You probably know the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is exactly the problem now.
We want to prevent criminals, people we do not want, from coming to our country. That in itself is good, but we cannot thereby harm refugee claimants and their families. Hence the problem of information-sharing.
Let me give you a very simple example. We want to know if an individual arriving at our border has committed any crimes in other countries. Canada files a request with Interpol, which has a database that is completely open to its members. Interpol checks its database and tells us that the individual is flagged, not as a criminal, but as an illegal immigrant in another country. They send us that information, but, in so doing, Interpol's open network is telling all its members that Canada has filed a request about that individual and has received a reply saying such and such. If the refugee claimant comes from an unfriendly country, the government of that unfriendly country will be informed that one of its citizens has applied for refugee status in Canada. If the refugee claimant goes back to his country, he will be in danger, and so will the members of his family who stayed there.
There's the rub. We do not want to prevent people from coming, but we want to screen those who do, in order to prevent criminals from entering. It's very commendable, but the problem is that we cannot endanger everyone arriving on our doorstep, honest people who still have families in their countries of origin. That is our problem. No one is giving us any guarantees about the sharing of information. In that respect, the amendment errs on the side of caution and that is clearly what we must do.
You have probably come across examples in your ridings. In my riding, I have dealt with immigration situations involving people who still have families in undemocratic countries and who are afraid to talk to us for fear that their home government will be informed about the situation. I am sure that it also happens in your ridings. My case is not exceptional. People who are afraid of their governments don't stop being afraid of them once they are in Canada, certainly not when they are knocking on our door at the border. That is the kind of situation that we have to avoid.
I am sure that, like me, you have absolutely no interest in helping an undemocratic government oppress even a fraction of its people. If you think you can improve on what this amendment is suggesting, go right ahead. We just want to do no harm. Around this table, I feel that we are unanimous in the fundamental desire never to let our country become the unintentional ally of an oppressive government.
I do not know what else I can say to convince you to support this amendment, but these are situations that you come across every day. The people on your riding staff deal with them, as do mine.
We have not received the information we asked for from the RCMP and the Canadian Forces. How will this database be managed? Who will have access to it? Will people flagged by the database be able to obtain the information that has been gathered on them? These are very important questions and we have no answers. As we wait for the answers, let us err on the side of caution.
We could take a 15- or 20-minute break. We could discuss it in more detail. You can introduce a technical amendment yourselves, to make sure that we will never do any harm, that we will never be the unintentional allies of oppression.