Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2001

Supply

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the hon. member for Halifax West.

I want to take part in this debate. This is important not only for the House but also for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It involves every individual and every family across the country in one way or another.

We should not take very lightly the fact that over 87% of our trade is done with our partner to the south, the United States, to the tune of about $1.4 billion on a daily basis. The vast majority of that trade crosses the border by truck or train. On the other side of the equation, approximately 25% of American trade around the world is done with Canada. To a large extent we need each other as trading partners as well as neighbours and allies. We are countries that share common paths and interests, and a common future.

The terrorist attacks on September 11 changed the way we live and the way we conduct our business. Since September 11 I have asked myself as a Canadian what I want my government to do.

First and foremost I want my government to have the safety of Canadians as an objective. Second, I want to see what the government plans to do about ensuring the safety of Canadians. Third, I want to see the actual implementation of its plan.

In terms of objectives, planning and implementation, the government moved swiftly immediately after the September 11 tragedy. Within minutes the Prime Minister was on the phone to the American authorities through the embassy in order to communicate our concerns, our support and our strong condemnation of what took place. As well, every single government department was mobilized. A cabinet committee was established. The hon. member for Ottawa South, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is chair of that committee. He is doing a magnificent job. The government established that committee to map out a strategy and to plan a way to make Canadians feel safe and good about themselves and feel secure when they go to their place of work.

Planning has taken place. Recently legislation was introduced in the House. It is my hope that in the next week or so implementation will take place.

Let us not fool ourselves. The best and the strongest laws in the world will not save us from the terrorists from within unless we are vigilant in our own society. Unless we have a secure society from within, we will not be able to deal with this issue effectively.

The government has established a broad range of initiatives that will deal with the security issue on the internal side of things. We also have other responsibilities which deal with the issues that confront us from the outside and that is the issue of the border. That is why the motion by the Leader of the Opposition is before the House.

I have some major problems with the motion. If in talking about the perimeter the member is talking about a cedar hedge around Canada, the United States and Mexico, the answer is no. If he is talking about a common strategy to deal with the issues that confront Canadians, Americans, Mexicans and every member of the free world, yes.

The whole issue is how we should deal with the threat to our safety and security, and our sovereignty. The government has been exceptionally open and co-operative with our friends and allies the Americans in trying to deal with every aspect of the security issue that we have been faced with since September 11.

Let us not fool ourselves by putting a motion such as this one before the House. In paragraph ( a ) of the motion the opposition wants the government to “provide both immigration officers and customs officers enhanced training and full peace officer status”. Immigration officers and customs officers already have peace officer status. This part of the motion not only is out of order, it is irrelevant because we already have that. It is not relevant at all. It is redundant because we already do that.

In paragraph ( b ) the opposition wants to “move customs border officers out of the tax collection agency and into a law enforcement agency”. I want to share with my colleagues the fact that our customs officers enforce the Customs Act in addition to in excess of 70 other acts from other departments of the Government of Canada. They have other responsibilities as well. They ensure precisely the flow of goods and services and the mobility of legitimate people across the border between the two countries. That is specifically what they are there for. To move them away from what they are already doing, in order to put them in another section with other authorities frankly does not further the debate.

They already have authority under the act to identify people who are inadmissible and to detain them. As well, under the act they have the authority to stop the flow of prohibited goods, in particular chemical precursors, drugs and other items. This part of the motion is redundant too.

In paragraph ( c ) the opposition wants to “detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and security checks”. That is already done under the act. In fact in 2000-01 in excess of 8,000 refugees were detained at the border an average of 16 days until such time as we were assured they did not pose a security threat to Canada. Furthermore in 2000 in excess of 20,000 potential criminals coming from the United States into Canada were stopped at the border as opposed to 14,000 criminals who were trying to cross the border from Canada into the United States.

One would wonder about the relevancy of the motion before the House today. I close with paragraph ( d ) in which the opposition wants to “create a list of safe third countries”. Under the act we could do that now.

Based on these comments I cannot support the motion. I will be voting against it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. Before moving to questions and comments on the speech by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst, Airline Industry; the hon. member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, Airline Safety.

The hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have before me, and I have read for many years now, long before I was elected to the House, a total condemnation of our immigration policy. We have received a lot of criticism this way. We are not hearing it now.

Would the member not agree that the very fact the government panicked and brought in a new immigration policy is an open testament that the previous policy was sorely lacking?

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the member's attention that Canada is a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants and we have one of the finest immigration policies anywhere in the world. Our policy is continuously evolving to respond to the needs of Canadians and to fulfill our commitment on the international scene in conformity with the United Nations.

If the hon. member is asking, now that we have seen the crisis of September 11, that we shut the door and say that we will no longer accept immigrants, he is mistaken. Simply put, for every immigrant who comes to this country, on average three jobs are created. Immigrants by and large are hardworking people like the hon. member. People come here to raise their families and contribute to society. If we were to stop immigration, we would be doing a great disservice to Canada and its future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to comment on the motion before the House. The issue of how we receive and treat refugee claimants at our borders is one that has taken on a different sense of urgency in the wake of the tragic events of September 11.

Throughout the world the terrorist attacks in the U.S. forced a wrenching re-examination of many aspects of life and society long taken for granted. In Canada, as elsewhere, we have been compelled to rethink the ways in which our society functions. We are forced to carefully review and question such fundamental issues as how we protect our society.

Part of the questioning and re-examination has inevitably focused on how we deal with those who come to Canada as refugees.

There is no question that the attacks of September 11 were virtually beyond our capacity to comprehend. How can we make sense of such violence and callous disregard for innocent human life? Yes, we are shocked and horrified by these events but we must not let the terrorists drive us to take actions that result in a turning away from the very values that define us as Canadians.

One of those values is our longstanding commitment to welcome genuine refugees. Who we are as a people and as a nation has been substantially defined by the contributions of those who have come to our shores either as immigrants or as people fleeing injustice and persecution.

Our strength as Canadians is directly tied to the diversity of our society, a society that we have built together. Our world may have become more threatened since September 11 but we must not allow the current situation to lead us toward actions that we will later regret.

How then do we find a balance between ensuring that Canada continues to welcome legitimate refugees while also ensuring the safety and security of our society? That clearly is the challenge before us and the challenge all Canadians want us to grapple with. This balance is reflected in the government's new immigration and refugee protection act, Bill C-11.

Under the new legislation, the refugee determination process would be streamlined and it would enable departmental officials to suspend and terminate the processing of refugee claims where persons are determined to be a security threat. That is a very important change considering what happened last month.

The current Immigration Act authorized detention of a person considered a danger to the public or one who was unlikely to appear for immigration proceedings. Existing authorities also permit the targeted use of detention at a port of entry in cases where an individual's identity is in question or where there are security concerns.

Figures for 2000-01 show that some 8,790, almost 9,000, persons last year were detained under the Immigration Act. These numbers attest to the fact that our officials are being vigilant. We all, nevertheless, recognize the imperative to make our processes work even better.

Bill C-11 would also strengthen authority to arrest criminals and those who pose security threats. In addition, it would eliminate appeal rights in such cases and provide for a streamlined certificate process to remove security threats.

As the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration outlined in her statement of October 12, the government is investing $49 million to strengthen the capacity of her department to do its job. This includes $9 million for additional staff for key enforcement activities like the examination and security screening at ports of entry.

These additional employees will also be carrying out detailed screening of refugee claimants who are already in Canada, along with increasing detention and deportation.

This investment in the safety and security of Canadians is part of an ongoing process. These new resources are in addition to ones identified in the 2000 budget for the citizenship and immigration department, funds targeted specifically for the enforcement program that is so important in this climate and in light of what happened last month.

I draw the attention of hon. members opposite to the $1.8 billion that have been invested by the government in key departments and agencies, such as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CSIS and the RCMP, since budget 2000. This investment took place long before September 11, reflecting the government's commitment to provide federal departments and agencies with the tools they need to fight terrorism. This is a fight we must and will win.

The next important step we can take toward that victory is to pass the legislation when it is before the House.

Understandably, Canadians are concerned in these difficult times. We have entered into an era of world events without precedent but we must avoid the temptation to allow our fears to overwhelm us.

As we heard from our leaders, it is important to go out and shop and to go on with our normal lives. I read somewhere, and I think it is true, that the return to normalcy is the greatest affront to terrorism. That is the key. If we want to say no to terrorism, we have to live our normal lives. We have to carry on and be courageous, maybe hug our kids more often. We need to recognize the value and the preciousness of our lives more readily and more completely but we also need to go on with our lives.

Canadians are rising to the current challenge, as they have done in other periods of difficulty and threat, as we have seen too often in the past.

We are firm in our determination to work with the United States and our other allies to overcome the threat of terrorism. We are likewise determined to take the necessary steps that will increase the security of our borders and the safety of our citizens.

The Government of Canada has acted and will act to protect Canadians. Bill C-11 is a major step in honouring this commitment.

I could provide other examples of how this new legislation can and will address the very issues that the opposition has raised in its motion. However how we treat refugees and how we balance refugee claims with the largest security concerns of our society, are matters of fundamental importance. Let us not give the terrorists an additional triumph because we choose to act out of fear. Let us not give in to the temptation to diminish our commitment to welcome legitimate refugees.

The motion before us is neither necessary nor deserving of support. Let us instead stay true to our commitment to compassion and the values that define us as Canadians. Let us show the world that we have become stronger because of the challenge we face.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague noted the issue of terrorism, how it has affected our country and the importance of getting on with business as usual. I have to admit even I, who enjoys shopping to great lengths, found it a bit much when the answer to fighting terrorism was that we should get out and shop and it will make everything better.

Apart from that, I do want to comment on the return to normality which, quite frankly, is important, and so is the fight against terrorism. My New Democrat colleagues and I strongly support the fight against terrorism but we do have concerns over the anti-terrorism bill. We feel it would very severely affect the civil rights of all Canadians.

In that wish to return to normality, we want to see a sunset clause put into the anti-terrorism bill. After hearing my colleague's comments I had hope the member would also be willing to support such a clause so that, in Canada, we can return to normality in civil liberties for all Canadians.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when my hon. colleague mentioned getting out and shopping, it reminded me of a cartoon in one of the newspapers showing a gentleman at home reading the paper and when his wife arrives with a bunch of boxes he says “So how goes the war on terrorism?” My wife cut out the cartoon and put it on our fridge at home because we both enjoyed it.

I think my hon. colleague is right, in spite of the levity of what happened it is very important for us to return to normalcy. We must get on with our lives and get out and do our shopping. The greatest damage terrorism could cause is if we as Canadians were so terrorized that we stayed in our homes, that we did not go out, that we did not carry on with our lives and that we did not do the things that keep our economy going. We must continue purchasing, working, living our lives and going on vacations.

The vast majority of members of parliament travel on airplanes all the time and I do not think we feel threatened by travelling on airplanes. I think we have very safe airplanes and airports and a very good system that has been improved in the last couple of months. That is very important.

I want to address the concerns my colleague mentioned about the anti-terrorism bill, which of course is not part of today's opposition day motion but I am cognizant that this is an issue we have been hearing about. I know you are aware, Mr. Speaker, as is the hon. member, that the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister have indicated their openness to hearing the views of the committee and members on this bill. It is important we take the time to go through the bill. Obviously there is some sense of urgency but at the same time we do not want too much urgency.

It is important to hear the concerns of members, to debate the bill and to discuss in full the options or perhaps some alternatives to the provisions proposed. The Prime Minister clearly indicated the other day that this government bill was being presented and that it was supported. However it is important to understand that an openness has been declared to hear from the House and members about the kind of things the hon. member has suggested she feels should be included in the bill.

I am certainly looking forward to seeing how this develops as the bill goes forward through committee, through report stage and in the third reading debate before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain.

I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Surrey Central on the opposition supply day motion regarding border security. Surrey Central, the constituency I represent, is one of the largest constituencies in Canada in population. It has a high population of immigrants. Also it is in close proximity to the U.S. border, so I will be making my remarks from the point of view of some practical experience and what my constituents who come to my office tell me. Therefore it will be a more practical point of view.

The motion asks the government to take action on a number of policy fronts. Victory in this war against terrorism depends as much on our immigration and border policies as it does on our defence, intelligence and other policies. Specifically, the motion asks the government to protect our borders and our trading relationships with the United States by providing immigration and customs officers with full peace officer status in order to allow them to detain and arrest suspected terrorists. It also asks the government to move customs officers out of the CCRA into a law enforcement agency.

Canadian customs officers not only process travellers and commercial goods but also monitor and control the importation of firearms, drugs and other goods. If they are to do their job of law enforcement they must be given the resources, training and powers of law enforcement officers.

If the mandate of the customs officers is to be tax collectors then they should be given calculators. If their mandate is to protect Canadians at our borders then they should be given guns. At this time they have neither calculators nor guns.

In the auditor general's April 2000 report, he noted that the students as well as the long time customs officers are deficient in training in immigration law, drug enforcement and vehicle examination. We know that rather than taking this issue seriously the government has hired part time students to monitor our border, without proper training and without proper tools and resources. The Liberal government, instead of giving them tools to do their job, have cut 488 customs and trade employees since 1994 even though their work has increased.

Next the motion calls for all spontaneous refugees without any documents or those who are hiding their identity to be detained until their identity can be established and verified and also their health checked so that they do not pose any health risks. If it is determined that they do not pose a threat to the safety and security of citizens of our country and that of our neighbours, only then should they be allowed to mix with the general population of the country.

The weak and arrogant Liberal government rejected a 1998 House of Commons standing committee report recommending increased use of detention to deal with undocumented or improperly documented refugee claimants. I am not talking about genuine refugees. I am talking about those who are posing as refugees but are bogus.

The motion asks Canada to create a list of safe third countries. We know that the United Kingdom does not allow refugees from safe third countries, like Canada, the United States and other safe countries in the economic union and others. A safe third country provision has been in law since 1989, but the government has failed to designate any countries. We do not have a list of safe third countries.

The government insists on increasing police presence and powers inside Canada rather than at the border.

I want to make it clear that the Canadian Alliance supports immigration. Our policy declaration clearly states:

--we see Canada as a land built by immigrants, and will continue to welcome new immigrants...We affirm Canada's humanitarian obligation to welcome genuine refugees--

The motion is designed to put an end to the practice of people destroying their documents in transit so that they cannot be deported. According to the auditor general, 60% of the refugee claimants who come to Canada and apply for refugee status come without any documents.

By asking for the tightening our immigration laws, we are calling on the government to get up to speed with international developments. Other countries are tightening their immigration laws, particularly after the incidents of September 11. If Canada does not do likewise it will continue to be a safe haven for people who want to break the law. We certainly risk being shut out of trade relationships with our largest trading partner, the United States of America. We do well over $1.5 billion a day in trade with the Americans. The United States accounts for approximately 82% of Canada's exports in goods and services. We learned today that the Americans are planning to implement section 110 of their immigration act, which would impose entrance and exit restrictions on people moving into and out of the United States. Section 110 would cause some serious problems.

How did we reach this position? Because of the weakness and arrogance of the weak Liberal government. With a recession looming, such a restriction imposed by the Americans could have a devastating effect on Canada's economy. When the Alliance proposed a motion on September 18, I stood in the House and said that the U.S. congress would move with or without us. I am sorry to say that once again I have been proven right.

The motion also continues the Alliance's long term commitment to national security, robust law enforcement and a strong Canadian armed forces. With its cuts to each of these areas, the Liberal government has left us vulnerable. The motion seeks to correct this oversight.

Another area is our frontline offices and our foreign missions. I commend our officers in foreign services for their dedication and hard work. They have their own problems, which I will talk about some other day, but I want to mention corruption in our foreign missions.

We have read in the newspapers, and there are documented reports, that about 2,200 blank visa forms were stolen in Hong Kong and 788 taped computer files were altered. Who did it? Why did they do it? Because they will sell them to organized criminals. Unwanted people who are a threat to Canadian security will abuse our system.

We also know that money has been stolen from many Canadian embassies. Bribes have been taken by our officials who issue visas. I reported a case in which action was taken. The authorities found out that corruption was taking place and bribes were being taken in New Delhi and Islamabad, so they fired some locally hired employees. Many investigations are continuing. The government should also pay attention to that issue. Foreign officials who are monitoring our immigration policies abroad are our front line of defence.

In conclusion I would like to say that organized crime and terrorism are two different things but are interlinked. Now, because of the incidents of September 11, there is a knee-jerk reaction and we are focusing on terrorism, but I remind the government that it should integrate its resources and policies. We should not leave organized crime out of it. Organized crime is latent, invisible and hidden, whereas terrorism is explicit and its effects are evident. I would remind the government that there should be a synergy and an implementation of resources to combat these two areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the speech given by my colleague, when he was talking about crime it made me think about B.C.'s Liberal premier Gordon Campbell who is not very popular with members on the government side. I wonder if the member has noticed that they never use his name. They never talk about the Liberal premier from B.C. because of course Gordon's positions are completely in common with the Canadian Alliance policies and in fact could even be called reform policies.

One of the things that Gordon Campbell has been talking about in the last few days in connection with crime is the outrageous release on bail of a suspected terrorist in Vancouver. The U.S. law that has been introduced on terrorism restricts the bail that can be granted to people who are suspected of terrorism. The judge in Vancouver took the position that because the person had not run away before September 11 he therefore would not skip the country now. That is totally ludicrous. Anyone knows the whole situation has changed now. Gordon Campbell criticized the judge and then the judge criticized Gordon, and Gordon said he was sticking by his guns, that it was a bad, stupid decision.

I wonder if the member could comment on the need to restrict bail, perhaps in the bill that is being run through the House now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his keen observation. He is a very keen observer in many areas and has been highlighting some of the weaknesses of the government. He has done a perfect job as critic many times.

He made a valid point. The hon. member mentioned bail. I will not comment on the particular bail because the issue may still be in front of the courts. However, in general and from a broader perspective, the government is very lenient and our policies are very lenient. The amazing thing is that our overall policies, which we derive from the Liberal government, are policies of reverse onus. That is very wrong.

When prospective refugees come here we want them to prove that they are genuine refugees. Why does the government not do its job? Similarly when terrorists and criminals are arrested, why would we believe only reverse onus? I think that there is a fundamental flaw in the vision, or I would say lack of vision, of the Liberal government, and I do not know how to correct its vision. We cannot do that. The government has been so weak and arrogant that I do not know where we stand.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss the topic tonight and the motion as it relates to the people of my constituency, which is in southeastern Saskatchewan. We share miles of border with the United States. We touch two states, Montana and North Dakota. My constituency probably has more points of entry, nine of them, than any other constituency in Canada.

The events of September 11 have touched rural Saskatchewan. They have even touched my constituency. Last week we had our first anthrax scare.

If the government were doing the right thing with radio, TV and newspapers, ads should be going out explaining to people how to react if they open their mail and white powder falls out. It has not done that. Not only has it not done that, but it has not warned people. It has not warned the hoaxers and the pranksters of the penalty for becoming involved in such an act.

Great Britain and the United States have enacted legislation to deal with hoaxers. In both cases it is automatic jail time. We are one week away from celebrating Halloween and no doubt there will be hoaxers scaring people. The government should show people what it is doing to curb the epidemic which has already killed people in the United States.

People are concerned about our military, which has gone overseas. In the U.S. and the U.K. this is a time of war. War has not been officially declared, as Canada did in 1914 and 1939, but the question that is being asked is simply this. During this war on terrorism will our service personnel, if they are harmed, hurt or even killed, have the same benefits as they would have if the nation declared war? The government has left this question completely wide open.

For the last eight years Canadians have read almost weekly in every paper across Canada about the problems in our immigration system. We have heard a lot today about them. I would like to cite some figures so that people watching get an idea of what this party has been talking about since 1993. Between 1993 and 1997 over 99% of refugee claimant applications were deemed eligible to go through the refugee determination process.

In other words they would come to the border, apply for refugee status, and 99% came in. Once these applicants appeared before the refugee board it took an average of 2.5 years to go through the appeals process to reach a final determination. During that period of time only 22% of rejected applicants were confirmed to have left the country. The story is all there.

This country became blinded to what was going on. The government would not listen to experts from around the world or from those within our own country. It allowed this to go on and now Canada has established a reputation which will take a long time to cure.

There are many things we can do to co-operate with our neighbours, not just in forming the shield of protection around North America but we could take a look at border crossings.

Last week I visited two of the nine border crossings in my riding. Officials were busy preparing and changing for the onslaught that may be coming. We were on the Canadian side. The U.S. announced that it will be asking people to report not only upon entry into the U.S. but also as they leave the U.S. This is something entirely new and I wonder why the U.S. is doing it.

For example, if people come from the U.S. into Canada they traditionally do not stop at U.S. customs. They stop at Canadian customs. If they want to make a run for it, and that has happened, the only choice the poor Canadian customs officer has is to phone the closest detachment of the RCMP.

I have border crossings in my constituency where it would take an RCMP officer an hour to get there because the detachments have all been halved by the government. If it was a three man detachment, it will now have one officer or maybe two. If it was a four man detachment, it will only have two officers.

Canada is ill prepared. All the border crossings or ports of entry, as we call them, in the United States are manned 24 hours a day. One of the reasons the U.S. is pleading to have individuals stopping in both directions is that it cannot trust the Canadian immigration system any more. We should be ashamed that we have sunk to a low level.

The U.S. did not withdraw, as one of the members indicated, the Canpass card. Many people in my constituency have Canpass cards. It is a simple card for a select group of people that can pass back and forth with no problem.

The Canadian government panicked and cancelled the cards but the United States did not. Many of my constituents go to school in the United States and some of them work there. Many were born in the U.S. simply because they were closer to a hospital there. The Canadian government panicked and put a wall up against the very people it trusted to have the Canpass card in the first place.

Canada and the United States need to work together on the trucking industry. We have horrendous long lineups. There is a tremendous extra cost and time wasted by drivers. Canada to date has made no attempt to meet with its counterparts to discuss these border stoppages. Trucks line up and wait for an hour or sometimes three. All of that is costing us dearly. It is costing truckers a lot of money and it will cost Canadians a lot of money.

Yes, we can co-operate with the United States in many areas and we should. It wants to co-operate with us. We need to recognize that we are a continental country. We need to recognize that we have not done our share with regard to immigration and the terrorists who lived in our country.

I saw some T-shirts the other day. I wanted to buy one but they were all sold out. It said “God Bless North America”. It is time for Canadians to be a bit humble and say, no, we have not lived up to where we should have been going and we will co-operate fully with the motion so that we can have a safe North America in which to live in.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that the member who just spoke asked one of the most pointed questions of the entire debate today. He asked why the Americans were set to impose this new rule at the Canadian border. That is one of the most telling questions asked today.

I heard members on the government side say that if the U.S.A.'s rules were that great it should have prevented the terrorists from getting in. Has the member thought of this?

If I were a terrorist coming from another country and I wanted to go to the United States I would come to Canada first. I would receive free welfare, medical and dental benefits as well as a free apartment in which to live while going through all the appeal processes with my legal aid counsellor. I would be able to get good forgeries of Canadian documents from the print shop in Toronto so that I could get across the border into the United States and no one would even know that I was there illegally. Has the member thought that through as well?

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be a Canadian. I also recognize what has been going on in this country for the last nine or ten years: forgery, corruption and illegal immigrants. We stood here and took a lot of flak because we kept reporting this. I am glad nobody yells across the way that I am anti-immigrant. Nobody in my constituency would ever believe that.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I visited Fort Erie recently. It is a very busy border crossing. I was pleased to see the workers there doing the very best they could with what capabilities they have. It could be much better.

I am a firm believer that if we want to find out how the job is going and what we can do to make it better, we need to talk to the frontline people that are doing the work. I would like to inform the House and the member that I was denied the privilege of meeting with any of the frontline workers. It was not allowed.

My colleague from British Columbia who was with me was also denied the privilege of meeting with the employees. We were not allowed to meet with them either in a coffee room during their break or during a smoke break.

I saw a directive from Canada customs and there is a warning that states that employees should refrain from making any direct, or through a third party, public pronouncements critical of federal policies, programs and officers or on matters of current controversy.

In the final part of the directive it states that in the event they do not abide by this directive, they will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

These people are not very anxious to speak to us because their jobs would be on the line. They send me e-mails. I get hundreds of e-mails asking me not to use their names because they will probably lose their jobs.

This is Canada. This is supposed to be a democracy. I have never seen such nonsense in all my life. The government ought to be ashamed of itself for having brought itself to the point where it is warning its employees, such as prison guards, border guards and police forces, that they cannot speak out about their jobs or they will lose them. That is not a democracy. That is the worst kind of dictatorship I have ever run across in my life. Would the hon. member like to comment on that?

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, over the years when I have gone to my ports of entry I have always been received very cordially by both sides. That was the case last week. Perhaps they had not received this directive as yet.

I do know of the letter my colleague has spoken about. When a customs officer with many years of training and service opens a file and shows the people he has tried to apprehend without any protection, I can understand what my colleague is saying. If individuals are employees of Canada customs it does not mean they have to zipper their lips.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the few minutes remaining in the debate, I would like to make a few comments with regard to this important issue.

There was a suggestion made by the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla that somehow we on this side of the House would call the measures outlined in the motion draconian.

Personally, I would suggest that individual initiatives that have been presented have some merit and that is what the government is acting on. The Canadian government does not want North America to be anything but a secure place but the decisions must be made by Canadians for Canadians. We must ensure that our policies and procedures are complementary, that we are not working at cross purposes with the United States, and that we do not sacrifice our sovereignty.

In recent testimony at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration the commissioner of the RCMP claimed he was strongly in favour of the perimeter initiative put forth by the Canadian government. He believes that our border officials already are setting the standard.

All Canadians can be proud of the security measures enforced by our immigration and customs officers at the Canada-U.S. border. Indeed the United States ambassador, Mr. Cellucci, recently commented that his government is very impressed with the co-operation between our two administrations and the work being done in Canada to increase security in its immigration procedures.

Canada deploys immigration and customs officials at the border in numbers that are comparable to those of the United States. Both countries have increased these numbers and are on an enhanced security level since September 11. Last year alone, Canadian officials stopped 21,000 criminals from entering Canada from the United States while the American agents stopped 14,000 criminals from entering the U.S. from Canada.

The commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service recently praised Canada's security efforts. He noted that Canadian officials helped arrest half of the 8,000 criminal aliens caught in the first six months of this year. This is despite the fact that the U.S. has eight times more agents on its Mexican border. He credited the success to Canada's “excellent system” of information sharing with the American authorities.

Under Bill C-18 passed in 1999, customs officers were given officer powers to arrest and detain individuals suspected of having committed offences under the criminal code, such as impaired driving, child abduction, or those with outstanding arrest warrants. Officers will complement the work of police forces by bridging the gap between the time an officer detects a criminal code violation and the time when police can arrive and intervene.

When proposing the bill, the minister at that time stated on May 13, 1998:

By expanding the scope of their powers to include violations under the criminal code, we will enhance the overall safety and security of Canadians.

Given that Canada customs officers already have the powers necessary to enhance the overall safety and security of Canadians, there is no reason to move Canada customs officers out of the tax collection agency and into a law enforcement agency.

With regard to the issue of detention of refugee claimants, as part of the $280 million anti-terrorism plan, the government recently invested $49 million to accelerate the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's ability to complete an increased security strategy.

Of this new money, $17 million is going to the security screening of refugee claimants. Because of the new security concerns, all refugee claimants must go through interviews and examinations upon their arrival. These include indepth questioning, checking the claimant's information against various databases, taking the claimant's photograph and fingerprints, and keeping all travel documents on file. If the claimant is considered to be a security risk, he or she is detained.

In 2000-01, 8,790 individuals were detained on the average of 16 days. Due to the increased state of alert and more intense security screenings, CIC officials expect there will be more detentions in the future.

It is important to note that when we are making decisions, we are making them in Canada's interest. I am always concerned that our friends across the way would like us simply to be absorbed by the Americans in their approaches.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.