Debates of April 30th, 2002

Immigration

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the refugee claimants are crossing the border between Canada and the United States, it is because they are coming from the United States. If they come in a plane and they land, they might come from somewhere else and if they are swimming, I do not know from where they would be coming.

It is pretty clear. Yes, we have returned a lot of people who have claimed to be refugees who have come from the United States, landed in Canada, applied for refugee status and were refused. This is the law that is in operation in Canada. We are receiving a lot of--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not understand that it is an insult to brag that 72% of the refugees are coming from the United States. What is unsafe about the United States? Possibly the Prime Minister's golf game might be a little unsafe when he is down there visiting in Florida.

The United Nations says no country has to accept a refugee from a safe haven. Canada is a safe haven. The United States is a safe haven. When are we going to stop accepting refugees from the safe haven, our neighbour the United States of America?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to negotiate an agreement with them.

The reality is that when they come to Canada, they have to come from the United States to Canada. That does not mean they were in a safe haven in the United States. It is the physical situation that they were arriving from the United States. When we want to return them, it is complicated. We want to have an agreement to achieve reciprocity in that field so every situation is in reverse. We would take theirs back if they were to take ours back.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is not even funny. The fact is, as the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, 72% of our refugees are coming from the United States and are costing this country $2 billion to $3 billion a year.

The United Nations says Canada does not have to accept refugees from another safe haven. An agreement could be reached with our American neighbours tomorrow on this issue. Would the Prime Minister assure us that he will sit down with the president of the United States and sign an agreement that we no longer accept refugees from the safe haven of the United States of America?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to do with his counterpart in the United States, to sign an agreement on that. The member says it would be very easy. It is exactly what the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to do and it is not easy at all.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a sovereign nation. If we pass legislation saying that we will not entertain a refugee claim from someone trying to enter Canada from the United States, then that is the law of our land. Such people can be refused entry at the border and the U.S.A. must take them back because we have a reciprocal agreement with the U.S. that obliges each of our countries to receive back illegals.

Why is the government trying to hide the fact that it just does not want to--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to offer the hon. member a briefing on the negotiations around the safe third agreement with the United States. She perhaps would learn that such negotiations were under way a number of years ago. The United States broke off that discussion.

It was renewed as part of the 30 point package we negotiated with Governor Tom Ridge last December. We are making progress on it but it takes Canada and the United States together to agree that a safe third agreement will be signed. That is what we are endeavouring to do.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That is simply not the case, Mr. Speaker. Our country can stop anyone at the border if it wants to. The ability of legitimate refugees from strife-torn countries to make legitimate claims is being impaired because of well documented Liberal mismanagement of our refugee system.

When is the government going to get its act together and stop the abuse of our system?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I just do not buy that. Yesterday the critic was saying that we should welcome only the people from countries where there are no terrorists and we have to be very careful. The reason we have a new regulation is that we took our responsibility. Security is a priority for the government but we also want to keep it open because this is a place for immigration.

Public Safety

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the new bill on public safety was supposed to provide a better framework for the power of the Minister of National Defence.

However, the guidelines imposed remain vague. Indeed, the minister is the only one to decide whether the establishment of a military zone is, and I quote, “reasonably necessary”.

If the intention of the Minister of National Defence is truly reasonable and necessary, why should Quebec or the concerned province not give its agreement before the establishment of a military zone on its territory, since this would be an additional precaution against any excesses?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about federal equipment. We are talking about the military, its equipment or visiting military's equipment, a visiting ship in a civilian port for example. We could cordon off and send military police into that small area that is reasonably necessary for the ship to be properly protected.

Remember the USS Cole in Yemen. It was not properly protected and it was attacked by terrorists.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is asking us to trust its good faith, but it is not even prepared to provide a better framework to monitor the power of the Minister of National Defence to decide alone the establishment of military zones. This is contradictory, to say the least.

If the government is not prepared to act and to provide better guidelines in this bill, is it not because the scope of the bill is much broader than suggested and because the Minister of National Defence has total discretion to determine the size of the military zones he may wish to establish?

Nowhere is there any mention that it can only be a small zone. The minister has full latitude to determine the zone that he deems necessary and reasonable. He is the only one to hold that power.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

That is not true, Mr. Speaker. The bill narrows the scope of what can be declared a military zone from the previous bill. It takes out any possibilities of declaring things like Kananaskis as a military zone for example.

I am talking about equipment, about a ship, about a few planes at a civilian airport. It says it has to be on the recommendation of the chief of the defence staff. It says it has to be a reasonable area. If somebody thinks it is not a reasonable area, it can be tested in the courts.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 gives to the Minister of National Defence enormous power that will be based on his judgment alone, without any real guidelines.

Will the Prime Minister admit that it is worrisome to think that controlled access military zones will be determined based only on the judgment of a minister who, in the recent past, did not deem it important to inform the Prime Minister, the government or the Privy Council that Canadian troops were capturing prisoners in Afghanistan?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, that is all rubbish.

Let me tell the House that there is a clear purpose and intent in the bill. It is narrowly defined. It just deals with military equipment and personnel. It is defined in terms of it being a reasonable area around it; it is something that could easily be tested in the courts. There is a very clear onus on the government to make sure that is all it is doing.

They are exaggerating and distorting what they think could happen in this case.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by giving such power to the Minister of National Defence alone, does the whole government not become very vulnerable to the errors of judgment of a single person? Is it not terribly unwise to do so?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, they have not realized that the security world changed on September 11, that there are such things as terrorist attacks, that they will look for weak points. They attacked the USS Cole in Yemen.

What if there were a ship here from the United Kingdom, from France or from any other country, in a civilian port? All we are saying is put a little cordon around it to properly protect it from any possibility of attack and have military police there to protect it. That is all it is, and only that reasonable area that is necessary. It is quite confined in terms of how this legislation defines what the minister of defence can do.

National Defence

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.

In the past when we have asked questions about the formation of northern command we have been told that it is not really any of our business or that it is only a matter of practical co-operation or that it is not going to happen until October 2, so why worry about it?

We read this morning that the Americans have asked for Canada to indicate by mid-May whether it is interested in integrating any part of its defence operations, so now there is a question from the United States.

Could the Prime Minister tell us, when is Parliament going to be taken into the confidence of the Prime Minister as to what principles and policy objectives the government is pursuing in its response?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have NORAD, and that is a form of working together with the Americans on one element of the defence policies of North America. If they want to have something else, they can ask, but I can assure members of parliament that the Canadian government will take responsibility for defending Canada. There will be Canadian laws that will apply.

If there is the possibility of collaboration with our neighbours, of course we want to collaborate with them, but the authority over Canadian soil will be in the hands of the Canadian government.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, nobody is disputing that, at least I hope not, but the question is: What is the Canadian answer to the American question, which now appears to have been asked, or is the Prime Minister denying that this request has been made?

That is fine if he denies it, but if he does not deny it, what principles and policy objectives is the government pursuing in its response to this and when is parliament going to hear something from the minister in the form of a ministerial statement, a position paper, something that gives us some idea of what the government is up to here?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly as the Prime Minister said. We are looking for practical areas of collaboration and co-operation. The word integration is the wrong word. He should not believe everything he reads in the newspaper. We are not talking about integration of our armed forces. We are talking about collaboration, as the Prime Minister says, of co-operation on a very practical level. We will continue to control our own forces. We will continue to control the defence and security of Canada.

Public Safety Act

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The existing law of Canada, the Emergencies Act, gives ministers all the powers they seek in the proposed new Bill C-55. The Emergencies Act also gives parliament the right to amend or reject interim orders. Bill C-55 gives parliament no right to amend or to reject. It is just like the War Measures Act.

Would the Prime Minister tell us what new powers does the government need that it does not already have in the Emergencies Act?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there was a bill, there was some criticism, we have withdrawn the bill and we have a new bill. The bill is coming in front of the House of Commons. There will be a debate in the House of Commons before the bill will be approved.

It is a sign that we have looked at that, but we have to make sure at the same time that we can have the security that is needed to protect the Canadian people.