Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2001

Supply

[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.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

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.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, do the 3,989 persons okayed by the minister pose a security risk to Canada?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

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.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

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?

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:

“peace officer”

(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.

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.

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.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

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?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

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.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

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?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

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?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

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?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

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.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

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?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

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.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

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.

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.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

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.

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.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

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.

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.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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.

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.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

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?

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

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.

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.

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.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

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.