Bill Casey

[International Co-operation, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the campaign manager for the Minister for International Cooperation in last year's election received untendered contracts for slightly under $50,000, just a few hundred dollars short of the threshold for which tenders are required.

Will the minister provide the House with a detailed accounting of Ted Lojko's work and billings to ensure that taxpayers received value for this money?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be dividing my time with the member for Dauphin--Swan River.

I am pleased to speak on the motion today. We have mixed feelings on it one way or another. I would like to go through those mixed feelings in different directions.

The motion makes an assumption that is not accurate. The motion says “That, as part of a continental perimeter initiative...”. The government has not accepted that concept and has not agreed to a continental perimeter initiative. By making these proposals as part of a continental perimeter initiative, which has not happened, has not been agreed to and in fact has been discouraged by the government, it makes the whole debate pointless.

I will go through the issues and the proposal as raised by the official opposition and discuss the issues one at a time. I think a continental perimeter is inevitable. Because of our close association with the United States and Mexico, it is only a matter of time before a perimeter is established. Certainly officials in the United States, the ambassador, several senators, the president and the vice-president, have said that they will have a security system for the United States and that their preferred system is a perimeter system.

The president of Mexico has stated very clearly that if there is a perimeter system for the United States that Mexico wants to be in on it. If Mexico and the United States are in on a perimeter security system, then Canada will have no choice. It is the wise choice in any case.

Many provincial premiers have come out strongly in favour of a perimeter security system for North America as have several state governors and state governments. It is almost not plausible that there would be a North American perimeter system that included the United States and Mexico but not Canada. Eighty percent to eighty-five percent of our trade is with the United States. For Canada to be locked out of that secure border would be impractical for our country.

The government's approach seems to be resisting the philosophy of a security perimeter but that is out of step with reality, with our trading practices, with our relationship with the other two countries in North America and it is certainly out of step with Canadians.

I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs at committee whether he was in favour of the perimeter security and would he support it. His reaction was that when he hears the words perimeter security he feels it is a front for some other terminology or some other concept that he was not clear on. He was uncomfortable with the concept of perimeter security. The minister did not elaborate on why he was not comfortable or on the details. He only indicated that he was uncomfortable, which I would think would be an indication that the government at this moment in time is not in favour of a perimeter security system.

As the leader of the official opposition said, it is only a matter of time that the government will probably change its mind and come around to that. I agree that will happen.

In Canada, where 80% to 85% of our foreign trade is with the United States, it is absolutely critical that we protect that trading relationship. It is naive not to expect the United States to impose some restrictions on trade if we are not in its circle of perimeter security. Since September 11 much of our trade has been brought to a crawl. The industries in Canada that need just in time delivery of parts, services and goods have been penalized and hurt. They have had to layoff people and their businesses have been damaged because of the substantial delays. This is only a precursor to what would happen if the United States established a perimeter security system around its country and we were not on the inside of that.

The United States has focused on the Canadian weakness. I do not think that is accurate. It has focused on our weakness as a safe haven for terrorists. I do not accept that position. We all know that most of the terrorists on September 11 were actually residents of the United States, trained in the United States or lived in the United States. It appears that its systems are no more secure than our systems. However that does not change the fact that we both have to tighten up our security systems, our immigration regulations and our enforcement.

It is quite amazing that the auditor general indicated in a report in 1997 that of 31,000 claimants that were denied refugee status between 1993 and 1997 and not accepted into Canada, only 22% were confirmed as having left. This indicates that 78% of these illegal and denied immigrants to Canada are still here.

According to the auditor general, if people in Afghanistan or any other country look at the possibility of coming to Canada, once they are in, even if they are denied immigrant status and are asked to leave, chances are only one in four they will ever leave. That is kind of a scary concept. It is important that we address it in the strongest possible fashion.

The opposition coalition supports the concept of the perimeter security proposal for many reasons. It just makes sense from a safety point of view to ensure the safety of our citizens, our economy and our culture. This is a broad motion which very extensively affects many aspects of our society and our regulations. We do not agree with many aspects of it, although we do agree with the concept of the perimeter security system.

We do not agree that customs officers should become armed police officers. We do not believe that they should be armed. We do not think it is necessary. We do not think it is appropriate that customs officers should be police officers in the same way as we do not think police officers should be customs officers. We would oppose that.

We would oppose the proposal to remove customs officers from the collection of taxes and duties. Who would provide this service? If customs officers do not collect customs duties, who will? Why would we do this? How would this be set up? Would every border crossing have a customs officer, an immigration officer and a police officer as well? It is very confusing and it seems extremely cumbersome for us in the opposition coalition that every border entry would have this triple series of officials.

We also do not believe that customs officers should be law enforcement officers. It does not make sense. We do not see any reason for it. We think they should have the power to retain people at the border, question them, certify their documentation and take the appropriate steps at that time, but we do not agree with making them police officers.

Again I come back to the auditor general's report which says that Canada's lax approach to immigrants costs the federal government and the provinces hundreds of millions of dollars a year in enforcement, in trying to find some of the immigrants that came to Canada, were denied access and then disappeared into the woodwork and into our society. This is a very expensive situation which can be rectified if it is dealt with at the border.

If immigrants do not have the proper documentation when they come to Canada, if they do not have the proper qualifications to come to Canada, they should be stopped there rather than automatically allowed into society and impossible to find later.

We agree with the concept of the list of safe countries. That has been debated for years and there has been no agreement on how to implement it. All countries have to agree, and there is no agreement on it. Even though we agree with the concept we do not think it can be done.

We agree with the concept of the perimeter security system and that Canada is very much a part of it. Although Canada was not the target on September 11 we were severely impacted. Dozens of Canadians lost their lives in that terrible act of terrorism. Transportation in Canada literally came to a standstill. Business and investment were curtailed. They are still curtailed and are suffering right now because of it.

The security costs must be enormous. There have been additional security costs on the Hill. We can all see the extra police, the extra inspections and everything that is going on.

Canada is very much a part of this situation and must be very much a part of the reaction to it. We must be part of the establishment of a security system to protect our people. We must be in on the ground floor. We must be in early.

I would like to hear the government state right now that we will be a part of the perimeter security system as proposed by the United States, but we want to be a part of the planning. We want to be in on the ground floor. We want to protect our sovereignty. We want to protect our people. We want to make sure that Canadians are as safe as possible and that our industry is protected.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am halfway between the questioner and the speaker here today.

I do not believe that Canada is a safe haven any more than is the United States. However we do have some serious problems. I just wonder if the member could address what was raised by the auditor general's report. The report simply states that of approximately 31,200 claimants who were denied refugee status between 1993 and 1997 or were not accepted to Canada, only 22% have confirmed their departure from Canada. That would indicate that 78% of those refugee claimants who were denied access to Canada have somehow found their way into Canadian society and are now hidden away disappearing in our society. That means 78% are successful. If someone comes to Canada as an unacceptable refugee, they still have a 78% chance of staying in Canada even though it is illegal.

I wonder if the member could address that concern. Does she agree that there should be some increased effort placed on that problem?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

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

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

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

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge to the parliamentary secretary that I did go into a new area which was not part of the original question. The original question was asked five months ago. I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary tried to answer that question but he said that we have not been asked to participate. That goes along with what the Prime Minister said in the House, that we have not been told what to do.

What I am asking is that the government take a proactive stand. Do not ask and do not wait for someone to tell us what to do. Canada is in a perfect position to take advantage of the respect we receive all around the world and say that we want the United Nations to play a key role in a transition government in Afghanistan and that Canada wants to play a role in developing that plan for Afghanistan.

We do not have to wait for anyone else. We do not have to wait to be asked. We do not have to wait to be told. Let us take some action. Let us do something. Let us try some leadership.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question I originally raised on May 30 which was five months ago. At the time the distinguished parliamentary secretary said he would be more than happy to take my question under advisement and get back to me at an early time. It is now five months later and at my initiative we are back to discuss the issue.

It is appropriate that we discuss the issue now considering the things that are happening and the fact that the Prime Minister has suggested he will send peacekeepers to Afghanistan to deal with the aftermath of the military action when it ends. The question was raised today in the House as to where the additional soldiers would come from, where the money would come from and which peacekeeping efforts would be reduced to deal with this.

However it is more important that the government send a message that it will play a part in establishing a transitional government in Afghanistan and that it fight hard to ensure the United Nations plays a key role in Afghanistan after the military action ends. If the United States or any other country sets up a puppet government in Afghanistan it will be a disaster the rest of the world will pay for a long time. It must be a United Nations initiative.

Does the government agree? Will it do everything it can to ensure Canada plays a key role in establishing a transitional government through the United Nations that recognizes and represents all facets of the population in Afghanistan? Can the parliamentary secretary tell members whether the government is prepared to play a role through the United Nations?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this was a series of meetings proposed to bring Israeli members of the Knesset and Palestinian members of the legislative assembly to meet with Canadian parliamentarians. It was actually scheduled to take place last Monday but because of a change in schedules and the volatility of the situation, we had to delay it for a short time.

I am convinced that both sides are still committed to do this. As late as this morning, I talked to Israeli and Palestinian authorities and they are both still committed to come. It will be very beneficial for all of us if they can.

Again, the magic is that already the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Canadians have worked together. We have proven we can work together and make accomplishments, even if it is just a small accomplishment. I am very optimistic that if we get another chance to enhance this, we will even do better.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, no justice is rendered if no charges are brought.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

My empirical data is very simple, Mr. Speaker. There have been no charges laid and the Russians have not co-operated in the way they should have. The big one for me was, they said that they would only send Russian investigators to Canada if Canada paid. That does not show much of a commitment on behalf of the Russians to see that justice is done. Justice in this case will only be done if we pay for it even though the charges are against Russians not against Canadians. The Russians should pay for this.

However, I am not arguing that the government did not do what it could within the parameters that were available. The parameters should change, and they could have been changed under this bill, to give more access to justice to ensure that justice is done in the event that a crime like this occurs.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will make it clear that I do not sing at all. I appreciate the comment, but it is an all party effort, with members of all parties attempting to bring the Israeli and Palestinian members of parliament to Canada to meet with Canadians. It has already been a rewarding experience because for eight months Israelis, Palestinians and Canadians have worked together. We have not accomplished the goal yet, but we have already made progress.

As far as the question of law enforcement, I am confident that the clarification of the RCMP as the law enforcement agency responsible for enforcement in this situation will ensure a much better reaction and law enforcement situation. Plus, if we have a group of RCMP specialists in this type of field who specialize in the management of these international events, they can understand and perhaps use their experience to improve the process so that protesters can protest and demonstrators can demonstrate without violence, without damage and without the awful circumstances involved in recent events.