Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2001

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 40 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 40—

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

With regard to all government department and agency Internet web sites: ( a ) do they track visitors; ( b ) if so, what data do they compile on each visitor; ( c ) does each of these sites disclose that it is tracking and compiling personal information on visitors; and ( d ) what measures have been taken to ensure the privacy of visitors?

Return tabled.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

That, as part of a continental perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, this House calls on the government to:

(a) provide both Immigration officers and Customs officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border;

(b) move Customs border officers out of the tax collection agency and into a law enforcement agency;

(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and security checks; and

(d) create a list of safe third countries, including the United States and member states of the European Union, from which Canada will no longer accept refugee claimants.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the official opposition's motion on some of the steps necessary to create a continental security perimeter.

The Canadian Alliance supports the concept of a security perimeter. We have talked about it at length. It has also been proposed by others and by the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Mr. Paul Cellucci. Those of us who have proposed this have done so for several reasons.

First and foremost, we believe the perimeter concept is the best way to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

Second, it would help ensure the safety and security of our friends and neighbours in the United States.

Third, it would help ensure that the vital flow of trade between Canada and the United States, which is some $1.3 billion per day every day of the year, continues.

Fourth, by enhancing our ability to protect ourselves and our economic arrangements we enhance our own sovereignty. We become less subject to those who would abuse our openness and generosity and we increasingly become masters of our own destiny, truly maîtres chez nous.

In recent weeks we have proposed that a federal-provincial summit be held to study the feasibility of this security perimeter. The Liberal government in its arrogance has, of course, reminded us that in its vision of Canada, which is out of touch with reality, the provinces have no place in decision making on this.

Yet, as far as public safety and security are concerned, Quebec and Ontario have their own police services. As far as immigration is concerned, Quebec and Alberta have a say. Rather than always perceiving provincial involvement as a threat, the Liberal government would be better off seeing it for what it is: an essential input from which everyone stands to benefit.

A North American security perimeter would mean harmonizing our borders and immigration policies with our neighbours, sharing common standards.

The perimeter involves harmonizing customs and immigration policies among Canada, the United States and perhaps Mexico to ensure that there are common and regular standards on our external frontier so that we do not have to slow down internal trade and we do not have to excessively infringe upon the rights of our own citizens domestically. Harmonizing does not mean giving up our controls. As a matter of fact, it would mean increasing control of our own territory and entering into an arrangement where we would be certain that our neighbours at the same time would be monitoring their borders with proper controls also.

This may involve certain things, for example, creating a common list of countries that we regard as safe countries. I will talk further about that in a moment. It may involve joint customs inspections at airports, both in North America and abroad. It may involve border stations where the United States and Canadian agents work more closely together. At a very minimum, any effective security perimeter will have to involve measures like the ones we propose in our motion.

Canada customs officers and immigration officers will have to be designated as full peace officers with the power to detain and arrest suspected criminals and terrorists. This will require that they have enhanced training and enhanced equipment.

Second, customs officers in particular have requested that they be removed from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. That agency is at root a tax collection agency. These customs officers should be placed in a designated law enforcement agency, perhaps an enhanced border control, that would fall under a law enforcement oriented department, such as the solicitor general.

Next we will need to have a firmer policy at the border so that surprise arrivals, who spontaneously claim refugee status at airports or at border crossings without proper documents such as passports or identity cards, should be detained, and not as the minister says “for a while” or “while certain checks are done” but until their identity is established and it can be determined that they do not present a health or security risk to Canadians.

Finally, there are a number of countries, including the United States and the member countries of the European Union, which are in compliance with article 33 of the Geneva convention on refugees. That means that these countries, like Canada, which are free and democratic and which are civilized and have an established history of protecting the human rights and interests of all people in their countries, are called safe countries according to that Geneva convention because they do not persecute, threaten or torture people for religious, political or other reasons. No persons in these countries deemed safe, such as Canada, could legitimately claim that they would be tortured or persecuted because of religious, political or other reasons.

People arriving from countries deemed as safe should not be accepted as refugee claimants. Persons arriving from these countries, countries like Canada, Sweden and Holland, who try to claim refugee status saying that they would be tortured back in the country from which they came should be put on the next plane or bus and sent back to the safe country from which they came.

In short, the motion presented by the Canadian Alliance today particularly addresses providing our customs officers with enhanced training, ensuring that those who turn up at our airports without identity papers are detained until they are identified and we are sure that they do not represent a threat to our security, no longer accepting refugees from the United States or member states of the European Union, and if such people turn up at our borders claiming refugee status, deporting them immediately.

To most members of the general public, these would sound like basic and common sense proposals.

Our customs and immigration officers should have the tools and training they need to do their job. Canada should not accept refugees from first world safe nations or those who are trying to identify themselves as such.

I am sure in the debate today we will hear members of the government claim that these are radical policies, Draconian or un-Canadian. This is the inevitable Liberal reaction to any ideas which originate from the Canadian Alliance.

It was the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, who once said that all truth goes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; and then if it is truth, it is accepted as self-evident.

That has been the pattern of so many of the policies presented by Canadian Alliance members and members before us on this side over the years. When we talked about reducing and getting rid of deficit and debt, we were called extreme; it was violently opposed; and then it was accepted by the Liberals. So many of our policies followed this pattern.

I have no doubt that some speakers on the government side today will express a mixture of ridicule and violent opposition to our proposals. However, I have no doubt that in a few months, the Prime Minister will agree to a very similar list of the proposals that we are presenting today. He will do that in a press conference, probably with President Bush, likely claiming that these were obvious ideas which he had supported all along. Watch for that to happen. This has been the pattern of the federal Liberal government since the beginning of the response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.

As early as September 15, I and others spoke to the House about two great imperatives in the response to these terrorist attacks. I said that Canada would need, as our British and American allies already had, comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation. I said that Canada should not hesitate to fulfill our obligation under article 5 of the NATO treaty to provide military assistance to our friend and ally, the United States.

At first, the government response was that these steps were an unnecessary overreaction and that there was no need to adopt such extreme measures. However, barely five weeks later, the government has now tabled anti-terrorism legislation that has many of the very suggestions of the Canadian Alliance in a motion that the Canadian Alliance tabled and the government voted against on September 18. Thankfully, the government has finally committed to military support in the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan; it was deemed not to be an overreaction.

I have no doubt that whatever the government talking points tell members to say today, and however the whip tells Liberal MPs to vote this evening, in a short period of time, in either the second round of anti-terrorism legislation or at a Canada-U.S. or Canada-U.S.-Mexico summit, we will see the government proudly introducing measures along the lines we are suggesting today.

I would ask the government members who will reply to the opposition supply day motion today to be very careful in what they say about our proposals and to remember the words that Prime Minister Trudeau wrote on his question period briefing book: “May my words today be soft and tender for I may have to eat them tomorrow.”

The focus of the motion is on providing a safe and secure border for Canada.

The government has gone to extreme and far reaching attempts in proposing to reach into the lives of Canadians with criminal justice legislation. Bill C-36 will provide for new and unprecedented powers, like the right to make preventive arrests, the ability to shut down websites for content that it may deem to be hateful and the ability to permanently lock access to information on national security or diplomatic grounds without even offering the possibility of review to the information commissioner.

Some of these new powers may well be necessary, and the government will argue for that. We will listen, we will take part and we will support where we feel that is necessary. Some may, indeed, be overdue additions to the new law enforcement arsenal that is required. However, there are some matters in Bill C-36 which will raise valid concerns about civil liberties.

The one question that keeps coming back to my mind is: Why has the government been so hasty to introduce legislation which will infringe, perhaps justifiably, on the rights of Canadian citizens domestically, but it has done almost nothing to prevent the arrival of potential terrorists here from abroad? I do not understand this contradiction.

If Canada presented a solid frontier at the border and terrorists and criminals knew they had little chance of making it in, then there would be no need for some of the powers the government is bringing in under Bill C-36. We need wiretap powers because over 50 international terrorist groups are known to operate in Canada. With very few exceptions, almost every one of the suspected terrorists originated from another country. If these groups had been prevented from establishing themselves here in the first place, we would have no need to provide new sweeping wiretap powers.

Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the RCMP's national security and intelligence section, the counterterrorism unit, spoke at the international conference on money laundering in Montreal last week. He pointed out that terrorist groups operating in Canada follow a common modus operandi. I am being careful to say that he was talking about terrorist groups and potential terrorists. That is who we are talking about, not all refugee claimants. We will be very upset if we get accused of that again today. We are talking about suspected terrorists.

This is what the distinguished member of the RCMP said:

Some people are sent here with a mission and some people come here on their own and are recruited. But once here, they all have the same MO (modus operandi).

He said that first they would claim refugee status, allowing the claimant to remain in Canada while their case worked its way through the system, which as we all know can take years. Then they would apply for benefits in Canada, welfare and health cards that provided an income stream while they got established. Next they would link with other criminals and terrorists to commit petty theft, economic fraud and other supposedly invisible crime. Then they would launder the money through legitimate businesses which then could be used to finance terrorist operations in Canada or abroad.

The pattern is common and the RCMP have seen it at work in different cities with different terrorist groups across Canada. Again I repeat it is not all refugee claimants. It is different terrorist groups across Canada. If we can break the cycle, we can do much to break the influence of terrorist groups in Canada. That is why I believe we can win this war if we fight it properly. The place we have to start is with tougher enforcement at the Canadian border.

In reference to Bill C-36, the Minister of Justice has said that its sweeping powers are necessary because we have to stop terrorists before they get on planes in Canada. She went on to say that when they got on planes intending to commit hijackings and killings, it was too late. We agree with that. The best way to ensure that terrorists do not get on our planes on our soil is not to allow them off the planes arriving in Canada in the first place.

Let me focus on one area of this debate which I believe will prove to be contentious. I have said in the House on several occasions that I believe people who arrive in Canada and spontaneously claim refugee status without proper identification or under suspicious circumstances, and I am not talking about all refugees, should be detained until their identities can be confirmed and until they have passed security clearance to ensure that they do not pose a danger to Canadians.

The minister of immigration, who is not known for using words which are soft and tender, said that this proposal of ours, which most Canadians would call common sense, was in fact “one of the dark moments in Canadian history”. She also said that it was nothing less than a proposal for penal colonies in Canada. We have never suggested such a thing and that is a departure from rational debate for her to even suggest that. Unfortunately, this reaction is only too typical of this minister who resorts to fearmongering and name calling in too many situations only to hide the weakness of her own logic and inaction.

When children are in schoolyards and their schoolmates call them names, they react with the chant: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me”. Unfortunately, in politics name calling can hurt. The Canadian Alliance knows only too well that a common and underhanded strategy of the government is to name call when it is losing the debate or when its reason is lacking. We also know that name calling can hurt because unfortunately it is easier to report than the substantive argument that triggered the irrational insult.

Even though we know that names can hurt us, we also know that the sticks and stones of an exploding building or a falling skyscraper can do more than break bones. It can cause death and destruction. We will run the risk of being politically hurt, through this reported but irrational name calling, and press on to propose the things that we know will make our nation a stronger and more peaceful land than it is already today.

The minister assures us that Canada can and does detain any people that immigration officers deem to be a security risk. Therefore, there is no need to detain the thousands per year who show up here without proper documentation. In saying this she contradicts her own department's admonitions about the very limited conditions under which they can resort to detention.

The government's detention policies state clearly that detention is considered only as a last resort and that even people with criminal records are not necessarily to be detained unless there is substantial reason to believe that they will reoffend while in Canada. I am sorry but when it comes to predicting criminal behaviour or who might reoffend the government has a hopeless record. It needs to have laws which detain those who might be a menace to our security.

Imagine a 25 year old man arriving in Canada from a country in the Middle East or North Africa where there are active terrorist groups, which have been named by CSIS, the United States and British governments and which are not declared to be safe under article 33 of the Geneva convention. The person says he wants to claim refugee status, that he does not have a passport because he used false documents to get to Canada and that he destroyed the documents on the plane. If there is no evidence to tie such a person to specific criminal activities, it would be hard under the current refugee detention guidelines for this person to be detained. It is unacceptable. We must have the power in place to detain such individuals.

Between now and the time in which legislation will finally come in, how many people with terrorist or criminal intent will walk away from our border points when they could have and should have been detained?

I respect the Liberal MPs who in 1998 recommended in a committee the very same things we talked about today. I ask them to consider the integrity of their loyalties. I understand the politics of following what a cabinet minister wants, but this is about more than the aspirations of a future cabinet minister or the fear of the whip. It is about doing the right thing. It is about something that could be a matter of life and death. It is about the only too real possibilities of what shameless and evil terrorists might do.

In 1998, when Liberals recommended the very things that we are asking for today, there was not much North American evidence of just how evil terrorists could be. Today, in a devastated crater in New York City, there are at least 6,000 reasons to motivate us all. I encourage all MPs to vote tonight on the side of what is right and just; on the side of peace, protection and freedom.

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

Mr. Speaker, since September 11 two changes have occurred that really have put an increased demand on our national leadership and on the political and international business exchange around the world.

We have responded. Our first declaration was to respond to the terrorism and the second is to respond to the economic recession. We have to deal with both. It seems as if the Liberals have left us completely unprepared for both of them. The Liberals cannot manage at all.

Would the leader of the Canadian Alliance respond to the deeper ideological reasons as to why Canada now is in a situation where we are really vulnerable? Who has been minding the store? The Liberals cannot blame the Conservatives any more, because the Liberals have been in power since 1993. It is not just an administrative foul-up, a miscommunication or the fact that someone is stupid. There is a deeper issue, an ideological attitude, an outlook that must be responded to, as to why Canada is now left vulnerable, both on our security side and our economic side.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a deeper root to this problem. It is, I believe, the federal Liberal notion that all people are basically good and that there are no mean and nasty people out there. The Liberals believe that in Canada we have to somehow reinforce this notion by making sure, for instance, that we do not have customs officers who would have to perhaps wear sidearms, that we do not put air marshals on airplanes, and that we do not make an assumption that maybe somebody who is arriving here without documentation could be a nasty or evil person. That shatters the Liberal philosophical view of what the world should look like.

In fact, there are evil people in the world. We are now hearing that there are actually people in Canada who are part of terrorist organizations that do not mind the thought of slaughtering innocent people.

The war on terrorism is not like a game of baseball. When individuals who are possibly on the run arrive in Canada without documentation they should not be accorded a tie when it comes to making a decision about them. The umpire should decide, when looking at the one who is on the run, that if the matter is unsure the tie goes and the umpire rules on the side of safety and security of our citizens, on the side of protection, not on the side of assuming that no person would want to do an illegal or an evil act. Illegal and evil acts are part of the mindset of some people. We must protect ourselves from that.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say I agree with the Leader of the Opposition insofar as I do believe that we on this side of the House do look at people in general as being good people.

However we are not naive and we have put in place these kinds of measures with respect to security in Canada, not only with customs and immigration but also with respect to CSIS and the RCMP.

For example, I just came from the justice committee of which I am a member. We listened to Commissioner Zaccardelli and Mr. Elcock talk about the kinds of measures being taken in this all important area. It is now a different world as a result of what took place on September 11. As a result we need to take extraordinary measures. That is exactly part of what Bill C-36 says.

It is important that we as a government, in a balanced and fair approach, with a measured response and with the kinds of responses necessary in keeping with the charter of rights and freedoms, maintain the kind of system that has, I believe, Canadian values at the core.

What I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition, however, is this: Does he think there is anything to be gained by fearmongering as he and his party are doing? Does he think there is anything to be gained by pitting people against people, group against group, province against province, as he often does? I would be interested in hearing his response, because what he always does, it seems to me, is try to stir up fear when really what we should be doing is taking a calming approach and making sure that we approach this problem with dignity and with the kind of steady response that I believe the government has given. I would be interested in his response.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

This is as predicted, Mr. Speaker. I said we would get this pretence of debate, by a form of name calling, that we are trying to stir up something.

What the member has just suggested is that the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain are involved in fearmongering because they take a very common sense approach of detaining somebody who, while he was flying somewhere, destroyed his documents. This is someone who destroys his identity and then says “I am an honest person. Take me at face value”. It is not a matter of fearmongering when we say “Hey, pal, we are going to detain you until it can be determined that you are not a security risk”.

This is not fearmongering. This is not stirring up fear at all. It is common sense and it is saying to our Canadian citizens that we respect them as much as the governments of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and England respect their citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks the minister has been telling us how we detain people who could be any type of risk to or problem for our society. Of course I have been taking the minister at face value on this.

Last Thursday, with the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, I visited the immigration facilities at the Vancouver International Airport. To my shock and horror I discovered that never, ever, is a person put back on an airplane and sent back to his or her destination when he or she arrives and claims refugee status with no documents. Nobody is ever detained unless it is so obvious that there is an international warrant for their arrest. Virtually everybody is released into society with no medical check and without fingerprints being checked, because that takes 10 months and then they are only checked in Canada any way.

I discovered that the minister has obviously never been on a tour because she does not know what is actually happening at the border.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he is aware that this is happening at the borders, that virtually every single person who enters and claims refugee status is immediately released. Yet when we had boatloads of Chinese claimants arrive here and detained them and processed them in detention, more than 90% were rejected. Has the Leader of the Opposition been aware of what is actually happening at our borders?

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of what has been happening at the borders. I am also aware of the good work done by the member who has just raised the issue and other members who have been aware of this problem for years. Yet when we bring it forward we are consistently charged with motives and with things other than our own genuine concern for the safety and security of our citizens.

I can say in all sincerity that I was shocked when the other day the minister fired on a policy that simply says if people have arrived here having torn up their documents, having flushed them down the toilet on the plane and hidden their identity, we would do as other safe countries are doing and detain them. We would detain them not just until we get their fingerprints, as the minister will try to say, not just for a little while, but until it is established that they are not a security risk. That is all we would do: detain them. What we get thrown back at us is that we want to establish penal colonies. If we were to put this policy in place, our unfortunate reputation of being a magnet for people who want to come here under questionable circumstances would be set back and people would not be getting on the planes.

As a matter of fact, there is a tragic irony when Liberals accuse us of wanting to do things like establish penal colonies. Does the minister mean the same kind of penal colonies that the Liberal government established in World War II to intern Japanese people in this country? Is that the kind of penal colony she is talking about, the kind the Liberals put in place? Or, in regard to refusing to allow certain people to come in, is she talking about the Liberal government policies that during the second world war turned away a boatload of Jewish people who had all their documents in order? Is that what she is talking about? If she wants to get into certain types of historical remembrances, to jar her sensitivities we can do that.

What we are asking for is common sense and common decency for the common people of our country. That is all we are asking for.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of weekends ago I was at one of our border checkpoints, one just south of Montreal. There I asked a point blank question of the people who deal with border security. They said they did not have enough sniffer dogs for eight locations on the Quebec border. They have one sniffer dog for eight locations. Also, they wanted ion scanners. When I visited just this last weekend they also told me they need vehicle lifts. They need to be able to lift up the vehicles so they can check underneath them and they need closed areas where they can take a vehicle off to the side to examine it.

I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to comment with regard to sniffer dogs, ion scanners, vehicle lifts and closed areas at our border points, things that the Liberal government and the minister across the way are not addressing.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to the minister that we will support her requests for increased resources because in her realm of responsibilities she will need increased personnel for a while. Until we turn around this reputation we have, she will need an increase in personnel and they are going to need the increased resources of highly technological equipment to equip them for the task.

Again, this is for a deterrent purpose. Once the word gets out that Canada is stepping up to the plate like the United States, Australia, New Zealand and England, like any common sense nation, we will see a depletion in the amount of people coming here under questionable circumstances.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo--Wellington.

Let me begin by getting right to the point. The opposition motion is, I believe, a simplistic reaction to a very complex set of issues and concerns. It looks for a quick fix where a range of efforts and instruments are both required and in fact already at work. The motion is uninformed, ill-considered and, in my view, impractical. Therefore, in short, it should be rejected by the House.

First let me be clear about the facts. The current Immigration Act already contains some of the toughest provisions to deny admission or deport terrorists and they are used frequently. Bill C-11, the new immigration and refugee protection act, would make a series of improvements that would allow us to intensify our fight against those who would threaten Canada's security. It clearly spells out a range for grounds for inadmissibility in a comprehensive code that would replace the current act's 50 different grounds scattered in 4 different lists. The new bill, called Bill C-11, contains comprehensive measures that would further strengthen national security, which is of course a priority not only for the government but for my department.

The new immigration and refugee protection act would add new grounds of inadmissibility. It would strengthen the authority to arrest criminals and individuals who present a threat to security. It would eliminate appeal rights in these cases and streamline the removal process for persons who are security threats.

Bill C-11 would provide our immigration officers with a set of up to date tools, the tools they need to bar entry to those who pose a threat to national security or engage in acts of terrorism or are part of a terrorist organization. Bill C-11 would bar entry to those who have committed human rights violations such as war crimes or crimes against humanity. It would also bar entry to those who have been convicted for serious criminality in or outside Canada.

Canadians have told us what they want in immigration and refugee legislation. Let me say that we have listened and we have acted. The training on these new provisions and their subsequent application is already taking place. It is underway, as we anticipate the bill will be passed, hopefully soon, in the Senate.

I want to be clear about Canada's relationship to immigration. Immigration is an important face of Canada's future, just as it has been in the past. Immigrants will help us to sustain our standard of living and replenish our labour market as the baby boomers begin to retire.

Let us consider for a moment some of the demographics. In just 10 years immigration will be the only source of labour market growth. In just 20 years Canada's only source of population growth will be from immigration. Of this there is no doubt. Canada needs immigrants for our future growth and prosperity if we are to compete in a global economy and continue to grow and prosper. Yes, have no doubt about this, but we do and will crack down on criminals and security threats. We will do everything in our power to fight and defeat the scourge of terrorism, but we cannot and we will not turn Canada into a fortress. Our economy, our society, and our way of life are too important to us to sacrifice them in this way.

Part of my mandate as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in partnership with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the RCMP, CSIS, the customs agency, the Department of Justice and the solicitor general, is to help maintain the safety of Canadian society. Canadians are of course naturally disturbed and worried and feeling insecure and fearful because of last month's activities. They should know, and I think do know, that their government has acted and was right to have taken the action it has. They were concerned that criminals might be slipping into the country. They were concerned that the safety and security of Canada's borders might be compromised. That is why I announced my department's recent four-pronged strategy as part of the government's anti-terrorism plan.

My department's share of the emergency fund would amount to almost $50 million. That is a considerable sum for my department. It would strengthen the department's ability to move quickly on such key measures as the new maple leaf card, a permanent resident card for new immigrants that will be fraud resistant, tamper resistant and secure. The first step has already been initiated in intensified security screening of all refugee claimants, enhanced detention and increased deportation activity.

My department and its partners are working together to protect Canada's borders. We are working with the United States to protect our common border to ensure security and the important flow of trade between our two countries.

Canada is only one among the countries which find themselves facing the new and emerging terrorist threat to freedom and justice. As clearly illustrated by the terrible attacks on the United States last month, our terrorist opponents are highly motivated, highly skilled, funded networks of fanatics with access to intelligence and technology. Its members can change identity and location to elude authorities. They often use expertly forged documents.

We must be aware when we act emotionally or out of fear that above all we must guard against turning our fears against our own best interests. It is in our interest to continue to welcome immigrants, those who have helped build this country and who will be needed in the future to help us continue to grow and prosper. It is in our interest to welcome genuine refugees. Canada is proud of its humanitarian tradition. We despair about some of the dark moments of our history and do not want to make those mistakes again.

While no country is immune to the dangers, perhaps no two countries work more closely on the common goal of ensuring the safety of their citizens than Canada and the United States. The Government of Canada reacted and responded immediately to the horrendous acts of September 11. Immigration officers have increased their vigilance and tightened border controls. Our officers have been on high alert and are conducting intensified security screening of all arrivals on both sides of the border.

We work together more closely than any two countries in the world. That is why we will not unilaterally declare the United States to be, in the vernacular terminology of the Geneva convention, a safe third country. That has special meaning.

The opposition motion assumes we would do so without the consent of our American partners. It assumes we would begin sending back to the U.S. large numbers of refugee claimants who come to us through the United States. That is simplistic. Such arrangements rely on negotiated bilateral treaties. We are open to such discussions as we are open to discussions about a range of instruments and procedures to help make our system more compatible and efficient.

Why is my esteemed colleague determined to cast a pall over the country's good reputation? I am here today to assure him and all Canadians that there is every reason to speak confidently about Canada's role in the battle against terrorism. Canada is a world leader in detection and deportation. If we take the example of perpetrators of modern day war crimes and crimes against humanity, Canada has long voiced its strategy in this regard. My colleagues from around the world come to Canada to ask for our advice and look at what we do and how we do it. Canadians should be proud.

I will put the challenge in context. Over 110 million people enter Canada each year. Despite these numbers our enforcement officers have produced tremendous results. I am proud of the effort of the people who have been working in my department on this important initiative.

Our enforcement officers reported 65,000 people, 7,300 of whom were serious criminals, in the year 2000 alone. We have increased resources for overseas interdiction. We have one of the best immigration control officers networks anywhere in the world. It is a model. Our officers are placed at airports around the world and they train airline staff. They are doing an outstanding job.

We will continue to make every effort to stop people from coming to Canada who do not belong, who have murder in their hearts or terrorism on their minds or have committed serious crimes. We will do everything we can to protect Canadian interests. We will continue these efforts but we will not accept simplistic, quick fix proposals like the one proposed by the opposition today.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard how well the system works so I will cite the example of the case of Nabil Al-Marabh.

Mr. Al-Marabh had been ordered deported. He was facing criminal charges in the United States. He was arrested trying to enter the United States carrying forged Canadian passports and, unbelievably, was detained for all of two weeks by the Immigration and Refugee Board of our country. It now turns out he may have been one of the organizers and masterminds of the September 11 atrocity.

My question is simple and I am not talking about immigration policy. Would the new legislation and the minister have the ability to detain suspicious refugee claimants who arrive here without documents or with questionable documents until they are cleared and proven not to be security risks? Simplistic, yes, it is very simplistic. Canadians want to know they will be safe and secure.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, existing immigration law gives authority to immigration officers to detain individuals if they are suspicious, if they do not know who the individual is, if they are concerned they will not show up for hearings, or if they have any evidence whatsoever to suggest the person poses a threat to national security. That is also contained in the new legislation. It would go a step further by stating clearly that if someone is undocumented and uncooperative it is grounds for detention.

We detain whenever we have concern and when we have evidence to sustain the detention. In Canada we must have evidence to be able to detain someone and take away their liberties. That is one of the important features of the Immigration Act. It gives my officers the authority to do that and they do it.

I would caution the Leader of the Opposition not to act as judge and jury on individual cases and not to do or say anything that might prejudice the outcome of an important investigation or trial. We want justice to be served by bringing people who are guilty to justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister has suggested the opposition motion was an overreaction, an inappropriate reaction and a quick fix to a complex problem. She said the government does not take simplistic approaches to these questions.

If the government does not resort to the quick fix approach, why did it jump to buy an illegal medication for the anthrax problem when there was a legal medication available? The government jumped to purchase an illegal product that had not been tested or approved. It seems to me that is a quick fix.

The member of parliament for North Vancouver said that when immigrants with no papers, wrong papers or whatever come into Canada through an airport they are released into society. Could the minister either confirm or deny that? Is everybody released into society no matter what?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question of the member opposite is a good one. A wrong impression is being created. At every border point there are immigration officers checking the people who arrive, whether they are immigrants, refugee claimants, visitors or students.

As I said, 110 million people come to Canada each year and they are checked by our immigration officers and customs officials. If our customs officers have a concern that someone poses a threat, if they do not know who they are or if they believe they will not show up for any kind of hearing, they have the authority to detain and they do detain. To suggest that is not happening is false and it is fearmongering.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. It is well worth the consideration of the House in terms of what we as a government have done in the last while in terms of Bill C-11 and other measures.

For many years the countries of North America have discussed and worked together on initiatives born of a common desire to make our continent more prosperous and competitive on a global scale. Sadly the current initiative to fortify our respective borders is born of terror and bloodshed.

It is Canada's hope that all nations of the continent will do what they can individually to respond to the needs of the collective. Bill C-11, it goes without saying, is a major move forward for Canada in upholding the enforcement of our borders. It is a good bill and it is worthy of support.

Today in the House we are considering a motion that requests that the government work more diligently to secure our borders. The government has responded to that demand by bringing forward Bill C-11 and making it an utmost priority, and rightfully so.

The motion before us requests increased powers of detention for customs and immigration officials. I find it passing strange that a short five months ago the Canadian Alliance immigration critic tabled a motion in the House to amend Bill C-11 at report stage. Motion No. 5 would have watered down the definition of security threat to determine who is admissible to Canada. The motion was supported by all members of the Alliance.

I find it strange that one thing was said then and quite another is said now. Our definition of Bill C-11 includes activities outside Canada and indirect threats. The Canadian Alliance motion included only direct and active threats. The Alliance went further. It tabled a motion at committee stage to restore certain appeal rights through the immigration appeal division for serious criminals and threats to Canadian security. Bill C-11 has removed these to allow for quicker removals from Canada.

I am not sure what that is called. The word flip-flop comes to mind. The ability to detain and arrest at the border suspected terrorists or individuals who do not provide proper paperwork for identification is already in place. Bill C-11 works to increase the capabilities of our frontline officers by giving them early access to security screening processes and enhanced exclusionary mechanisms to remove undesirables from the process. The people who handle refugee cases now have more tools with which to work.

The Canadian Immigration Act currently allows customs and immigration officers and officials to detain anyone they determine to be a security risk to Canadians. Bill C-11 provides a means to strengthen the ability of officials to bar entry to Canada of potential terrorists whether they commit terrorist acts in Canada or in other countries.

On October 12 the minister of immigration announced a five part security strategy as part of Canada's anti-terrorism plan. As part of that plan the government is strengthening immigration measures in light of the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11. The minister has announced that we are increasing detention capability and hiring up to 100 new staff to enforce upgraded security at ports of entry. As a further sign that the government is committed to this initiative, and rightfully so, cabinet approved funding of $4 million to cover these needs in the coming months.

The issue of detention has been a delicate one indeed. The government is attempting through Bill C-11 to find the proper and acceptable balance between protecting the citizens of Canada and maintaining an even-handed approach with those legitimately attempting to gain entry into Canada.

Customs and immigration officers are fully trained to perform their duties effectively. They are aware of their duty to uphold the values of fairness, openness and protection that Canadians across this great country of ours hold dear.

Of course of the 100 million people who come to Canada each year not all are seeking to get in illegally by way of refugee status. However it must be noted that in the 2000-01 timetable for which data is available over 8,700 individuals were detained for a total of 136,000 days.

This is a tremendous success for the officials patrolling our borders. On any given average day the number of individuals in detention under the auspices of the Immigration Act ranges from 400 to 800 people. That is a significant number when looked at over the long term. I am saying to the House and the Canadian people that the system in place works efficiently and effectively in most of the cases most of the time.

Immigration officials do not work alone. Canada has nurtured working relationships with CSIS, the RCMP and foreign immigration and law enforcement agencies such as those in the United States, Great Britain and the European Union to prevent criminals and people who are considered to be a security risk from entering Canada. We have worked closely with our partners not only within Canada but internationally as well. These networks of information are crucial to maintaining our level of security and safety.

The United Nations security council recently passed a binding resolution regarding elimination of terrorist financing. Two paragraphs contained therein demanded that the United States tighten its refugee regulations. Canada will continue to welcome refugees and will adhere to the resolution passed by the United Nations. Canada has commenced work in this regard with Bill C-11.

We have implemented a screening process for all refugees that is stringent yet fair. We have made it clear to all who appear at our country's doorstep that no individual involved in terrorist acts will be welcomed here. Furthermore, they will be ineligible to make a refugee claim in Canada.

As was mentioned on an earlier occasion, the Immigration Act currently allows for interdictions abroad. Canadian officials overseas work closely with the transportation industry to examine and evaluate the paperwork of immigrants and visitors coming to our country. Embarkation is denied when necessary and when required.

Over the past two years Citizenship and Immigration Canada increased the number of control officers from 31 to 48. This network of immigration control officers abroad in the last year alone intercepted 6,000 improperly documented travellers that were attempting to fly into Canada. Over the last six years approximately 33,000 people attempted to enter Canada fraudulently and they were detected and stopped before they departed their country of origin. The interdiction program is successful and the department can be very proud it.

These are trying times not only in Canada but around the world in terms of what took place on September 11. However we had foresight with respect to Bill C-11. The minister in her wisdom brought forward a very good bill which we as a government supported. It has proceeded through committee and ultimately through the House. It was fortuitous for us to do that in keeping with the values of Canada, in keeping with what we needed to do by way of security measures at our borders and with respect to people coming into Canada.

We will not allow people who are terrorists, who harbour terrorists or who want to wreak havoc on Canadian soil to get in. However, what we will do is be fair and evenhanded to genuine people of refugee status who want to come to Canada. We will support them in the way that Canada has always supported them.

At the end of the day we will keep building a country of significance where values are built on common sharing, caring, compassion and tolerance. That is our Canada, the Canada that seeks to enhance the very fundamental core of those Canadian values that are so dear to people across this great country of ours.

At the same time we will ensure that we are safe and secure not only in our communities and neighbourhoods but in the country as a whole. That is what Canadians and parliamentarians want. We as a government will ensure that while on the one hand we will be fair and evenhanded and ensure that the charter is respected as it should be, on the other hand we will also bring forward the security measures required.

Bill C-11 does that. It does it in a way that is in keeping with those great Canadian values. I am very proud that the government brought that legislation forward with the foresight that was required.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier the minister of immigration again used some very uncomplimentary terms. She accused the official opposition of fearmongering.

Members will recall that a few years ago 2,200 blank visa forms were stolen and 788 computer files were altered in our immigration computer system called CAIPS in our Hong Kong foreign mission. Foreign missions are the first line of defence for us. Those altered files were naturally the files of organized criminals attempting to abuse our immigration system and enter Canada. Those people may have been organized criminals or terrorists. We do not know.

Would the parliamentary secretary tell the House what his government has done to curtail corruption in our foreign missions which are our first line of defence?

It has been shown that some locally hired employees in those missions are engaged in corruption and fraud. Some time ago I lodged a complaint with the ministry and the RCMP. A special squad of the RCMP went to New Delhi and Islamabad, and they fired four locally hired employees in Delhi and three in Islamabad based on information I had provided. However I have never heard anything from the government side of the House on what the government has done to curtail corruption in our foreign embassies.

Could the parliamentary secretary to the minister comment on this issue and highlight anything in the bill about which he boasted so enthusiastically?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I can say in response to the member opposite is that the government will take whatever measures are necessary to correct situations as they exist. When there are problems abroad or within Canada we move very quickly to ensure that the proper authorities are notified and that the corrective measures are taken.

Are we perfect all the time? No, we are not. We are like any other country in this regard. If the Americans had been perfect in their screening of terrorists the 19 people who landed in Florida and did the kinds of things that they ultimately did would have been caught very quickly. That did not happen.

The reason it did not happen is that up to this point we have been taking the kind of security measures that have been required based on world effort. What we need to do now is make sure that we have more security based on the kinds of things that have happened. The Americans have learned that lesson the hard way. We in Canada are doing the kinds of things that are required, not only with immigration and with customs but also with CSIS and the RCMP.

The world has changed and Canada's priorities have also shifted as a result. I do not understand why the opposition is always pointing out the negative, always chipping away at the people who do great work on behalf of Canada.

Why does the opposition not help us and work with us on this instead of fearmongering all the time and always putting up the most outrageous and negative cases? Why does it not say that it will help us, that it will work with us, and that it will stand up for Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for Waterloo--Wellington. Unfortunately the government seems to know how to do the talking but there are very little results from the way it walks the talk.

The minister indicated this morning that the current legislation allows for removal and deportation. Unfortunately that is rarely exercised. Over the last months we have heard the immigration minister repeatedly tell Canadians how important it was that Bill C-11 be passed.

I was glad to hear that the member for Waterloo--Wellington gave us some numbers in terms of people entering Canada who were detained due to fraud or improper identification. In fact in the year 2000--