Elinor Caplan

[Immigration, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again that this individual is not an immigrant. He was not granted permanent resident status. As soon as my department had sufficient evidence and knowledge of the identity and whereabouts of the individual, he was arrested. He is presently in detention and is awaiting a deportation hearing.

The innuendo and suggestion from the member opposite are completely inappropriate.

[Immigration, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my department receives over 40,000 representations from MPs and senators, 6,000 alone in Ottawa. The premise of his question is wrong. It is inaccurate. There were no inappropriate representations made on this file.

I would suggest that the representations made by members from his party and members of the House are very appropriate. My department takes them very seriously. That does not mean that following an intervention of a member there is any inappropriate response from my department.

[Immigration, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is absolutely wrong. All procedures in this case and others were appropriate and normal. There were no inappropriate interventions.

I would suggest to him that he get better researchers, that they get the facts, and that if they are to ask these questions, they know what they are talking about.

[Immigration, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there was no meeting. There was no interview. Mr. Amodeo is not an immigrant. He is not a permanent resident. Unless someone attaches all relevant documents to an application that application does not go forward in the process.

[Immigration, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is quite wrong in the premise of his question. There was no meeting. There was no interview. In fact the file, as any file, does not proceed unless all information is attached to it.

What I say to him is that he should be careful about believing everything he reads in the newspapers, even if it is the Corriere Canadese or The Hill Times .

[Immigration, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me try again because the premise of his question is completely wrong. Mr. Amodeo was not a party to the first application because his name was removed by a legal document.

Let me say very clearly, he was not granted permanent resident status. As soon as we had sufficient evidence he was arrested. He is now in jail and awaiting a deportation hearing. He is not a permanent resident of Canada.

[Immigration, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, Mr. Amodeo's name was removed from the original application. I also want to say very clearly to the House that there was no meeting between Mr. Amodeo and any immigration official.

[Immigration, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member opposite would suggest that a woman who is married to someone is a chattel and therefore carries any criminal record with her.

He should know better in the year 2001 that men and women are able to submit individual applications. In this case Mrs. Amodeo had her husband's name removed from the application. He should know better.

[Immigration, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will make an unequivocal statement in the House. No one receives permanent residence status in Canada without having a complete security check and a criminality check. Anyone with a criminal record or anyone who poses a security threat to Canada is inadmissible and they are not granted permanent residence status in Canada. That is the law.

[Immigration, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. He is wrong and he is wrong.