Rwanda, the Middle East or Europe and by any
country or any group. It is important that we remember these issues. This is
exactly what the motion is doing today. It is helping all of us understand and
learn about issues we have never been exposed to before. Personally it has been
a learning curve. I appreciate the input by all the members who have shared
their thoughts with me and the House.
Perhaps by discussing these issues and bringing them
forth continually we will maintain public awareness. The healing process and
reconciliation will be helped by the fact that we in the Canadian parliament
are discussing these issues. Perhaps these discussions and motions will help
avoid such atrocities in the future, although recent events are not very
encouraging.
(1835)
Mr. Jim Karygiannis
(Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my
colleague from Scarborough Centre. I had an opportunity recently to call the
Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding the Pontian genocide. The minister said
to me that he could not comment as he was not born at that time. Even today the
parliamentary secretary to the minister told me to get real. I would like to
get real.
I have in my hands the November 1922 issue of
National Geographic. There is a picture called “The children of Smyrna”
and it states that “This was a photograph taken shortly before the recent
holocaust”.
I also have in my hands the November 1925 issue of
National Geographic and it states “Dynamiting the walls and buildings
along the quay along the Smyrna fire”. On page 558 of the same issue it states
“Boat loaded with refugees leaving the railroad pier at Smyrna”. On page 559 it
shows American sailors moving refugees on hand tracks to Smyrna. On page 562 it
states “Weeding out men for deportation, Smyrna” and on the same page there is
a picture of a member of my family. On page 565 it states “Ghouls fishing for
bodies after the Smyrna disaster”.
This issue has pictures of people looking for loaves of
bread. On page 578 there are people with lists of names looking for people. On
page 580 it shows people raiding trucks in order to have bread. On page 587 a
picture caption states “Housekeeping in a refugee barrack at Saloniki”.
For my colleague who says I should get real I have to
tell her that I was born in one of those shacks because my parents were part of
that history. This is not “I wasn't born then”; this is reality.
We have a duty to stand and recognize what happened,
not coat it with smooth words. We have a duty to make sure that atrocities like
that do not happen again. We sent people to Kosovo and today we are engaged in
Afghanistan. What is different from what I see in these pictures from what I
see in Afghanistan?
Yes, I will get real. This is why, along with my
colleague from Scarborough Centre, I seek unanimous consent to accept this
motion to make sure that events like this will not cause people to say I was
not born then or it did not happen. We cannot say it was not part of history.
It was documented by National Geographic. There was nothing better.
Today we depend on CNN. At that time we depended on National
Geographic.
(1840)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those
speaking in support of having the Government of Canada, and this parliament in
particular, recognize the genocide of the Armenians perpetrated by the former
Ottoman empire in 1915.
The facts of the genocide are public knowledge. They
are certainly well known to this House, since this is not the first time we
have debated this subject. There have been other debates on other motions,
which have unfortunately been defeated in a vote.
It is important to recall that this genocide was not
the last of its kind. By recognizing that the Ottoman empire of the time
engineered the genocide of thousands of women and children by leaving them to
die of hunger and of their wounds in the Turkish desert, Canada's parliament
could recognize one of the great genocides of this century, not the only one,
unfortunately, but one of the major ones.
I believe it is up to parliament to show its colours,
to show that the genocide committed by the Ottoman empire is unacceptable to a
country like Canada and to show that the Parliament of Canada deplores this
event, if I may call it that, in its most negative sense. Let parliament
therefore show not only how much it deplores an event like the one a few years
ago, as in Rwanda, and the one many years ago in fascist Nazi Germany, but that
it deplores as well other events of importance to the Armenian people and those
of Armenian origin who are now Canadian citizens.
It is important in my opinion to resolve this debate
once and for all. Other countries have passed motions. The French government
and senate have adopted a motion. I know other governments have done so
too.
We in Canada must show our fellow citizens of Armenian
origin that we understand what happened, that we recognize that Armenians were
murdered in 1915 in the Ottoman empire. We must, once and for all, stand on the
side of the righteous, and the Parliament of Canada must pass the motion by the
member for Laval Centre.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, in the few moments I have I want to make
some comments in this debate.
I was very pleased that most of the members I listened
to stuck to Motion No. 328 on the Armenian genocide. It was very sad for me to
hear the member for Surrey Central use such examples especially in such
difficult times as these when the world is fighting terrorism. In the United
States there are no Republicans or Democrats, and in this country there should
be no Liberals or Conservatives or NDP or whatever that party is called. It is
all of us collectively together. That is why I was so pleased when I heard the
member for Halifax so eloquently make her position. She did not criticize the
government for this or that but she came right to the point. I thank her for
that.
I want to thank the member for Cumberland--Colchester
as well who so eloquently said that this is the time for reconciliation. That
was the most important word. Many nations in the past have erred. As the saying
goes, he who is without sin, let them cast the first stone. We have all made
mistakes. It is in learning from our mistakes that we will go forward. Several
years back we discussed this issue and we were no closer then, but today we
have moved that agenda forward. We are using the words “genocide” and
“atrocities”. We have moved beyond where we were five, six or seven years
ago.
Some horrendous activities took place in South Africa
over many years. There was a truth and reconciliation commission. Everyone came
forward to kind of cleanse themselves and say “Yes, these things did happen,
but now let us draw a line and move forward and learn from those mistakes”.
Were there atrocities that took place in 1915 and 1912?
Funnily enough it was all in the same area. It all happened at the same time.
It happened to be the Armenians on one side and the Pontians on the other. What
has the Pontian community done nowadays? It has erected a monument in the
former borough of East York, which is now part of the megacity of Toronto,
commemorating the lives that were unfortunately and sadly slaughtered, et
cetera.
Today I know the Greek Canadian community, the Pontian
community go once a year to pay homage to those people. The other day we were
celebrating. I had the opportunity to be at a function to celebrate the 10th
anniversary of the Republic of Armenia. Who could have imagined that 15 or 20
years ago? There is progress in itself. When I saw the young children and the
seniors, I thanked them for the performance and the many people that have
contributed to the development of building a nation.
That is why I was sad when the member for Surrey
Central, who in my view did nothing but exploit a situation that we should
focus on, went back and said what happened in Canada's history. Sure mistakes
were made. Mistakes were made in the United States of America. Mistakes were
made in Germany. Mistakes were made in other parts of the world. That was not
the issue tonight and that is what has upset me.
In closing I want to thank each and every member who
stood up and focused on the motion. That is what it was all about, and not to
exploit and use certain examples in our history in Canada. I want to thank the
Armenian Canadian community who have contributed so much to the development of
nation building in Canada.
(1845)
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I must say that one of the greatest
honours I have had in the House of Commons was when the member for Cambridge
held an evening here with the Armenian community. A stamp was displayed by
Canada Post in honour and recognition of the Armenian community. Anyone who was
there that evening will agree what a wonderful event that was.
The colour, the history and the culture of the Armenian
community are things we as Canadians should value and recognize in a historical
context. It is an outstanding contribution to Canada when we consider the
people's history. My wife's uncle who lives in California is Armenian. I will
be sending him a copy of the tape of this evening's proceedings because he
himself would like to see this country move forward on such a
motion.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House
to make this valuable motion votable. If it is made a votable item I believe it
will have almost unanimous consent of the House. Then we could tell the
Armenian community in Canada and in the world that we truly care about them and
respect the historical wrongs of the past. Maybe by making it a votable motion
we could put some closure to their file.
I ask for the consent of the House to make this motion
votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval
Centre, BQ):
Madam Speaker, all of today's speakers have
demonstrated their sensitivity to the Armenian genocide, even if they did not
all use that term, regretfully, but I am appreciative of their participation in
this debate.
I am sure that, had this motion been votable, it would
have obtained the support of the majority of MPs. Unfortunately, on several
occasions voices from the government side have prevented parliament from
expressing its view on a motion that, apparently, interests all members of this
House.
I profoundly regret what I would term an “insufficient
view of reality”, the view of those in power.
The genocide of April 24, 1915, is a reality even if
certain people wish to deny that reality. The planning that led up to it, the
number of deaths that resulted from it, the eyewitness accounts, the research
by competent historians, the political recognition by a number of states and
multinational organizations and by the Vatican, all of these realities fully
justify the appeal made on March 24, 1998, by Robert Kotcharian, prime minister
of the Republic of Armenia at that time.
He called for international recognition of the
genocide, which was not, and I quote “the tragedy of the Armenian people only”
but a tragedy for “all of humanity and a heavy burden for the Armenian people
because it has gone unpunished and, worse yet, has not been condemned as it
ought”.
The time has come for Canada to respond to this request
because only international recognition of the genocide will allow this painful
wound to heal, thereby promoting reconciliation. It is up to all of us to
remember. The Armenian people are very conscious of this fact, and Robert
Agazian, who travelled to Armenia to celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the
establishment of Christianity last September, attests to this. He
said:
When I come here, alone or with
pilgrims, I am always very moved. I am reminded of my parents, my grandparents,
of all of our families that were separated and scattered around the world
randomly due to the exodus and the convoys. I am also reminded of all of the
stories told and heard, all of the accounts that I have read and that describe
the tragic events of our Armenian history. In coming here, I am fulfilling my
duty to remember and I am expressing my desire for justice. |
Regardless of where they live, Armenians recall this
painful wound. I would like to say to them today that these memories contain
life. Without them, the events that nourish our existence become lost beyond
the limits of the consciousness. The respect they have for their history and
for freedom is an example for us all, because it is the memories of the living
that push back the boundaries of death.
Émile Henriot wrote “the dead live on in the memories
of those they leave behind”. I thank ythem for their faithfulness to their
people.
(1850)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The time provided for the consideration of private
members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a
votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Debate]
* * *
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
* * *
[Translation]
Airline
Industry
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, on September 26, I asked a question in
the House about the airline industry.
My question was for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Since there were going to be layoffs, I asked her what she
intended to do to help airline employees. The surplus in the EI fund stood at
about $43 billion.
The minister replied as follows:
That is why my deputy minister met
yesterday with officials from Air Canada to discuss precisely this fact; the
programs and services that can be made available to the company and, most
particularly, to its employees. |
The minister went on to say “The employment insurance
program is strong and sound”. If it is strong and sound, could the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Human Resources Development tell
the House what the minister has done since September 26 with respect to a job
sharing program, since she had tasked her deputy minister to look into
this?
I would also like to ask if, by chance, she sent her
deputy minister to Alcan where 3,670 employees were just laid off? What will
they do back home? I am not talking about 3,000, 2,000, or 1,000 people.
Yesterday I heard about a company called Méga Bleu that has 8,000 pounds of
blueberries that cannot be shipped to the United States because of the events
of September 11. On Monday morning it laid off 40 people until further
notice.
What is the government doing to help these people with
its strong and sound system? More important, can the parliamentary secretary
tell us what the minister will tell us this week when in committee all of the
parties agreed that the number of hours to be eligible for EI should be reduced
from 910 to 700? This measure could help people in the regions where these
layoffs took place.
We are talking about thousands of people being laid
off. We have a strong and sound system but people cannot apply for employment
insurance because they only have 700 or 750 hours accumulated. How is it that
the government can be insensitive to this situation?
I hope the Minister of Human Resources Development has
had an opportunity to examine her conscience since September 26. I have heard
that in Newfoundland even Liberal members were saying that the minister was not
sensitive to workers who lose their jobs, when we have a program that belongs
to the workers and employers that contribute to it.
I am still waiting for an answer. We have asked the
question on numerous occasions in the House. When it comes to the money that
belongs to the workers, is the minister ready to give it back to those who
contributed it especially since we have a strong and sound system?
I would like to hear the answer from the parliamentary
secretary to the minister. Is the department more aware of the situation and
have any steps been taken regarding job sharing programs for those who have
lost their jobs in the airline industry, at Alcan and in other sectors across
Canada?
(1855)
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the matter raised by my colleague for
Acadie—Bathurst is certainly important, not only for him as the representative
of the people of Acadie—Bathurst but for us in government.
I can tell him, and I think he already knows, that the
Government of Canada is always concerned when workers lose their jobs. I would
assure my colleague that the officials of the Department of Human Resources
Development have worked with and continue to work on a daily basis with
employees of the airline and with the union and employers to come up with
solutions and ensure that the employees affected have recourse to all the
programs and services provided by HRDC.
Speaking of Air Canada as one example of many—and I
stress that—the department and we are in daily contact with Air Canada. The
Minister of Human Resources Development has personally met the representatives
of the unions affected and those of Air Canada and has assured them that we
will work with them so the employment insurance plan will help those employees
laid off.
We are currently working with the employees, the unions
and the employer to be sure that the members and employees of Air Canada get
the benefits they are entitled to as effectively as possible.
I must say that not only are we working with them but
under HRDC's program we visit the company's premises. Departmental employees do
this in order to get information to employees as quickly as
possible.
HRDC offers several forms of assistance to employees
and to employers in cases of mass layoffs. As I have just said, we visit the
employer's premises or a mutually agreed upon location in order to help
employees fill out their EI application.
Since we are on site, we can gather the necessary
information and process applications as soon as possible.
Discussions with company representatives—I am speaking
here of Air Canada, but this can be multiplied by a number of companies, which
are almost in a free fall right now, given the number of employees they are
laying off—and unions focused on work sharing mainly as a way of offsetting the
impact of the present economic downturn and reducing the number of
layoffs.
Just to refresh the hon. member's memory, work sharing
allows employers to deal with cutbacks without resorting to layoffs. It entails
a reduction in the work week and a corresponding reduction in salary. For days
not worked, HRDC will see that workers receive EI benefits, which partially
compensates for the reduced salary they are receiving from their employer. Work
sharing therefore benefits workers, because they do not have to go through the
difficult experience of being laid off.
Although they receive a reduced salary from their
employer, they also receive EI benefits and can continue working, which is
obviously important. This also allows workers to maintain their professional
skills.
I am certain that by demonstrating goodwill and
flexibility, we will be able to conclude work sharing agreements with the
airline industry.
Our priority right now is to ensure that employees who
have received a layoff notice and who must rely on the EI system can receive
all the benefits--
(1900)
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for a brief
reply.
Mr. Yvon Godin:
Madam Speaker, my question was whether there had
already been a job sharing arrangement.
As regards what the hon. member said about job sharing,
I can say that, when I was working at the Brunswick mine in 1978 we had a job
sharing program. I know what job sharing is about. I am a former union staff
member, and we used job sharing arrangements on a number of occasions.
Work is shared. One person may work for three days and
be laid off for two days, during which time he or she collects employment
insurance to make up for the shortfall. In other words, the workers' salary is
topped up so that they do not lose money.
My question does not concern only Air Canada but other
airlines as well. Time has passed. Now there is Alcan and other companies. What
is the federal government doing for all the companies that are laying people
off? As I said earlier, what is it waiting for to take action through a sound
an aggressive employment insurance program to help workers and perhaps at the
same time provide training programs to people so they can—
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I am sorry but I must give the floor to the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Ms. Raymonde Folco:
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is very familiar with
the work sharing programs between the Department of Human Resources Development
and employers, employees and unions.
Again—and the hon. member said it himself—we hope that
employees, unions and the employer, Air Canada, will agree to operate on the
basis of this program, which has worked for other companies.
I cannot provide more information at this point since
the players involved met today and will surely meet again tomorrow, precisely
to discuss this issue. There is no answer to give because discussions are
progressing well. We hope to be able to give a positive reply, but I cannot
provide any answer at this point, even though I would love to be able to.
As regards the question of my hon. colleague, question
concerning the reply that the minister is to provide by the 26—
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The hon. member for
Sackville--Musquodoboit
Valley--Eastern Shore.
* * *
[English]
Airline Safety
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Madam Speaker, yesterday I raised the same issue on the
late show regarding airline security. I asked the government if it would accept
full responsibility for pre-flight screening of hand luggage and passengers.
This is now handled by the airlines.
As I said yesterday, at the Ottawa airport there is a
big sign before people go through the x-ray machines which says “Airport
security is an airline responsibility”. As a former airline employee, for years
I have been saying that this should be the responsibility of the government.
Now with the events of September 11, one would assume that the government would
finally figure out that it is its responsibility. The government should have
full control over training, employment and the standards that are adhered to in
pre-boarding flight screening.
I asked another question yesterday, which did not
receive an answer, with regard to the x-raying of all check-in baggage and
cargo prior to entry onto an aircraft. This is still not happening. There is
nothing stopping a terrorist from getting on board an aircraft with checked
luggage which has something inside it that could do great damage to the
aircraft while in the air. I could check in all kinds of paraphernalia in my
suitcase and board the aircraft. I will be checked, my hand luggage will be
checked but my check-in baggage will not.
When will the department start x-raying all luggage,
materials and cargo going onto the aircraft prior to departure?
I also asked about removing metal cutlery from the
aircraft, such as serrated knives. I give the minister and the airlines credit
because they did remove those articles from the aircraft. In fact, some of the
airlines removed the entire meal service. That ended that problem.
My questions are straightforward. I ask my hon.
colleague to put down the notes he got from the department. He is very capable
of speaking for himself. Will the government accept full responsibility and
full costs for employment and training airport security? Will the government
implement a program to x-ray all luggage and cargo prior to departure of the
aircraft?
(1905)
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide my colleague
from
Sackville--Musquodoboit
Valley--Eastern Shore with a response to her question of
September 24.
I would like to point out that since September 11 the
entire matter of airport security and safety has constituted an extremely
important issue for the government as whole.
Since September 11, a number of measures have been
announced by the minister as circumstances have dictated. The government has
announced numerous measures which contribute to enhancing security and
safety.
It must not be forgotten, however, that a few months
before the events of September 11 the International Civil Aviation Organization
gave Canada a top rating in terms of security and safety.
ICAO said that Canada's methods for ensuring security
and safety were unparalleled. I would therefore like to point out to my
colleague that we were not starting from scratch.
It is important to point out as well that the
government did react after the events of September 11. In response, Transport
Canada issued a directive on September 12 for the confiscation of certain
articles at preboarding check points. If members of the general public attempt
to get around this directive by attempting to get past check points with knives
and other sharp objects, charges will be laid.
I would like to reiterate that we were not starting
from scratch in the field of safety and security. Throughout this whole
assessment, this whole process, we have come to the realization that other
objects, such as the cutlery provided by airlines for meals, will need to be
evaluated even more carefully.
These revised directives were made public September 21
to provide further direction for the industry regarding passengers and carry on
baggage. These security measures were implemented to allow us to find and
confiscate any dangerous objects and weapons aboard aircraft and in restricted
areas of airports. The discovery of such objects on aircraft or in restricted
areas must be reported immediately to the police and to Transport Canada
officials.
Increased security measures have also been issued
regarding food serving utensils provided by airlines.
To this effect, I would like to specify that knives
with serrated edged blades, like a saw blade, are banned from aircraft, and
this ban has been extended. However, butter knives with blunt blades and ball
tipped points or plastic knives are still permitted on board aircraft for meals
served in flight. This approach is consistent with that of the United States on
this issue.
With the help of the airlines and airports, Transport
Canada continues to ensure that these heightened measures are appropriate and
can be implemented effectively.
We will continue our momentum to further increase the
safety and security of travellers.
I would also like to point out to my colleague that
everything to do with security and the standards applied are checked daily by
Transport Canada.
Since the events of September 11, the minister has
answered all the questions in the House every day. He took part in the
emergency debate we had. He appeared before the Standing Committee on
Transportation to answer all questions raised by my colleague and by
others.
(1910)
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his partial
answer to my question. I appreciate the fact that the minister has made himself
available. Still, this is two days in a row and it is a simple yes or no
answer.
I will water the question down a bit to make it easier
for the government. Will the government at least indicate to the airlines that
it will look at assuming full costs, full control and full employment of all
employees and all security levels at airports in Canada?
Right now pre-board screening goes to a tender process
and 99% of the time it goes to the lowest bidder. We are asking these people to
be at the same level customs officers are at now which, by the way, is handled
by Transport Canada or Revenue Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey:
Madam Speaker, tens of millions of dollars have been
announced. Again, in recent days, $79 million was announced to improve the
equipment used in airport safety and security.
Clearly Transport Canada will continue to define the
standards surrounding the application of the measures that must be taken with
airports. Transport Canada will continue to assume its responsibilities in
order to continue to improve a system that was considered just about perfect in
the world.
It must be remembered that international agencies have
rated our security and safety system as one of the best in the world and
unparalleled. It is true it is not perfect. It is easier to be perfect in
opposition than in government. That is not a criticism. It is a
fact.
In short, we will continue to examine things. Every
day, the Minister of Transport will look at the situation with all his
collaborators, within the department, all of the airlines and those responsible
for security.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2
p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.13 p.m.)