CIMM Committee Report

We cannot overstate the impact the events of September have had. Canadians who cross the US border every day to get to work or school and who pose no threat have had their travel curtailed. Our more than $1.5 billion daily trade with the US has been severely impeded. And many residents of Canada have found themselves suddenly and without provocation viewed with suspicion or targeted with slurs or acts of violence. As partners, as two distinct nations, it is imperative that we endeavour to reach a mutual accommodation that enables us to flourish in security and freedom.

The Committee has made several positive recommendations toward establishing a new and secure ‘normalcy’ for procedures at our border. However, there are areas in the report that do not strike a balance between security and individual rights that is appropriate to Canada’s traditions. It also contains measures that send the wrong message to those charged with enforcing our laws, to the Canadian public and to present and future immigrants.

Of particular concern are recommendations that, whether intentional or not, may reinforce the many negative misconceptions that the report rightly notes have emerged since September 11th. The Report alludes, for example, to the faulty perception that Canada’s security is lax or somehow contributed to the September 11th tragedy — the ‘Canada is a haven for terrorists’ mythology. It quite correctly calls for measures to correct this erroneous and damaging misconception.

Just as harmful, though not noted in the Report, is a more subtle mythology that has emerged that equates immigrants — especially refugees — with terrorism. The most disturbing manifestation of this is the association by some Canadians of specific groups with a terrorist threat based on race or religious beliefs. Incidents including vandalism, insults and assaults have been reported across Canada. This is unacceptable and a pro-active government response is necessary. Instead, the government has sent the exact opposite signal by sanctioning its officials’ profiling of certain immigrant and refugee applicants. The public reads that certain refugee claimants have been detained only because their national, cultural or religious origin fits a terrorist "profile" or that the government has agreed to let the FBI review 35,000 refugee claimants’ files for terrorist connections because they are males of Middle Eastern origin. Is it any wonder that some of the public may conclude that the government itself connects refugees and terrorists?

We believe Canada can maintain its traditions of welcoming immigrants and harbouring refugees without compromising the security of its borders.

Among the means of achieving this, we propose:

It is in this context that we view and recommend qualifying the Report’s recommendation for a ‘safe third country’ agreement with the US and a ‘direct-back’ policy. Canada does not take in large numbers of refugees compared to many other countries. We are also an "end-of-the-line" country in the sense that with our geography more refugees come here as a final destination than pass through in search of a safe home. Roughly 60 per cent of refugee claimants come here from the US. There is no clear purpose to the Report’s recommendations except to cut back on the number of refugees coming to Canada. This flies in the face of our tradition of welcoming refugees and our international commitments. Further, by closing the legitimate avenue for refugees to enter, a third safe country agreement with the US would likely raise the numbers of refugees who will resort to illegal means of entry. Any such agreement must meet the criteria of the UNHCR that each claim be assessed individually with respect to third safe country suitability, that claimants will receive a hearing on the merits of their refugee claim in the third safe country destination and that legitimate grounds such as family ties in Canada be considered.

The direct-back recommendation imposes additional hardship on legitimate refugee claimants by forcing them to survive on their own while awaiting clearance. It would informally add "expeditious processability" as a criterion for a successful refugee claim in Canada in contravention of our international commitments.

Another of the Report’s recommendations of concern to New Democrats states that "The governments of Canada and the U.S. be more pro-active about encouraging the flow of information and the coordination of intelligence efforts at all levels. If privacy and disclosure laws prove to be impediments to information flow, the countries should consider amending the legislation in question...." This speaks to the need for balance between security and individual rights and freedoms and the imbalance of the government’s anti-terrorism initiatives at the expense of hard-fought civil liberties. As Federal Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski has said, "Privacy and the other cherished freedoms and values that define Canadian society are not frills or luxuries in this situation. They are what this situation is all about."

New Democrats believe that when a government proposes such fundamental changes to our personal freedoms as this government has in its anti-terrorist initiatives, it is up to the government to demonstrate clearly and absolutely that our current laws are incapable of dealing with the situation. In this case, the government has failed to do so.

In a similar vein, the Report’s recommendations to proceed unchecked with a system of biometric identification has implications for the privacy of all Canadians and raises questions about the government’s introduction of the so-called "Maple Leaf" identification card. Will this, in fact, be mandatory and what information will it contain?

New Democrats also question the treatment of visa coordination as a housekeeping issue in the Report. This fails to acknowledge the significant differences in the historical development of Canada and the US. Canada, for example, has close historic ties with Commonwealth and Francophone nations that differ from the American experience. Our relationship with specific countries may differ at times — Cuba is an obvious example. These relationships are reflected in our foreign policies and manifested in our visa requirements. Those distinctions should not and cannot be sacrificed.

The issue of how to best "harmonize" our security and immigration policies has emerged as a matter of considerable importance since September 11th. Fuelled by misconceptions about the strength of Canada’s security, proposals for a common perimeter with identical policies have been promoted. Canadian and American approaches to immigration and refugees differ in many significant ways. Ours has been said to emphasize due process more while the American system has been more closely tied to foreign policy and is more political in nature. Practically, this would mean bringing Canadian policies "in line" with American. New Democrats have opposed this option as unnecessarily undermining Canadian sovereignty. We favour, instead, the collaboration as full and independent partners that has characterized our joint defense agreements with the United States for many decades.