CIMM Committee Report

        The Progressive Conservative Party supports a policy of open immigration and refugee protection. Canada leads the world not only in attracting the best and brightest, but is also a model for fairness and human rights. We do not perceive every refugee as a potential terrorist or criminal like the Official Opposition.

        This week, in Switzerland, the Swiss voters rejected stringent new asylum laws that would have closed Switzerland’s borders to all but a trickle of refugees. We also witnessed the anti-immigration party of Joerg Haider being soundly defeated in the polls in Austria, losing nearly two thirds of his support.

        The Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) is a Liberal initiative. It contains few benefits for the USA. In 1996 the Liberal government floated the same balloon and it went nowhere.

        On the surface, the STCA appears to be a good idea. Closer examination shows it is not. The government gave no time for debate to take place in the House of Commons. The agreement was never closely examined and debated by the Standing Committee.

        We know that in 1994 Germany put in place a similar idea that failed miserably. Closing all the border entry points around Germany did not prevent an onslaught of refugees from entering the country. If the STCA was such a good idea, why haven’t other developed countries implemented it?

        Key questions have yet to be answered. What is the reason for putting in place the STCA? What are the problems that currently exist? What will be the effect of this agreement? What are the benefits of this agreement? What are the drawbacks? Who are we trying to stop from coming to Canada? In a post 9-11 environment, will this agreement make us more secure? Will the STCA weed out the terrorists and criminals of the world? Can we resolve the problem without this agreement? Is this agreement for security or is it to deal with the refugee backlog? Without first answering these questions, the STCA will likely repeat the German experience of 1994.

        There is no doubt that this agreement will stem the tide of refugees seeking asylum in Canada. The irony is that asylum seekers arriving by air or by other illegal means will not have this policy applied to them. That being the case, why have the agreement at all? There is no doubt this will encourage the illegal entry of asylum seekers coming to our country by air, land, and sea. This will not prevent asylum shopping. Safe Third Country Agreements have not worked forother developed nations so why are we going down this path?

        The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHRC) has a good idea, which is to give all refugees the opportunity to make one claim in a country of their choice. This was rejected by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

        Do we have a huge problem with people making refugee claims from the USA? We need to look at the numbers. Last year we took in a total of 26, 530 refugees. This accounts for 11% of the total immigrants accepted and landed. Total immigrant and refugee arrivals for 2001 in Canada was 250, 346.

        The 2001 breakdown of refugees is:

        7, 324 — government assisted
        3, 570 — privately sponsored
        11, 896 — refugees determined in Canada
        3, 740 — dependants abroad

        Approximately 50% of all refugee claims are unsuccessful. Of this number, approximately ? or 13, 000 refugees making claims in Canada came from the United States. Citizenship and Immigration Canada estimates that the STCA will return between five and six thousand claimants to the USA annually.

        If we look at our history, Canada has stemmed the flow of immigrants and refugees for the wrong reason. Remember the Jewish people turned away at our shores? Remember the 1923 Chinese Exclusion Act? Establishing quotas is one thing, but turning people away for the sake of an unnecessary and unworkable agreement is something else.

        The manner in which this agreement was put together is irresponsible and if enforced will tarnish our reputation in the world community.

        The United Nations High Commission for Refugees does not accept Citizenship and Immigration’s assurances on this agreement.

        Canada is a sovereign state. We do things differently than our friend to the south. The PC Party cannot support a Liberal policy that goes against the humanitarian principles of The United Nations High Commission for Refugees.