Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2001

Supply

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I made note of a statement made by the previous speaker for the opposition. He said that most of the refugees who arrive in Canada and claim refugee status are not refugees. He is the opposition critic in the citizenship and immigration committee. That is so wrong that it is laughable. The approval rate by the refugee board is 57% of people who make claims. Members would be surprised to know that the approval rate in the United States is 54%.

I wish our society was a neat little box like the member opposite suggests. If people do not meet the standards of our comfortable little cozy world in Canada then we are automatically suspicious.

We do the security checks and the interviews. We find out who the people are, where they are from and what they are doing. If they pose a security risk or if there is any doubt that they may not show up for a hearing, they are detained. What more do these people want? Do they want a penal colony? That is not Canada.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble following the logic of the member opposite and that is not unusual. Sometimes during a reasonable debate in the House we have to put up with what is going on across the way as is the case during this debate.

Canadians are worried about this issue. Our constituents are in our offices. They call us because they are nervous and concerned. They want to make sure they are safe and secure in their own country. The first priority of any government is to make sure its citizens are safe and secure.

How can the member explain more than 20,000 people who should not be in Canada living in Canada and doing whatever they do? They have been refused admission to Canada and they are still here. How does the member explain that?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as MPs we all know what goes on in our offices regarding immigration. I am sorry if the hon. member wants to insult me personally about my presentation, but I feel very passionately about the issue. I am the longest serving member of the citizenship and immigration committee.

We have people who apply for visitor visas and come to Canada. When that visa expires they disappear. Am I happy about that? No, I am not, but they are not criminals. Many of them are working in the housing industry and in the construction trades. They are also not necessarily refugees.

We have people in Canada and in the United States who are living here without the proper status. Yes, we should try to correct that and Bill C-11 goes a long way toward allowing us to do that. This is a bill that the hon. member's party spoke against in committee and voted against in the House.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of a secure border is a very major issue for all Canadians. It should not only be secure but also perceived to be secure. We trade mostly manufactured goods with our southern partner in the United States. The products that cross that border amount to $1.5 billion a day. We need a seamless border which allows goods to travel back and forth with no problem at all.

A manufacturing corporation which has a large engine plant in Windsor made a statement last week to show how important the seamless flow of goods and merchandise is across the border. It said that when an engine leaves the engine plant in Windsor it is important that no blockage at the border occur because in two hours they expect under the delivery system that they operate on the engine to be in a truck going off the assembly line in Detroit. That is the kind of just in time delivery system that is required if our Canadian industry is to be compatible and operating with our American partners.

It is very clear that our borders are significant to all trade. We cannot avoid to bottleneck everything at the border. How do we strike that balance between security and business opportunities to make certain that everyone survives and survives reasonably well?

It is imperative that we look at our system of immigration and refugees and state things that are accurate. When I look at some of the facts pertaining to our border, they are not what I hear every day.

Canada and the United States share some 8,800 kilometres of border. In Canada we employ more inspectors and people at the border than our U.S. counterparts. Canada has 350 citizenship and immigration inspectors and 2,400 customs inspectors while the United States at the same time has approximately 1,500 in total. The number of people who work at Canada's borders are nearly double those in the United States.

Many statements have been made by politicians in Canada and in the United States that Canada is a haven for terrorism. That is absolutely not true. Let us look at terrorism and what happened tragically on September 11. Canadians did not go into the United States and create that danger. However we have to look very carefully at border operations between Canada and the United States. Certainly some changes need to occur.

Senior bureaucrats in the United States have commented that most of the western border crossings do not operate on a 24 hour basis. They were talking about North Dakota. Three out of fifteen border crossings operate on a 24 hour a day system. That means the other 12 only operate from 9 until 5. The only thing that stops anybody from crossing the border is a red cone in the middle of the road. That is not the protection we expect between Canada and the United States.

Our border has been very open. It has not required security. The U.S., with 2,000 and some people at the border, did not see Canada as a problem before September 11. The U.S. has eight times as many people at the Mexican border than at the Canadian border. That means it saw a major problem between Mexico and the United States but did not see the same problem between Canada and the United States.

I find difficulty with some of the irresponsible comments that have been made at this point in time. There has been a lot of irresponsible finger pointing and rhetoric that does nothing to enhance our opportunities in Canada or our business opportunities abroad.

I find difficulty with the suggestion that we do not make sure that when immigrants or refugees land in Canada they are brought into an inspection area, fingerprinted, questioned and checked. If for any reason a person coming into Canada shows evidence, as the former speaker has said, of being a danger to the country, a terrorist threat or someone who might not appear at future hearings, the person is detained.

We do not just open the borders and allow anyone to come in. Health and criminal checks are done on every person who makes an application. People cannot just fly in, go abroad or do whatever they wish. That is not the case. However this is the message I hear from various people, and it is a pretty unfair message.

In my area where crossing the border is so important car traffic has been down by 60% since September 11. In southwestern Ontario small restaurants and businesses that depend on cross-border traffic, tool and dye companies and our whole tourist and manufacturing sectors are finding these times very difficult. Plants are laying people off and having brief shutdowns. The backups at the borders are as long as two hours in some cases. At other times traffic flows through relatively easily.

If an American thinking about coming over to Windsor for supper knows there will be a potential two hour backup at the border and another hour backup going home, he will not use the Canadian facilities. Our business is suffering dramatically as a result.

Canadians must be reassured that the country is safe. I give the commissioner of the RCMP a tremendous amount of credit. When he met with the immigration committee last week and with the Senate briefly, his number one message was that Canada is the safest country in the world.

We make certain that people coming into Canada are checked carefully. Our sharing of information with officers around the world, be it Europeans, Americans or anyone else, is extremely good. Through CSIS and the RCMP we have access to all kinds of records of people from every nation of the world so that we can check carefully.

We are well known for training people and making sure the immigration and RCMP officers at our borders are highly trained and skilled. That does not mean we have a perfect system. However we are putting a great deal of money into improving it through the terrorist bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard some of the Liberals today stand on the other side of the House to give us their talking points as though there were almost no problems with the immigration system. I served with some of them on the citizenship and immigration committee. At that time, thankfully, they were willing to acknowledge there were problems and put out some reports, but they have not measured up in terms of reporting back mechanisms.

I will propose a scenario and ask my Liberal friend across the way a question. The government and the minister have the power to detain people. Liberal members have been talking about fingerprinting and everything else in some of their speeches, and I am sure it is on all their talking points. However if people arrive at one of our airports who have burned or destroyed their documentation, all they are asked for is their name. That is all that happens. If they give their name that is good enough.

Because the people at our airports do not want to deal with all the paperwork and problems and whatnot, they pass it on. All they do is take down the person's name and hope that at some point whoever it is will show up at an appropriate time before an appropriate body.

I would point out to everyone listening today and to my Liberal friends across the way that despite the fact the Liberal government has the power to detain it does not. This makes it easier for our people at airports who do not have the proper staff, manpower or resources because the government has not given them what they need. As a result people arriving in Canada can give a fictitious name and walk free. Is that not true?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a real problem with the question and the way it was put forward, not because it is not an important issue for Canadians but because of the insinuations it makes.

My colleague stated that immigration officers do not want to be bothered. Quite frankly, that is anything but true. I have met with people on the immigration board. I have met with immigration officers, many of whom are neighbours and friends of people across the country. They are there to protect our borders. No one in the House should make a blanket statement that immigration officers do not do their job. That is ridiculously wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves for doing that.

Liberals detain people. There is absolutely no question. The hon. member for Dauphin--Swan River, the critic for the opposition party, appeared before the committee working on Bill C-11 to talk about the bill. He tried to weaken the bill the Liberals put on the floor of the House in June. These were his words:

An officer shall not detain a person who is not a Canadian citizen for a term of greater than six months.

Quite frankly Alliance members cannot stand today and say that was not the case. They jump on the bandwagon when they should not. They create fear where it is not and they do not take responsibility for past actions. That is a shame, but that is the Alliance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am waiting for an answer to the question that was put to the member. I am hoping he will get to it. It was a straightforward question.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was that anyone could get off a plane and walk free on the streets with no problem at all. These gentlemen need to bring forward information with regard to what is happening.

When people get off a plane without documentation they are fingerprinted and there is a security criminal check. When they get off a plane without information there is a medical check and they are searched to make sure they do not have other bits of information. If there is any thought at all that people will not report back for a hearing they are detained.

That is true in every case. Quite frankly this is a way of saying the members do not agree that the people in our system do their jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey North. I am pleased to be the next to speak because I can clarify something that was said by the member who just spoke.

I visited the Vancouver airport immigration processing centre last Thursday with the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast. The hon. member for Chatham--Kent Essex needs to visit an immigration centre to find out what actually happens.

When the member says the people who get off planes are fingerprinted he is correct. They are. However does he know that it takes 10 months to get the fingerprint results back? Does he know that it is only for fingerprint records in Canada and nowhere else in the world? A person can turn up and give any name such as Joe Smith. CSIS will check only that name in its records. The fingerprints take 10 months to check and they are only for Canada. Can the hon. member not see that a criminal can walk into Canada instantly?

There are no medical checks. The member can verify this any place where there is an immigration port. The refugee claimant is given a package of documents, asked to report at a certain time to a certain place, and given an application for a medical check. However there are no medical checks at the airport before the person is released.

As for detention, yes, technically it is true that people can be detained. However last week when we were in Vancouver there were only five people detained and awaiting deportation. They were all international criminals with lengthy international warrants for their arrest who had been identified. For people who are detained because they are uncooperative, the maximum amount of time is two to three days in the Richmond lock-up and then they are released. As soon as they give any name at all they are given the refugee package and dispensed out the door.

I challenge the hon. member or any other person on that side who has been brainwashed with their talking points to go to any port of entry in the country and prove me wrong, because that is what happens.

Everyone in this place knows it is ridiculous to suggest there could be refugee claimants from Amsterdam in Holland, Heathrow in the U.K. or Frankfurt in Germany. That would be ridiculous. These countries do not produce refugees. However for Canada they do. We accept refugees from Heathrow, Amsterdam and Frankfurt every day of the week. These are people who get on planes in countries where they need to change planes. They change planes at Frankfurt, Heathrow or Amsterdam.

The UN charter on refugees allows refugees to claim safety in the first safe country they get to. I challenge anyone on that side of the House to tell me how people can be refugees if they change planes at Heathrow, Amsterdam or Frankfurt and choose to come to Canada. Did they not forgo their opportunity to claim refugee status in the first safe country they reached?

When it comes to refugee producing countries I cannot think of many. The only one from which there is a non-stop flight to Canada is Cuba. There might be others; I could be corrected on this point. However everyone else must change planes somewhere, and that somewhere is always a safe country. When people get on a plane with a $600 U.S. ticket, I want to know where they purchased it, who gave them the money and if they came from Somalia or Afghanistan. I want to know how they got the ticket.

The U.S. takes the attitude that if people arrive with no documents it is a pretty good indication of the type of character they are. It indicates that they trying to hide something. They do not get admitted. They get shipped out right away. Anyone who has no documents does not get into the United States.

In other respects the United States is as weak as us. It detains people for a short time. It has in the past, as we have, released these people for medical examinations and so on. It needs to tighten up its rules as well.

The member who just spoke said it is wrong to say Canada is a haven for terrorists. However CSIS has told us there are more than 300 people with terrorist links in the country right now. Can Liberal members deny this? CSIS has identified them for us. In addition, 50 or more organizations with terrorists links are raising money.

If there were no problem why is it the new bill the government has put on the table includes provisions to take away the charitable status of these terrorist organizations? I wonder how many Canadian people know that terrorist organizations at the moment can legally set up a charity in Canada under the umbrella that they are informing people, that it is an information service about terrorism, and all the while they are happily raising money.

The Minister of Finance attended a fundraising dinner that CSIS warned him could be a fundraising dinner for terrorists, the Tamil tigers. There is a lot to answer for on that side of the House. They can wax eloquent on their talking points all day and quote their brainwashed programming from upstairs but it does not alter what is happening at our border crossings.

I asked the NDP member who stood up earlier whether she was aware that on any particular night in downtown Vancouver 50% of the arrests made by police are refugee claimants. Surely that is an indication there is a problem. If that is occurring at every major centre across the country, we have a huge problem on our hands, and that is the amount of resources being consumed because we were careless at the borders.

When we had several boatloads of Chinese migrants arrive here last summer, the immigration minister finally showed some courage and detained those people while we processed their claims, considerably faster than average I might add. What did we do? We rejected more than 90% of those people. More than 90% were found to be cheats, queue jumpers or non-refugees. They were opportunists trying to come in through the back door when they should have been coming through the normal immigration process.

Last Thursday immigration officials told us that for every 63 people arriving at the airport claiming refugee status, 200 people claim refugee status at a downtown immigration office in Vancouver, that is 200 people who have slipped through with forged documents, visitor visas or some other way with the intention of claiming refugee status, getting on our social welfare programs, obtaining free dental care, a free apartment to live in and 12 years of appeals before their refugee status is ruled on.

My riding has probably one of the largest refugee claiming populations in the country. It has been estimated that up to 50% of the people in the Iranian community are refugee claimants. I have had genuine Iranian immigrants call my office identifying some of these people by name and asking me why we let them in. They give me names of certain Iranian individuals who are criminals and wanted for bank robbery or other crimes in Iran. I always report the names to immigration Canada but it never has any record of those names because these criminals do not use their own names when they come to Canada.

The fact is that anyone coming to our border and making a refugee claim when they changed planes in Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Heathrow is a queue jumper because there are millions of genuine refugees in United Nations' camps around the world waiting for us to help them. We should be sending a strong message throughout the world that we want to help genuine refugees and we will take the maximum number we possibly can within our economic constraints, but they will all come prescreened from United Nations' refugee camps. If people want to get into Canada they must go there. They should not bother trying to queue jump into this country because it is not right and we will not tolerate it. The other side loves to talk about tolerance and that Canada is a wonderfully tolerant country, but we will not tolerate queue jumpers, cheats, criminals or anyone else who is taking advantage of our system.

I would like to actually compliment the government for stationing immigration officers in places like Heathrow, Amsterdam and Frankfurt because they do a great job prescreening and assisting the airlines in tracking false documentation, but they are spread too thin. The airlines have told me that they have one of these people on hand who can be called if necessary but it is not for every flight and every passenger. There are still plenty of people sneaking through.

I would put to the other side, who happily quoted that we prevented 6,000 people from getting on planes last year, that figure might have been 60,000 if we had been checking every document and every flight carefully at Frankfurt, Heathrow and Amsterdam.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, one of the frustrations I have heard from many members of parliament is that we continue to hear in the debate a co-mingling of refugees and immigrants. As members know, there is a difference and a different process.

I think the member has probably added again to this confusion by talking substantively about refugees and then talking about queue jumping.

I wonder if the member could clarify what he referred to as queue jumpers so that Canadians will understand how that terminology relates to refugees and how it relates to immigrants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for giving me the opportunity to expand on this topic.

I am an immigrant. When I applied in 1977 to come to this country I was turned down the first time. Some may say that was good but the fact is that I was turned down the first time and I think that was very wise. The first step is to make sure that the people who decide at a party on a Saturday night that they want to go to Canada need to be weeded out right away. I applied again wondering why I did not get in the first time? It took two years for my family to get approval to come here. It was 1979 before we came and we felt we had earned our right to come here. We went through the process and did it properly. We did not try to queue jump.

We should have a similar process for refugees. As I mentioned and as the member knows, there are many refugees waiting in United Nations' camps around the world. I believe those refugees have every right to expect prompt attention to their plight. For every person we accept at our border and use resources and processing time on, it is one or more people who we cannot use resources and processing time on from those United Nations' camps where they have already been proven to be refugees.

I would say that anybody who comes to this country via Heathrow, Amsterdam or Frankfurt is probably not a refugee and is jumping ahead of the proper process, which is to be recognized as a refugee first. That is what is happening at United Nations' camps. We should send the message that nobody is coming to this country pretending to be a refugee when they more properly should come through the correct channels and get in the queue along with all those people who have been waiting patiently for years in refugee camps.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Vancouver gave an interesting speech. I know he has a very busy constituency office dealing with immigration matters. In my constituency office in Grand Prairie, immigration takes up the biggest part of our workload.

Canada accepts about 250,000 to 300,000 immigrants yearly. We are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants and we know we need to have immigration in order to continue to have the level of population we need for the economy to grow. I do not think that is in question.

My office is sometimes involved in immigration cases where it takes up to three years for people, who are going through the process legitimately, to come into Canada. I have met with a lot of people who would make outstanding citizens. Does my colleague not experience the same kind of situation where people who are trying to come in through the legitimate process are waiting longer because we are facing a huge problem with refugees coming into this country illegally and thereby inflating the numbers which hurts legitimate applicants?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up that point which I should have mentioned when I stood on the intervention previously.

He is absolutely correct. Our immigration department has a huge amount of refugee claims which no doubt take resources away from genuine immigrants. I have had refugee claimants call me up to say that their files are taking a long time.

Members would be amazed if they saw some of the files that I see from people asking for assistance. Incidentally, I never act as an advocate for someone trying to get into the country but my office will definitely check the file to make sure it is on track. I had a refugee claimant upset that he was being rejected because he had been back to Iran, the country from which he was claiming refugee status. I asked him how he could be a refugee if he went back? He said “how else am I supposed to look after my business?” There is the problem.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on my party's supply motion. In light of September 11, each one of the four points outlined in the motion is of the highest importance to all Canadians and our allies.

In my submission to the House today, I intend to address each point in the motion. It is obvious to Canadians and our neighbours that the time has come to do more than just consider a continental perimeter initiative. We need to take decisive action to ensure the security of our country and to protect our vital trading relationships.

Today's motion calls on the government to take four steps that the Canadian Alliance believes will go a long way toward ensuring that our country can make a significant contribution to the fight against terrorism on the home front as well as maintaining the healthy trading relationship we currently enjoy with the United States.

The first area that today's motion explores is not only to provide both immigration and customs officers with the training that is required but to also give them full officer status to allow them to detain and arrest suspected criminals at all points of entry.

It is obvious to most Canadians and to our American neighbours that the current safeguards on our front lines are substandard. I want to be very clear. This is not the fault of the hard working men and women who staff our borders. It is the government which refuses to give them the tools and training necessary to do the job properly.

I have been informed that at Pearson International Airport during peak arrival times in the primary customs inspection area, up to 25% of the staff are university students with little more than two weeks worth of training. The students are left with minimal supervision to make decisions as to who can enter the country and who must go on to secondary inspection.

It is incredible to me that in the wake of the events of September 11 and the claims of the government to have beefed up security, the students are still out there as our first line of defence. Even more shocking, I have learned that at some of our land border crossings there are students doing secondary customs inspection. This has to stop. If Canada expects the U.S. to take any of our border security measures seriously, we require qualified and highly trained people on our front lines and they must be given the powers they need to do the job. This is the type of initiative that would go a long way to better securing our borders.

This brings me to the issue of giving our front line officers the powers and tools to detain and arrest suspected criminals and terrorists. I will go back to the Pearson airport example. I have learned that if customs officers wants to detain or arrest a suspected criminal or terrorist, they may have to wait anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour for police to respond to the call. A lot can happen in half an hour without the proper equipment or powers to do the job.

Not only are we putting Canadians at risk with the current practices, we are seriously jeopardizing the safety of our front line workers.

The next logical step is to examine our more remote border crossings. How long is the response time of police at those locations? It is an unenviable position in which the government places its front line border staff. More to the point, Canadian security is put to risk.

It is clear by the actions of the government that our front line customs officers are to be little more than duty and tax collectors. It would seem that the government, as evidenced by its inaction, is more interested in collecting the health minister's $10 duty on a carton of cigarettes than it is in identifying or arresting terrorists or serious criminals.

This brings me to the second point of today's motion. If the government is to take seriously the threat of terrorists and criminals breaching our borders and using Canada as a staging ground for their nefarious activities, we need to move the customs officers out of the tax collection agency and into law enforcement agencies.

It goes without saying that as long as the front line of defence at our borders is under the supervision of Revenue Canada then the emphasis will always be on tax collection and not security. Certainly I think the government would find that its customs officers would overwhelmingly support this type of move.

The next problem the government has failed to address properly is the practice of releasing spontaneous refugee claimants who appear without proper documentation before their identities are confirmed and before they have cleared proper health and security checks. All too often refugee claimants are released on the same day they arrive in Canada on a promise to appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

A few hours of questioning is clearly not enough to determine possible security threats and it certainly does not allow for proper health examinations. The truth of the matter is that it can takes weeks or months with the current resource shortfalls to properly determine the true identities of refugee claimants who arrive on our doorstep without documentation. Again it is a resource and training problem

Nobody is suggesting that we hold refugee claimants in detention for extended periods of time. What we are saying is that if the government were to commit the proper resources and determination methods, we could accept legitimate refugee claimants faster and protect Canadians and our U.S. neighbours from the unwanted dangerous elements.

We are saying that if the government were to commit the proper resources and determination methods, we could accept legitimate refugee claimants faster and protect Canadians and our U.S. neighbours from the unwanted dangerous elements.

Detention in this context is not inhumane. Detention upon entering a country, without any proof of identity or in some cases fabricated identities, should be expected. Most genuine refugee claimants would see this simply as one minor setback on the way to establishing a new life in Canada. If the claimant desires to be released from detention, the process does not have to be complicated, as many people making refugee claims in Canada come from a safe third country. At any time during their detention, the refugee claimant would be free to go back to that safe third country and make their claim from there.

With a real acceptance rate of nearly 60% of all refugee claims, Canada has become the asylum shoppers destination of choice. Canada's refugee system would be completely different if the government were to act on current laws and prescribe certain countries as safe third countries. This would drastically reduce the number of spontaneous refugee claimants in Canada and would go a long way toward increasing this country's security.

The majority of asylum seekers enter Canada through the United States. If Canada were to enter into an agreement with the United States alone, we could reduce the burden on our refugee determination system by more than one half.

Similarly, if we were to enter agreements with the European Union countries, we would also see a drastic reduction in the number of spontaneous refugee claims in Canada, thereby sending a message to the world that asylum shoppers need not put Canada on their list. That in turn would free up the resources to really help the most needy refugees and to do more work overseas by easing the pressure in the refugee camps. We could then offer truly destitute people the chance at a new life.

Many EU countries have already implemented the safe third country concept. It is long past time that Canada get on board and act on laws that are already on the books. It is not necessary for Canada to give up its sovereignty to accomplish the goal of a continental security perimeter. We simply need to look at what we can do to strengthen our current practices to ensure the safety and security of Canada and our U.S. neighbours. It is not a lot of ask.

I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of today's motion because I believe that the steps which it encourages the government to take would make great headway in easing the legitimate fears and concerns of Canadians and Americans alike.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance has brought a motion before the House. I note that the minister replied this morning to the speech by the Canadian Alliance leader. The motion states:

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

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

Obviously immigration officers have long been peace officers, meaning they have authority to arrest and detain persons who are inadmissible to Canada. This obviously includes persons they suspect of being criminals or who already belong to terrorist organizations in other countries.

Right now the existing legislation, as well as proposed Bill C-11, contain provisions for protecting our borders. It is completely wrong to suggest that we do not have such provisions. We do. Our officers have all the means at their disposal to protect the Canadian public.

The motion raises another point I wish to address. It states that the government should:

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

Here again I would mention that our immigration officers conduct an investigation as soon as an application for refugee status has been received. I wish to give an idea of the figures. Some 600 to 800 persons are detained every day by immigration officers. It is wrong to say that they are not doing their job. On the contrary, I think they are doing it rather well in the circumstances.

I am not saying the system is completely perfect. As we know, it obviously has its shortcomings but hundreds of thousands of people have been processed over the years. It is therefore not impossible that errors may occur or that someone may slip through.

On the whole, however, there are certainly safeguards. Last year alone over 8,500 persons were detained by the authorities for a full verification of their origins and their past, as to whether they had ever been charged with a crime and so on.

On the whole, as the minister already mentioned this morning, we already have in place a great number of mechanisms to protect our borders. Contrary to what has been said, I do not think a continental perimeter is required. I believe the Government of Canada has considerable experience in the field of immigration. I have visited some of our offices abroad. It may be true that on occasion there was a lack of resources. I do not doubt it. Our immigration officers work very hard. On the whole, I was impressed by both the quantity and quality of the work they accomplish. It is not insignificant. They work very well. This is a fact that we need to mention more often.

I do not mean to impute motives to the members from the Canadian Alliance, but it is unfortunate that the words “terrorist” and “criminal” come up too often when they speak in the House.

If we look at the facts--which is important--we see that Canadians on the whole very rarely use this kind of language.

Since September 11, it is all that people are talking about. We often forget the contributions that immigrants have made to our country. I would like to highlight a few facts.

First, if we look at people's files, very few immigrants have criminal records or have been in trouble with the law. It is very important to acknowledge this, and it is a fact.

Second, once immigrants settle, on the whole, very few of them require employment insurance benefits. It is important to note that these people contribute to our country, they do not abuse the system as some in this House have implied.

Third, we often hear stories to the effect that immigrants abuse the system in another way, with welfare. Obviously, when some immigrants arrive, before settling in the community, they need help. We have a very sophisticated system. Some may believe that it is being abused on a daily basis, but this is not the case. There is a social infrastructure in place to help people get settled. I believe that it is one of the great achievements of our Christian society, if I may use the term.

Another thing we have seen with immigrants over the years is that, in their first five years, the average immigrant will earn less than the Canadian average. After their fifth year of working in Canada, in excess of 50% of them earn more than the Canadian average. Once again, this gives some idea of the effort they put into contributing to this country, and not only for themselves and their families. This gives some idea, when over 50% of them earn more than the Canadian average.

There is another aspect people are neglecting to mention here. The educational level of most immigrants to Canada is higher than the Canadian average. Many are technicians or professionals. In Damascus, I had the opportunity to sit in on an interview with a man who had been working in Syria for four or five years and was seeking to immigrate. It took him about a year and a half. He had a doctorate in biochemistry, a great asset for our country.

Overall, I find that these facts are being forgotten. Too often we have been hearing “immigrant”, “terrorist” and “criminal” used in the same sentence. I do not find this acceptable, when the facts demonstrate the opposite. This needs some thought. As everyone keeps saying, we in this country are all the children or grandchildren of immigrants. We need to think about that.

There is one other point I must mention. We have heard in the past four or five weeks that some members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been pointing fingers at Canada, saying that our immigration policies were not efficient, that many people were getting around the system. I do not know where they have been getting their information, but they are completely wrong.

I would like to give a few important statistics: 40% of people who make refugee claims at the Canadian border are coming from the United States. They are on American territory and come to the Canadian border to make a refugee claim. Are we the ones responsible if they have got into the U.S. and then come to our border to make a refugee claim? How is this a flaw in our system? It is theirs that is flawed.

I would like to mention some of the comments I have heard made by Alliance members in the past weeks. I bring to their attention that quite often in a lot of their speeches they use the word “immigrants” and in the same sentence they bring out the fact that there are criminals and terrorists. That is a little exaggerated on their part and they should be very conscious of it.

What we have achieved in this country has been a tremendous advantage to most Canadians. In the past weeks many Canadians have expressed their profound belief that Canada is a peaceful and highly respected country throughout the world. They know there are problems in other parts of the world and as Canadians they feel that maybe the root causes should be attacked. More than ever we have to show restraint in what we do in Canada. It would be very wise for us to realize that some of the things we do are going to have profound repercussions not only here but abroad and for those who want to come to Canada.

I hope we can keep in mind that we have a tremendous advantage by living in this country. Many people want to come to Canada. However we cannot start making them feel as if we suspect everyone who wants to come to this country and that we want to have investigations. We do not want them to feel that way. We want them to feel welcome here. If in speeches they hear the word “immigrant” is followed every time by “criminal” or “terrorist”, that is highly unacceptable.

In closing, when Bill C-11 was examined in committee, the Canadian Alliance member for Dauphin--Swan River worked a lot with us to find ways to improve our immigration system. We sat over five or six weeks and corrected certain things.

Overall, the Immigration Act will be much more secure, because parts of it will make the system more effective. We will be able to make quicker decisions, because we will have the information at hand.

I just wanted to make these comments and I am prepared to answer questions from my colleagues.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the hon. member rather interesting. It seems to me that the hon. member forgot to read the motion currently being debated.

He waxed long and eloquently upon the benefits of immigrants coming to the country, which I certainly would endorse. Many people, I dare say most of us, have ancestors who were immigrants to Canada. We are very proud and thankful that we are able to live and make a living here. Many people have contributed many things to the country. The hon. member absolutely is correct about that, but that is not what we are debating today.

We are debating the possibility, in fact the desirability, of creating a defence mechanism whereby government officials would be empowered to arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border. Spontaneous refugee claimants appearing at the border without documentation would be detained until we could find out whether they were legitimate refugees. Finally, there would be a list of safe countries from which we would not accept refugees. That is what we are debating.

This is not a question of whether we should or should not have immigrants come to the country. Of course we want immigrants. We want to be compassionate toward refugees who are suffering and who are in danger of being persecuted for whatever reasons, whether they be religious or political. We want to be compassionate and encourage immigrants but the issue is what the best possible mechanism would be to make sure that people who are suspected of being terrorists or who are known to be terrorists are kept out.

We all want safe communities. We want to feel free from having our possessions stolen. We do not want our friends or associates murdered. We want peace. We want quiet. We want non-violence. The motion is designed to create a mechanism to take the identified terrorists aside and tell them they cannot come to Canada, that Canada will not be a place for them to launch their terrorists activities or for them to go to other countries.

That is the issue. I wish the hon. member would comment on that issue rather than on the immigration issue at large.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that I mentioned that we have the necessary provisions already in the law. Our immigration officers are acting as peace officers. We already have mechanisms at work to protect our borders.

The fact is that some people slip through. We have never claimed to have a perfect system. I would say to the hon. member that of course we all want safe borders but there is no doubt in my mind that the immigration officers are doing their work. Quite often they are doing it quite well. There are circumstances, and I have to say in exceptional cases sometimes there are errors, but all in all they are doing a very good job.

We do not have to debate the motion on this issue. We know very well what our immigration officers are doing.

[The Speaker]

When the House resumes consideration of the motion, the hon. member will have six minutes and a bit remaining in the time for questions and comments.

Adopt a Dog Month

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has declared October Adopt a Dog Month. It is calling upon all members of the public to do what they can to lessen the demand for puppy mill dogs and identify puppy mills in their areas.

Thousands of dogs need loving homes. Adopting helps reduce pet overpopulation. It also reduces the demand for dogs sometimes filtered through puppy mills.

Life has taken a turn for the better for one of these dogs. Honey, a two year old pup who lost an eye because of an infection and became the poster puppy in the fight against puppy mills, has been safely adopted into her new home.

The OSPCA is headquartered in the northern end of my riding. Over the summer it took in well over 200 dogs and puppies from puppy mills. As a charitable organization the society's work is funded entirely by donations from concerned individuals, associations and corporations. I would like to thank them for their hard work and dedication in caring for tens of thousands of animals every year.

Terrorism

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of September 11 we have heard a growing number of voices of moral equivalence in Canada from anti-American diatribes aired in ridiculously unbalanced CBC forums, to left wing editorialists like Haroon Siddiqui suggesting that the Americans got what was coming to them, to some who say that the murder of 6,000 people is no more an act of terrorism than Israel's self-defence.

Even members of the House have said that this struggle is not a question of good versus evil. Last week the finance committee heard from a group called Kairos arguing that deaths from natural diseases are as much a moral concern as the mass murders in the United States.

Let us be clear that there is no room for this kind of moral relativism in the face of September 11. The root cause of this terror is hatred, particularly a virulent strain of anti-semitism. When referring to terrorists the Leader of the Opposition stated in this place:

The hatred that moves them to massacre the innocent can never be negotiated with or reasoned with. It is not a matter of shades of grey...It is set in black and white. This is not a time for moral ambiguity. It is a moment of moral clarity.

Volunteerism

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I hosted a reception to recognize 10 volunteers from the Guelph-Wellington chapter of the Canadian Red Cross. My guests ranged in ages from 17 years of age to 90 years of age. It was a fitting time to honour these individuals as 2001 is the International Year of the Volunteer and this is a Women's History Month.

I should like to highlight two programs that these volunteers participate in. Meals on Wheels delivers hot meals to those unable to cook for themselves. The Red Cross trace and reunion program brings together families separated by war and strife. Canadians appreciate both these worthy programs.

Like so many Canadians I am appreciative of the invaluable services the Red Cross and its many volunteers provide here and around the world. I applaud the Red Cross for it truly represents and responds to those in need.

Meteorological Service of Canada

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to recognize the Meteorological Service of Canada, one of Environment Canada's vital services. It works every day, even Christmas Day, to bring Canadians essential information: weather forecasts, warnings of severe storms, smog alerts, and information on water levels, ice, climate and the ozone layer. Its weather warnings can save lives and its smog alerts safeguard our health.

Today marks the 130th anniversary of the Meteorological Service of Canada which was created in 1871 when Canada was still a fledgling nation. Its purpose then was to safeguard ships from severe storms in the Great Lakes and on the St. Lawrence River.

At the most basic level it used and still uses volunteer observers in all parts of Canada with stations near people's homes, on farms and campuses.

Early weather forecasts used telegraph lines and hoisted flags to warn of an approaching storm. Since then its work has expanded across the country. Its tools now include computers and satellite transmissions. Its scope has broadened to include many types of environmental information.

I ask members to join me in recognizing the Meteorological Service of Canada.

Hungarian Revolution

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, October 23 marks the 45th anniversary of the Hungarian revolution. The revolution was ignited when a student led demonstration against the Soviet Communist occupation was met with gunfire. The revolution was crushed by Soviet tanks. Twenty-five thousand freedom fighters were killed and a hundred thousand wounded. A reign of terror followed.

Two hundred thousand Hungarians fled Hungary with nearly forty thousand being granted refuge in Canada. Then minister of immigration, Jack Pickersgill, went to extraordinary means to expedite the movement of Hungarian refugees to Canada.

On behalf of my family and nearly 40,000 Hungarian refugees, I thank the Canadian people, the government and Jack Pickersgill for the compassion, concern and safe haven they offered us in this wonderful country.

Mark R. Isfeld

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Courtenay, B.C., history was made with the opening of the Mark R. Isfeld Secondary School. This is the first time in Canadian history that a school has been named after one of our fallen peacekeepers.

On June 21, 1994, Master Corporal Mark Isfeld was killed while serving with the First Combat Engineer Regiment removing landmines in Croatia. He was on his third peacekeeping tour in 30 months.

Mark had studied every piece of known ordnance in Croatia. He could recognize it from 100 paces and could take it apart blindfolded. He was a perfect example of professionalism in our troops. Of the dangers he faced daily, Mark wrote:

I know what this stuff can do. Civilians, small children don't. My skills are to protect them.

Sadly, despite his skill and knowledge, on that June day Mark was outside an armoured personnel carrier when it ran over a tripwire to an anti-personnel mine.

His memory and that of all peacekeepers is honoured in Courtenay. I cannot think of a finer tribute to a soldier who cared so deeply about the job he did and the people he did it for.

Mike Nemesvary

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome back to Ottawa and to Parliament Hill Canada's own superman, Mike Nemesvary. Seven months ago, on March 20, we wished bon voyage and good luck to Mike as he embarked on the dream of his lifetime.

Today the round the world challenge is a fait accompli. After travelling more than 40,000 kilometres through 20 countries Mike has established a new world record, becoming the first quadriplegic to drive around the globe.

What a feat for Mike and what an accomplishment for his entire team. What generosity from people who have donated funds for spinal cord injury, research and rehabilitation.

On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I invite all members to join me at your reception at 3.30 p.m. to welcome and congratulate Mike on his heroic voyage.